Let's see you run around town naked. Yes you can do that but there would be a price to pay.

Yes the manner she's complaining is there to draw attention and hopefully embarrassed the person. As I said above this, she's not complaining about something happening, she's just complaining that the person exists.


On your second question, I was taking a pee when my kid was in and let me be brutally honest here. I thought she was still infantile enough to file things like this into 'I don't remember ' but she piped up very articulately "daddy, let me see your body" and I swear on my grandfather's grave it's the only time I've felt genuinely self conscious around my kid. I shut the curtain to the tub and explained to her that there are boys and girls, etc. But...and don't get me wrong, I'm not wanting to wander around just naked all the time, however, I see my wife on occasion interact with her like that and I wish I didn't have to feel like worried that my own kid is going to see me naked. If she does it's not the end of the world, but I guess when I'm not doing anything wrong - I wish I didn't have to worry about it. Yes.

I know different cultures have more nuanced views of nudity. Not all nudity is inherently sexual.

Moreover, the woman never even made it clear that they saw anything. She never says they saw it

Double checking

No, she says a lot of variations of "I see" or "he has" those verb forms fit with the other hypotheticals that she lays out to make them sound as close to something happening as possible.


Note - she doesn't say "I saw" or "(s)he showed" or "(s)he had" the way one would if an event happened in the past. She's talking in present tense.

But let's assume someone saw something in a flash of a towel to garment transition. For sayings sake. Yeah... I don't think it's too much to ask that parents sit their kids down and explain "well, you know Elton John? That guy is WAYYYY more manly than these people ever want to be. These people hate manly things so much they have decided they want to be women." Or something like that.

No sign should be needed, just a reading of the constitution that makes discrimination based on sex or sexuality a crime, a violation of civil rights. Parents can move on to another country that allows discrimination if that bothers them, I hear Russia fits that bill.

What seems reasonable if they choose to accommodate puritans might be a policy where no one is allowed to be naked in public areas including locker rooms, and add individual dressing rooms....but that's a big expense and should be up to the business, not one patron IMO.

IMO, no, it's not JUST her over the top attitude and total lack of manners and self control, it's also her insistence that the business support her and deny the trans woman, clearly thinking her emotional comfort should trump the trans woman's ability to participate fully in society.

It's definitely unreasonable to insist businesses break state and federal laws to provide her a penis free locker room, barring the trans woman from using the facilities. Remember, these are the same people that want to exclude not just trans people, but also gay people from not just locker rooms, but bathrooms, pools, tanning salons, anywhere you might see them partially undressed or they might see you partially undressed. I've seen people take that mentality to the public beach, telling gay men they can't be there because they might see a straight man or boy in shorts and lust after them, and claiming a mild pda (a kiss, hand holding) is illegal.

She had the problem, not the business, not the law. If she wants a penis free locker room, she should build her own.

Now I'll ask you, how is her daughter harmed by seeing a naked flaccid penis? The American puritanical mindset about nakedness is sick. There's nothing wrong with seeing a naked person, it won't hurt you.

Honest question for everyone really angry at the lady in the video. Is the problem her manner and attitude alone? That is to ask a second question, do you think it is unreasonable for a parent to not want their young daughter seeing naked penises?

@StukaFox, funnily enough today I was thinking of a joke I used to tell back in the day. I couldn't find just now in a 2 minute search making it less likely you've heard it before, so I'll write out a quick version. It's not the funniest or the dirtiest, but it's fun to tell.

So a guy's looking to kill himself and fortuitously comes across a sign saying 'for an interesting death enquire within.' This being a joke he decides he has to give it a go.

Inside is an absolutely huuuuge naked woman. She first instructs him to put his belt on her. He struggles, but eventually manages. "Now," she says "pull it tighter until I'm thin." With every ounce of strength and leverage he can muster he gets the belt to the last notch. Struggling for breath she says "Now eat my pussy". He's starting to suspect a scam, but he goes for it anyway. "Harder!" she gasps, grinding against him. He pushes back against her as hard as he can. "harder! HARDER!" He's pushing so hard he's struggling to breathe. He suspects she's just trying to smother him with her pussy when he feels her starting to orgasm. He pushes harder still. Her muscles tense and pulse until suddenly the belt can't take it any more - POP! Ssccchhhhlllup! And he was never seen again.

----

Bonus clean joke I saw when I searched for the one above: Don't challenge Death to a pillow fight unless you're prepared to face the reaper cushions.

I'd hazard a guess that it was something like this:
https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/06/24/fantastic-solstice-parade-weather-greets-1000-naked-and-painted-people-on-bikes-nsfw/

This reminds me of the Fremont Solstice Parade in Seattle: some of the most amazing body paint I've ever seen on the naked bike riders.

Why isn’t she charged with spreading child porn? The girls were under 18, she made videos of them naked and spread them around. She should do a few years per picture and be on the sex offender registry for life...also should be banned from using computers or electronic communications.
The spoofing her identity is good evidence she knew it was against the law. I hope they don’t let her use the excuse she didn’t know it was wrong, because clearly she did.
Now the poor Karen is upset she’s being harassed?! Just wait until you get to gen pop and the word gets out it’s for making fake kiddy porn, biatch!
I hope those girls get every dime she owns in their defamation lawsuits and then some.

Yes, but are you baked?

This is a serious question with universal consequences.

Also: are you naked?

When it’s a white household searched with a “valid” warrant after police calmly waited at the door over 1/2 an hour, you said “ When governments fear the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”.

When it’s a black household violently invaded without a valid warrant, door smashed, naked victim handcuffed at gunpoint for an hour, and the police hide the evidence for over a year with even the mayor complicit in the coverup you say this...” An hour of shame for a retirement package. Not a bad trade.”

How, exactly, do you convince yourself you aren’t a total racist troll?

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

Great, now Deadpool is going to want to do his own naked shoe commercial.