Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby cmsellers » Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:52 am

I was out in Hill Country recently, where the majority of public toilets seem to have the setup of a pair of sex-segregated, single-occupancy restrooms. As I mentioned earlier today, this is a pet peeve of mine. I get the arguments for sex-segregated multiple-occupancy facilities, even if I think they're specious. However they cannot possibly apply to single-occupancy restrooms i and I cannot even take a guess at what the logic behind them is.

This increases lines, and that brings me to another issue with long lines in restrooms: women's rooms. I grew up in a jurisdiction which tried to address this with "potty parity" laws requiring 3:1 ratios of toilets for women and men. This sometimes led to absurd results, as I described previously.

As a practical matter, this often seems to result in women's rooms with multiple stalls and single-occupancy men's rooms. (I know of at least one case where a 2:2 toilet facility was converted to 1:3 during renovations.) This means that if there's long lines, the waits for the men's and women's toilets are about the same. But when there's not a wait, the men's room is a bottleneck which depends on the occupant, which means that I can be waiting for over 20 minutes for the men's room while half a dozen women are in and out of the ladies'. (And of course being a single-stall bathroom, the occupant of the men's room is very often a woman. This scenario is the only time I get annoyed at women using the men's room.)

I likewise recall absurd scenario where an event had about three times as many female attendees as male attendees. So the organizers alternated the men's room between a men's room and a women's room, meaning that while the average wait times were the same, as a woman you'd be waiting about 15-25 minutes, while as a guy you could be waiting anywhere between 5 and 40. If you really need to go and they just converted the men's room to a women's room, it doesn't matter that your average wait time is the same.


As the Wikipedia article on the subject notes, when you have unequal numbers of women and men, this can lead to absurd results, as at a stadium in Tennessee. But attempts to balance by the number of men and women can also be ineffective, as another stadium found out when they based their toilet ratio on ticket-holders, since men made up a greater share of ticket-holders than they did of attendees.

Avi would say that the system of sex-segregated bathrooms is discriminatory, unworkable, and illegal. And I think I agree, but looking at the moral panic over transwomen using women's bathrooms, I fear that enforcing a rule desegregating restrooms is even more unworkable. The best case scenario is that large parts of the country people would remember which room was which, and men will be kept from the women's room by social pressure and possibly even threats of violence.

Since the issue seems to be entirely with men using restrooms with women, and women using restrooms with men doesn't pose a corresponding problem, we could have multi-stall "women's" and "unisex" rooms and hope that enough women are willing use the former men's room to equalize wait times where applicable. This might even happen naturally in the mass civil disobedience scenario I envision if the courts were to desegregate restrooms. However setting aside the issue of blantant illegality, it raises another issue.

Stalls in the men's room are fewer than in the women's, and in smaller bathrooms there's often only one stall in the men's room which presents a serious bottleneck. And there are some people who use the men's room who also use stalls exclusively. Some of these people urinate sitting down, which requires it. You could argue that not using the urinal is a choice (though so are women who don't avoid long lines by using the men's room), but it's not for transmen and as an intersex person, if my hypospadia hadn't been "corrected" it wouldn't be for me either. Since I don't have good stream control standing up it arguably still isn't. Moreover many people who are merely uncomfortable using urinals are autistic, which suggests that this would also be discriminatory.

So what do we do? One thought I have is mandating both integrated facilities, and mandating that every facility have at least one single-stall restroom. However aside from adding an extra government regulation (something I don't like doing), this would place the burden of lines disproportionately on people with shy bladders: those people who absolutely cannot use multiple-occupancy restrooms at all. And most of the people who choose to wait in the single-occupancy line would be women, leading to a sexist outcome.

Ultimately, I don't have a good solution, but I feel the compelled to start this thread nonetheless. Seeing 3:1 toilet ratios being touted by liberals without a whisper of dissent pisses me off, seeing conservative lawmakers try to ban transwomen from women's bathrooms pisses me off, and seeing sex-segregated single-stall bathrooms pisses me off.
  • 2

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby Marcuse » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:27 pm

I don't know whether it's a good idea to have a prescribed method and organisation of what toilets you can have. Attempts to try to predict the expected demand and build accordingly is absurd by default (because demand can change by the minute, but architecture often takes longer to alter) and the idea that you assign more to one gender than another seems unfair and somewhat sexist from both ways. For men it's saying they need one third of the facilities women need, and on the other hand it's saying that women fulfil the stereotype that they take longer in the bathroom and therefore need more time to powder their nose or whatever.

If you're going to change bathrooms in the name of equality, making them unequal in number based on generalisations is a bad idea. A serious alternative would be to adopt single occupant units for new buildings but then collate both male and female (and disabled, and baby changing) users when assigning how many you build in order to meet the average high demand period and then accept that further to that there will be some queuing.

While we're at it, can we stop putting baby changing in the ladies please? Some dads actually do need to change their kids, especially when they're on their own with them. Doing it on the floor is not okay.
  • 11

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby sunglasses » Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:35 pm

There's been a growing push for changing tables in the men's.

http://www.parenting.com/news-break/dad ... s-bathroom

Although I think this guy is kinda crazy: https://goodmenproject.com/families/the ... rooms-wcz/

As for the bathroom situation, I've said before I've gone to the men's when the women's line is too long. I'm not the only one. If I'm desperate enough I'll piss in a damn sink before I piss myself.

But I'm the exception I think.

Anyhoo.

