Let this thread die! Who keeps engaging the crazy man hater?? I am thinking she is just trolling anyways and playing with everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!

To evaluate risk you need to understand how likely something is. You, or another pp, keep saying there is a 1 in 100 chance of a kid changing in the men's room being molested. In 2011 there were 26 people who died being struck by lightening. There were no reports of kids molested while changing in pool locker rooms while their moms waited outside.

How do you know that there weren't any cases of a child being molested while a mother waited outside? Really, how do you know that? Are you God? Fact, you don't know that. Also a fact, there have indeed been cases of children being molested or killed while a mother waited outside. Don't believe that? Look it up. It's been reported on reputable news shows.

But some of you think it's preferable that a child be harmed than to have the child see your daughters "boobies" for a second. Because we all know how harmful it is to see a pair of breasts.

Maybe there are some Jerry Sandusky's lurking on here that want to make sure that little boys are still sent into men's locker rooms?

Sandusky molested boys who were between 10 and 15. Are you going to let your son go in the locker room at 15?

Up to 10, yes. Up to 15, no. A 15 year old is much better equipped to fight off someone than an 8 or 10 year old boy. My 15 year old daughter is just as strong as I am, and she's a girl, not a 15 year old boy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!

To evaluate risk you need to understand how likely something is. You, or another pp, keep saying there is a 1 in 100 chance of a kid changing in the men's room being molested. In 2011 there were 26 people who died being struck by lightening. There were no reports of kids molested while changing in pool locker rooms while their moms waited outside.

How do you know that there weren't any cases of a child being molested while a mother waited outside? Really, how do you know that? Are you God? Fact, you don't know that. Also a fact, there have indeed been cases of children being molested or killed while a mother waited outside. Don't believe that? Look it up. It's been reported on reputable news shows.

But some of you think it's preferable that a child be harmed than to have the child see your daughters "boobies" for a second. Because we all know how harmful it is to see a pair of breasts.

Maybe there are some Jerry Sandusky's lurking on here that want to make sure that little boys are still sent into men's locker rooms?

So you'd be fine if you were forced to get naked in front of your male coworkers and let them stare because they're just curious?

And again, it's not all about your kid. I don't think your kid will be harmed by seeing my naked daughter. I think my daughter will be harmed! Your son doesn't get to violate my daughter. Follow the damn rules.

There's no comparison between me being nude in front of a man that's not my husband when there's no reason or benefit to be, and anyone of any age being briefly seen by a small child in the name of protecting that child. If (And this is ridiculous) my child would be safe because I was nude in front of a man other than my husband, then you damn well bet that I'd be willing to be seen nude by that man.

My daughters are nude in that very same locker room that my son is in. And it wouldn't bother me at all if another woman brought her little boy into the locker room while my daughters were showering or changing. And it wouldn't bother them either.

Do you not take your children to the doctor because she or he may be embarrassed by being seen nude by the doctor?

Trust me, your daughter would not be HARMED by a little boy seeing her nude in the locker room. She may not like it, but she would NOT be HARMED by it. And like I said, my son does NOT stare at anyone when he's in the locker room with us. Many of you keep saying what if a little boy saw one of his female classmates nude while he was in the locker room. Well, that already happened with my son and one of the little girls from his class last year, and her mother, and it wasn't an issue for any of us involved. My son, daughters and myself all stood there showering and talking to the little girl and her mom, and no one cared at all.

I'm done talking about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!

To evaluate risk you need to understand how likely something is. You, or another pp, keep saying there is a 1 in 100 chance of a kid changing in the men's room being molested. In 2011 there were 26 people who died being struck by lightening. There were no reports of kids molested while changing in pool locker rooms while their moms waited outside.

How do you know that there weren't any cases of a child being molested while a mother waited outside? Really, how do you know that? Are you God? Fact, you don't know that. Also a fact, there have indeed been cases of children being molested or killed while a mother waited outside. Don't believe that? Look it up. It's been reported on reputable news shows.

But some of you think it's preferable that a child be harmed than to have the child see your daughters "boobies" for a second. Because we all know how harmful it is to see a pair of breasts.

Maybe there are some Jerry Sandusky's lurking on here that want to make sure that little boys are still sent into men's locker rooms?

Sandusky molested boys who were between 10 and 15. Are you going to let your son go in the locker room at 15?

17:59, You are in dire need of a massiive, continuing dose of antu-psychotic drugs. Get some help and pray that you have not permanently ruined your son's life..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!

To evaluate risk you need to understand how likely something is. You, or another pp, keep saying there is a 1 in 100 chance of a kid changing in the men's room being molested. In 2011 there were 26 people who died being struck by lightening. There were no reports of kids molested while changing in pool locker rooms while their moms waited outside.

