For what they’re worth, I have. 
I was responding to your repeated references to “instinct”.
You might try reading mine, which explicitly allow for rational parental behavior such as waiting outside a public restroom, as opposed to the self-centered nuttiness of trying to commandeer a bathroom for little Nigel while keeping everyone else outside.
Its STILL recommended as a good idea in certain settings. My kids had one with daycare field trips and still use them with elementary school fieldtrips - they might not recognize all the school chaperones.
Nothing is failsafe - you can take your ten year old into the bathroom to be followed by a guy with a gun who ties you up and rapes your son repeatedly in front of you. (Why? I don’t know, bathrooms are really bad for getting walked in on - and echo - but perhaps someone who hears that bathrooms are good spots and doesn’t think it through might try it).
Bingo. If you’re preventing me from using the restroom, my assumption would be that something sketchy is going on inside. More likely a drug deal than an attempted rape, but I’d either barge in or get the management to do the same.
Lot of crime going on it bathrooms, I take it. Better to just get rid of them.
Already tried it with the 17th Amendment. It created a vast black (well, brown) market.
And exactly what part of:
or
… did you not understand?
My position is clear (I would have thought, anyway): such excesses are the result of paranoia caused by parents giving their instinctive reactions free reign. Logic ought to govern instinct as parents ought to realize that such over-reactions are just that, over-reactions.
Thanks for the best laugh of the day.
Oh, for the days of Baldrick in the corner with a piss bucket…
Thanks for clarifying that - you previously gave no acknowledgement to the idea that Vigilant Mommies might be able to exert some control over their behavior.
Nice strawman, incidentally. I don’t recall a single poster claiming that parents have no instinctive urges to protect their kids. When exactly did Primal Communal Bathroom Fears begin to evolve, Darwiniacally speaking? Was it when Urban Legends appeared in the Pleistocene Period, or an even earlier era when FOAFS first crept out of the primeval ooze? 
Imagine the horror of living in countries where children simply squat wherever they are and relieve themselves, even in public.
Yeah, because the natural assumption is that they act like zombies? :rolleyes:
You don’t recall too good, do you?
Smashie’s reply to my very post:
You really should, you know, read the thread before flinging out “strawman!” and the like.
Now you are just playing dumb for yuks. Obviously, the paranoia isn’t specific to bathrooms, but rather a fear of harm comming to a kid (such as molestation or abduction) when the kid is out of the parent’s sight.
It’s a perfectly natural fear, which doesn’t mean it ought to be unreasonably indulged to the point where it inconveniences everyone.
Sorry, not even Smash, nutbar that he is, denied that parents have some instinctive urge to protect their kids. He was referring to obsessive parental overprotection in reference to bizarre and frankly disturbing obsessiveness with “protecting” children from sexuality. Of course he’s a moron for trying to equate concern about child molestation to Puritanical attitudes about sex, but his comments do not justify your strawman about “people arguing here that parental concern for the safety of their kids is not “genetically hardwired””.
I can see that this thread has activated the Malthus Parental Pity Party locus (which no doubt is “hardwired” into your limbic neurons), but try to accept that normal, responsible parental behavior differs from that discussed in the OP. The nuttiness described therein is far more a product of learned bad behavior (reinforced by breathless exchanges of urban legends on Mommie boards) than it is a Darwinian imperative.
I know this was a couple pages ago, but I can’t see how this hypothetical case could possibly occur. Either you could go in with your child, or the child is old enough to go in by herself. What circumstances could possibly occur that you could not go in the restroom with your child, but strange men still would want to go in? (I could see a one toilet restroom sitrep, but then it’s being used and no one else would go in).
Sigh. As god is my witness, I’ll never pee lonely again. Crazy story, though. I’m glad the kid is okay, and it worked out even without the mother standing in the bathroom.
I suppose you missed all that stuff Smashie posted about how parents in other past cultures leave their kids to the Dingos if they aren’t convenient, and don’t even think they are human before they are 5.
It seems you also missed all those times when I pointed out that, although the basis of the behaviour is an instinctive fear that is perfectly natural, it is a clear example of a fear taken too far - to the point of disfunctional, antisocial paranoia - even though I helpfully repeated it, and are STILL claiming I think that it is "…normal, responsible parental behavior ".
I guess you just aren’t very good at this whole “reading comprehension” thing. 
I agree with the general sentiment here, but I think these tough talkers who claim they would push the mother aside or call store security are either bluffing or in for a surprise if they try it.
As a practical matter, any man involved in any physical altercation with a woman is going to be presumed to be the aggressor, and it will take lot to convince security and the police otherwise. Especially as in this case the woman is likely to be in a highly emotional state of mind, and her perception of reality may well be distorted, and the distortion will not be obvious to anyone other than you. IOW you could end up in serious trouble. Not worth it.
And as for store security and personnel, my experience with such people is that they are looking to keep things calm rather than enforce justice. And in this situation, while they will realize that the mother is overprotective, they are going to weigh the chances that they can appeal to reason with an overprotective mother versus their chances of doing this with a calmer man. And after possibly attempting in vain to reassure the mother, they will ask you, apologetically, if you would mind waiting just a couple of minutes or so.
Well, if its so obvious to you that these mothers are gonna act like crazy ass bitches, why isnt it going to be obvious to the police or a judge or jury ? Or do you have some special insight into the batshit crazy that is called woman?
And security cams are gonna show who the hell did what. And every person in the world is gonna understand the “I HAD TO GO RIGHT THEN” defense.
It’s not “so obvious” to me. It’s being given as part of the hypothetical scenario.
Well if there are security cameras trained on the bathroom entrance you’re a lot better off. Even there you’ll be in for a hassle until you can prove yourself the victim, and plus the interpretation of security cameras are sometimes subject to dispute.
Sure, chances are you would avoid criminal charges if she chose to press the matter, but ‘beng charged with assault over a toilet altercation involving a [crazy] woman’ isn’t something any sane man wants a fight over. Right?
Shoot, Malthus, if you build that strawman any higher you’ll have MBSHA* down on us for a violation.
My bullshit detector is working just fine, thanks. And, unlike you, I don’t misrepresent someone’s remarks (i.e. Smash) when their quote is staring me in the face in my own post.
*Message Board Safety And Health Administration.