From the exerciser itself. It’s a coupla paragraphs, but it would be easy to Google with quotes and find the whole thing; check your PMs, t’will hopefully be illuminating.
Yeah. And everyone knows males are usually child molesters too. Right. Got it.
ETA:
BTW:
This is (theoretically at least) possible in California too. There is a general public law that says you have to obey all signage that any public authority places. Would you believe that it’s part of the Vehicle Code?
Of course not all men are child molesters. But all child molesters are men (mostly, right?). Men getting all up in arms over this is stupid. Just don’t be a creepy bastard and you’ll be just fine.
Sure it can. He was on an exercylce. On many of those if you stop pedaling, the program, counter, etc. stops and resets. If you don’t wish that to happen, you can’t get off it and shut the blinds.
Okay, I read the letter. I am still sympathetic to the letter writer on the general principle that it’s deeply offensive that all males are by default assumed to be pedophiles (which he believes is happening here), although I’m just a little bit less sympathetic now. From his tone, he sounds just a bit difficult to take very seriously. Perhaps Mr. Kobayashi would care to post a few brief excerpts?
I don’t think that is the general feeling among a lot of men. There is a long thread around here from a while ago that discussed how men can be treated even if they are doing right and noble things (e.g. helping a lost child). A lot of guys would help, but with the feeling of being judged for ill-intent or perhaps even being subject to legal risk. I think that is the core of the OP question - men do not want to be judged that way.
I cannot find that thread - can anyone help?
Okay, ignorance fought on that point. (I’ve never used those mochines.) But if they had to enter the room to close the blinds (or even if they didn’t), and they were ostensibly doing so to protect his privacy, then they certainly shoulda/coulda/woulda asked him first if he wanted the blinds shut. OTOH, with blinds on the outside, they might have felt it was easier to just shut them without asking.
I think it’s fairly clear they probably closed the blinds at the behest of one or more moms. He may be over-reacting, but in principle he’s right. Parents who take their kids to places where they might be seen by <gasp!> adult males do a profound insult by presuming that any adult males who might see those kids might be pervy.
Is this really such a problem? What will it lead to? Is there a slippery slope here? Well, witness those guys who got cited for playing chess near kids. That’s where this kind of attitude leads. (Yeah, they technically got cited for ignoring posted rules. Those rules are there for the specific purpose of arresting adults who play chess near kids.)
I remember it and and I just don’t believe it to be the case. I think the guys who complain about this are looking for a battle, basically. If you are a nice, respectful guy you will be treated like one. By men and women alike.
I think this may be the thread you are thinking of.
Let me clue you guys in to the dark side of the chess world. In public parks, chess boards are a venue for drug sales. It’s one of the rare places in public where a group of strangers can meet, rapidly move their hands back and forth toward each other, and separate while still looking completely normal.
That’s why it’s unevenly enforced. If you’re not selling drugs, the cops have no reason to scare you away, and I think we can assume they know whether you’re there to play the royal game or the Colombian game.
That’s the one. Thx.
There’s a lot of information left out, did he talk to the gym staff as to why they lowered the blinds ? Lowering the blinds for his sake makes sense, and also to ensure to make sure the kids aren’t distracted. If that’s the case the gym staff should of came over and told him before. In this day and age of every man is a potential pedo it would of been an appropriate thing for them to do for their customer. But they didn’t.
Talk of legal action means there’s a lot of details being left out here, you don’t know, we don’t know. But you went right to the “he wants to stare at kids must be a pedo” maybe that’s not the case, maybe he’ suing because they didn’t want him staring at kids after all. We don’t know the details, maybe a woman got on a bike a couple of stations down, and they didn’t lower the blinds for her.
If that’s the case I hope he sues their asses off.
Oh come on. Next thing you’ll be telling me that there’s some nefarious purpose behind the dozen or so cars I see every morning at 7:30 in the forrest preserve parking lot.
Oh yes, I agree with this. And that’s also part of the variety culture of NYC parks. There are lots of parks where the chess tables are Serious Chess Business (and/or chess hustling). There are others where they’re Drug Dealer Central. I would say which kind of chess tables you have are generally known by the local precinct, and any park goers who are even remotely savvy.
Uh, I think it’s much more likely that the WOMEN were uncomfortable doing a mommy-and-me gym class in front of anyone else, especially male. It’s why places like Curves exist. Young moms may be super self-conscious about their bodies in front of men, which is why they take a class specifically for toddlers and other moms. If I went to a women’s only gym class, and realized it was taking place RIGHT in front of a window with some guy on a treadmill or a bike, it might make me feel a little uncomfortable too. Whether or not I have a kid with me.
I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it was about “protection” of anyone, at all. Little kids get distracted easily. If you want to have a prayer of getting them to focus, you need to hide or otherwise get rid of outside distractions. Otherwise you get kids blowing fish on the window at “workout guy” instead of doing whatever gym activity they’re supposed to be doing with mom.
The gym staff certainly could have said as much when they went to close the blinds, but it’s quite possible it didn’t occur to them that it could be misinterpreted as anything other than “let’s not have these gym patrons distract each other.”
So, why wouldn’t the cops just say, “We’ve arrested these people because we are enforcing our laws against trafficking in controlled substances in areas where children are likely to congregate,” a position that is super popular, versus “We don’t want childless men, even those merely playing chess at tables we’ve installed as playground fixtures, hanging out at public playgrounds,” which is a rather less popular position?
I mean, I don’t doubt that there’s some truth to you description of sales in contraband being conducted under the cover of a super-dull board game. But the cops don’t really need to be abashed about explaining that’s what they’re up to, and they certainly don’t need to come up with a more problematic alibi. It’s not like there’s a great deal of public enthusiasm for playground drug dealers.
Any chance he was wearing baggy shorts and perhaps considering the angle, he was revealing a little bit more of what is under his shorts than he realized? Not a full dangle, but perhaps an up-shorts view that the mommies didn’t like?
At Physical Therapy the other day, one of the older women on the exercise bike was showing perhaps a bit more than she would be comfortable knowing she was showing. We all just averted our eyes. it wasn’t graphic, but a bit immodest.
Also, they already have laws against drug dealing, so it would seem like a no-brainer to just enforce the existing laws rather than make up new ones that have the inconvenient side-effect of getting people who’ve done nothing wrong cited as if they had.
What makes you think kids can’t play chess?