How do you know that there weren't any cases of a child being molested while a mother waited outside? Really, how do you know that? Are you God? Fact, you don't know that. Also a fact, there have indeed been cases of children being molested or killed while a mother waited outside. Don't believe that? Look it up. It's been reported on reputable news shows.

But some of you think it's preferable that a child be harmed than to have the child see your daughters "boobies" for a second. Because we all know how harmful it is to see a pair of breasts.

Maybe there are some Jerry Sandusky's lurking on here that want to make sure that little boys are still sent into men's locker rooms?

So you'd be fine if you were forced to get naked in front of your male coworkers and let them stare because they're just curious?

And again, it's not all about your kid. I don't think your kid will be harmed by seeing my naked daughter. I think my daughter will be harmed! Your son doesn't get to violate my daughter. Follow the damn rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!

To evaluate risk you need to understand how likely something is. You, or another pp, keep saying there is a 1 in 100 chance of a kid changing in the men's room being molested. In 2011 there were 26 people who died being struck by lightening. There were no reports of kids molested while changing in pool locker rooms while their moms waited outside.

How do you know that there weren't any cases of a child being molested while a mother waited outside? Really, how do you know that? Are you God? Fact, you don't know that. Also a fact, there have indeed been cases of children being molested or killed while a mother waited outside. Don't believe that? Look it up. It's been reported on reputable news shows.

But some of you think it's preferable that a child be harmed than to have the child see your daughters "boobies" for a second. Because we all know how harmful it is to see a pair of breasts.

Maybe there are some Jerry Sandusky's lurking on here that want to make sure that little boys are still sent into men's locker rooms?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with a boy being in the women's changing room. Whatever! If he still needs help, he's probably to young to look at my boobies.

THIS

I'm guessing there are a lot of families who come to your pool, OP. So it's not like the women changing there are expecting adults only. I have a five yr old big and he always comes into the women's room with me. no way in hell would I send him alone to the men's room by himself at age 5. no way. i also have a two yr old daughter and I would feel very uncomfortable with her having to accompany my husband when she is five in the men's room, like PP's husband has to do. They need to change the policies at that pool and provide another way of entering the pool for families.

This is a stunning inconsistency, and can only be explained by a deep-seated fear of men. Please don't pass this along to your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with a boy being in the women's changing room. Whatever! If he still needs help, he's probably to young to look at my boobies.

THIS

I'm guessing there are a lot of families who come to your pool, OP. So it's not like the women changing there are expecting adults only. I have a five yr old big and he always comes into the women's room with me. no way in hell would I send him alone to the men's room by himself at age 5. no way. i also have a two yr old daughter and I would feel very uncomfortable with her having to accompany my husband when she is five in the men's room, like PP's husband has to do. They need to change the policies at that pool and provide another way of entering the pool for families.

The issue really isn't with 5 year olds. Its with 8 year olds.

I think it's with the 8 year old's mom

Anonymous wrote:To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!

First of all, I'm not that concerned with 5 year olds in women's locker rooms. I'm more concerned with 8 year olds. Second, if you don't want to send your son, whatever age, into the men's room alone, then don't. But that doesn't mean you get to take him into the women's room if it's against the rules. Change at home. Change in the car. Join a pool with a family dressing room. Wait until your DH can come to the pool too. Go with your son through the men's room. Pick an option that doesn't break the rules.

Anonymous wrote:To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!

To evaluate risk you need to understand how likely something is. You, or another pp, keep saying there is a 1 in 100 chance of a kid changing in the men's room being molested. In 2011 there were 26 people who died being struck by lightening. There were no reports of kids molested while changing in pool locker rooms while their moms waited outside.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with a boy being in the women's changing room. Whatever! If he still needs help, he's probably to young to look at my boobies.

THIS

I'm guessing there are a lot of families who come to your pool, OP. So it's not like the women changing there are expecting adults only. I have a five yr old big and he always comes into the women's room with me. no way in hell would I send him alone to the men's room by himself at age 5. no way. i also have a two yr old daughter and I would feel very uncomfortable with her having to accompany my husband when she is five in the men's room, like PP's husband has to do. They need to change the policies at that pool and provide another way of entering the pool for families.

The issue really isn't with 5 year olds. Its with 8 year olds.

Anonymous wrote:To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!

You will say anything to justify your paranoia. Just follow the rules of the locker room like everyone else.

I intended to say that the odds are you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands DURING A THUNDERSTORM and not be struck by lightning.

To the people who say that the odds are that a child isn't going to be molested when unaccompanied in a locker room. The odds are that you can swim in an outdoor pool while holding a metal rod in your hands and not be struck by lightning. The odds are that you can drive your car without wearing your seat belt and still live. The odds are you can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and still live. But would you really want to do those things? Better safe than sorry!