Lawmakers, Police Still Wayyyy Too Interested In Who's In The Restroom With Them

It seems to be coming to this these days.  

Despite howls of protests from sane people, state lawmakers and conservative activists in states like North Carolina and Alabama are much, much too interested in who's in public restrooms with them.

Don't you think that's just a little weird?

I don't know about you, but if I must visit a public restroom to powder my nose or whatever, I am sooo not interested in the other people there.

They may be perfectly nice people, but under the circumstances, I don't want to say hi, I don't want them to say hi, I want no eye contact, no words, nothing.

You do your thing and I'll do mine. And let's all make sure that we make it so we have no chance of seeing what you or I are doing.

I know the people who are much more interested than I about who's in the public restroom with them say they worry about guys dressing up as gals and then molesting the women using said public restroom.

Never mind that doesn't tend to happen, and sexual assault or molestation is already illegal in the states where lawmakers and conservatives are way too interested in who's in the rest room with them.

Fox New's Megyn Kelly, questioning North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory on that states bathroom law, stated the obvious. "Typically male molesters are heterosexual, and if they want to sneak into a bathroom, they'll do it. but 90 percent of the cases, molestation happens with someone you know. So what is the fear with the transgender situation in the bathrooms?"

The answer that McCrory gave wasn't this, but I bet he was thinking he doesn't like transgendered people in restrooms because such people to his mind are icky or something.

Isn't it ickier, though, to have a guy with a beard, who was born a woman but now very much a man, to be forced to go into the womens room?

Or somebody like Caitlyn Jenner, who used to be a guy and is now very much a woman, be forced to hang out with the guys at the urinal?

Somebody's ickiness meter is broken, I think.

Some "conservative"' politicians are oddly
obsessed with who's using which bathroom where.
I think they need a therapist.  

The odious city council in Oxford, Alabama would go so far as to arrest people who they think are the wrong gender going into the wrong public restroom.

The Oxford City Council members ought to worry much more about their spelling and grammar than who's sharing the bathroom with them.

I'll quote their new bathroom law verbatim, but add  a (sic) whenever we spot a mistake.

"....citizens have a right to quite (sic) solicitude (sic) and to be secure from embarrassment and unwanted intrusion into their privacy while utilizing multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities by members of the opposite biological sex."

Quite solicitude, huh?  So people go into public restrooms to emphatically express concern about someone's health and happiness, if I'm reading the definition of solicitude correctly.

I'd hate to share a restroom with any member of the Oxford Alabama City Council because I don't want anybody to enthusiastically worry about my health and happiness while I'm doing my business in a public facility.

The Oxford Alabama ordinance also mentions that "single sex public facilities are places of increased venerability (sic) and present the potential for crimes against individuals utilizing those facilities..." 

What? People are more worthy of respect due to their age, dignity and character when they go into public restrooms? Well, that's what the definition of 'venerability" is.

In any event, what seems to be going on is weird people, i.e. conservative, freaking out politicians, are trying to pass laws preventing people from anybody who is not just like them from sharing a public restroom.

Again, this obsession seems awfully unhealthy for me.

It's gotten to the point, with these odd laws, maybe, that women can't even use the womens room if they don't look sufficiently ladylike.

There's a viral video out there (see it at the bottom of the post) of a lesbian woman being kicked out of a restroom because she strikes the cops kicking her out as too masculine.

Apparently the way she was dressed and her hair style made it not readily apparent to the cops whether she was indeed a woman.

The cops here were literally the fashion police.

Makeup, lovely long hair and high heels only, ladies!  No baggy hip hop style clothing that hides your gender! No boyish hairstyles!

So now that's another thing on our plate we have to worry about.  Because of weirdo politicians' scary obsessions, it seems we need to bring our birth certificates with us to the restrooms.

All this seems like it might lead to citizen vigilantes, who, as Slate puts it, "in which empowered busybodies take it upon themselves to judge who is male or female based on appearance and alert the authorities to difference danger when it arises.

 If you don't like what people look like as compared to their birth certificates, I guess transgendered people will have to pee out in the middle of the restaurant, stadium, mall or wherever they are when they have to go.

Will the perverts obsessed by who's going to the restrooms get really turned on by that, too?

I really think the oddballs passing these laws really need some serious therapy.

Pervy Michigan Legislature Still Wants To Decide How You Have Sex.

The Michigan legislature cares deeply about your sex life. 

Like most people, I don't give a damn about your sex life.

I don't care if you have sex, when you have sex, how you have sex. As long as it's between consenting adults, have a great time.

However, the Michigan legislature is keenly interested in your sex life. Especially if you live in Michigan.

Some pervy lawmakers in Michigan are trying to have their way with your sex life by insisting their sex laws remain intact if the people want to see very worthy unrelated legislation take effect in Michigan, according to thenewcivilrightsmovement.com 

The would-be legislation is called Logan's Law, which is designed to keep pets away from animal abusers.  The proposed law is named after a dog named Logan, who died after some worthless asshole who should be in jail for life poured acid on the poor thing.

Michigan's proposed Logan's Law is actually being attached to existing law, which bans bestiality. That part's fine.

But for some reason, the anti-bestiality law also has language banning sodomy and punishes, as the law describes,  anyone who "commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years...."

It would make sense to delete this part of the law, since nobody pays attention to such things anymore and more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court declared such anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional back in 2003.  What business does the government have on regulating the style of sex people have?

Michigan lawmakers apparently think they ought to continue regulating the bedroom.

On the bright side, nobody in Michigan need worry that the Sex Police will raid their bedrooms anytime soon. As noted, the sex law is unconstitutional, and I don't see signs that any police force in Michigan is anxious to start trying to enforce this law.

Can't blame them.

Still, these are Republicans in Michigan, and as I noted, they care deeply about how you have sex. The lawmaker who sponsored the anti-animal cruelty Logans Law bill, Republican Rick Jones, said if he tried to remove the anti-sodomy language from the statutes, the Republican controlled legislature would never pass the animal protection law.

Jones said he would like to rid the law of its unconstitutional anti-sodomy section, but if he did that, the whole Logan's Law piece would fail. "You'd get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that's not needed because it's unconstitutional."

Logan said he would support a separate bill ridding Michigan of all old statutes that have been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. "But if you focus on it, people just go ballistic,"  he said.

Because apparently, pouring acid on a dog is much less awful than consenting adults having sex in private. At least in the eyes of Michigan's legislature.

Pervy Va. Prosecutors Decide Not To Take Pornographic Photos Of Teen After Public Revulsion

Police and prosecutors in Virginia were going to make pornography.  

I sure as hell don't want to see sexually explicit
photos of this kid, but some Virginia prosecutors
(briefly) did.  

Yep, it was all in the name of prosecuting a 17 year old kid for sexting.

Warning for the sensitive: This is kind of a gross story.

Sexting, for the uninitiated, is the act of sending sexually explicit texts to someone in the hopes of getting lucky, so to speak.

Here's what happened. A 17 year old boy was basically acting creepy and sexting a 15 year old girl. This included sending her a picture of his erect penis.

Prosecutors say the girl asked the boy to stop sending such stuff, but he did anyway. Others say there was basically back and forth between this boy and girl.  Stupid stuff. Probably something both kids needed some guidance on.

It's true the boy was wrong and needed to be stopped and probably punished.  He needs to learn to keep it in his pants and not harass people.

But prosecutors decided to really go for broke and charge the kid with manufacturing child pornography, which would make him a sex offender for life and pretty much ruin his life.

Worse, the prosecutors seemed to be enjoying this way too much. They had planned to take the boy to the hospital, get him a hard on and take photos of the penis. You know, to compare with the photos the boy sexted to the girl.

Riiiiigghht.

Because the way to teach a teenager not to send or make dirty pictures for people who don't want them is for so called responsible adults to make pornographic pictures of teenagers.

The boy's lawyer said the threat to take dirty pics of the kid seemed part of a threat.  The lawyer said either the teen pleads guilty or he gets forced to get those photos taken, according to the Washington Post.

After the media got ahold of this story, police and prosecutors changed their tune.   Police issued a statement after all the media attention to this weird, icky issue,  saying they weren't going to take those dirty pictures of the kid's junk after all.

I guess taking dirty pictures of 17 year old boys looks bad from a PR standpoint.

The issue of what to do with teens and sexting is serious. Too bad that, in an effort to look "serious" police and prosecutors in Virginia looked like idiots in this case.