I like Marc's idea about the single occupancy toilets. But those take up a bit of space. I like the idea of a large unisex restroom area with urinals in single closed off spaces like toilets, but with a sign that indicates they're urinals only. Or perhaps an area that just states: Urinals only, and another area that states: Toilets only, and perhaps a 3rd area that indicates a "family bathroom" which would include a changing area.
  • 5

TCS Etiquette Guide

Rules and FAQs

Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
User avatar
sunglasses
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 11541
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Show rep
Title: The Speaker of Horrors.

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby Windy » Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:54 pm

None of this would be a problem if we just all agreed to shit on the streets
  • 7

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby Marcuse » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:32 pm

Windy wrote:None of this would be a problem if we just all agreed to shit on the streets


But then your wife will divorce you.
  • 4

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby D-LOGAN » Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:41 pm

cmsellers wrote:
Spoiler: show
I was out in Hill Country recently, where the majority of public toilets seem to have the setup of a pair of sex-segregated, single-occupancy restrooms. As I mentioned earlier today, this is a pet peeve of mine. I get the arguments for sex-segregated multiple-occupancy facilities, even if I think they're specious. However they cannot possibly apply to single-occupancy restrooms i and I cannot even take a guess at what the logic behind them is.

This increases lines, and that brings me to another issue with long lines in restrooms: women's rooms. I grew up in a jurisdiction which tried to address this with "potty parity" laws requiring 3:1 ratios of toilets for women and men. This sometimes led to absurd results, as I described previously.

As a practical matter, this often seems to result in women's rooms with multiple stalls and single-occupancy men's rooms. (I know of at least one case where a 2:2 toilet facility was converted to 1:3 during renovations.) This means that if there's long lines, the waits for the men's and women's toilets are about the same. But when there's not a wait, the men's room is a bottleneck which depends on the occupant, which means that I can be waiting for over 20 minutes for the men's room while half a dozen women are in and out of the ladies'. (And of course being a single-stall bathroom, the occupant of the men's room is very often a woman. This scenario is the only time I get annoyed at women using the men's room.)

I likewise recall absurd scenario where an event had about three times as many female attendees as male attendees. So the organizers alternated the men's room between a men's room and a women's room, meaning that while the average wait times were the same, as a woman you'd be waiting about 15-25 minutes, while as a guy you could be waiting anywhere between 5 and 40. If you really need to go and they just converted the men's room to a women's room, it doesn't matter that your average wait time is the same.


As the Wikipedia article on the subject notes, when you have unequal numbers of women and men, this can lead to absurd results, as at a stadium in Tennessee. But attempts to balance by the number of men and women can also be ineffective, as another stadium found out when they based their toilet ratio on ticket-holders, since men made up a greater share of ticket-holders than they did of attendees.

Avi would say that the system of sex-segregated bathrooms is discriminatory, unworkable, and illegal. And I think I agree, but looking at the moral panic over transwomen using women's bathrooms, I fear that enforcing a rule desegregating restrooms is even more unworkable. The best case scenario is that large parts of the country people would remember which room was which, and men will be kept from the women's room by social pressure and possibly even threats of violence.

Since the issue seems to be entirely with men using restrooms with women, and women using restrooms with men doesn't pose a corresponding problem, we could have multi-stall "women's" and "unisex" rooms and hope that enough women are willing use the former men's room to equalize wait times where applicable. This might even happen naturally in the mass civil disobedience scenario I envision if the courts were to desegregate restrooms. However setting aside the issue of blantant illegality, it raises another issue.

Stalls in the men's room are fewer than in the women's, and in smaller bathrooms there's often only one stall in the men's room which presents a serious bottleneck. And there are some people who use the men's room who also use stalls exclusively. Some of these people urinate sitting down, which requires it. You could argue that not using the urinal is a choice (though so are women who don't avoid long lines by using the men's room), but it's not for transmen and as an intersex person, if my hypospadia hadn't been "corrected" it wouldn't be for me either. Since I don't have good stream control standing up it arguably still isn't. Moreover many people who are merely uncomfortable using urinals are autistic, which suggests that this would also be discriminatory.

So what do we do? One thought I have is mandating both integrated facilities, and mandating that every facility have at least one single-stall restroom. However aside from adding an extra government regulation (something I don't like doing), this would place the burden of lines disproportionately on people with shy bladders: those people who absolutely cannot use multiple-occupancy restrooms at all. And most of the people who choose to wait in the single-occupancy line would be women, leading to a sexist outcome.

Ultimately, I don't have a good solution, but I feel the compelled to start this thread nonetheless. Seeing 3:1 toilet ratios being touted by liberals without a whisper of dissent pisses me off, seeing conservative lawmakers try to ban transwomen from women's bathrooms pisses me off, and seeing sex-segregated single-stall bathrooms pisses me off.


You know, this got me thinking about an article I read a while back where a woman was making out that women waiting in lines for the toilet was a form of sexism, as it disproportionatly affects women and even if an equal ammount of space was given toilet-wise to both the menz and the womenz (like the situation she was describing in a museaum) it was still discrimination as women need to use the toilet more as they tend to have more needs to use it i.e. menstration, breast feeding, bladder issues during pregnancy etc. So being given the same space as the lads still counted as discrimination as they should be given more spaces for it to be fair.

Which just has me reeling given the amount of times I've seen places where women are given riddiculously more than we get, like I was shooting in a college recently and we had to do a scene in a toilet, so we went to use the lads and it was just this tiny space with only a single bowl and sink and that was it, but given how small it was we were having trouble filming, so we went to look in the ladies room next door (THE COLLEGE WAS CLOSED BEFORE YOU ASK, no students around, what kind of perverts do you take us for?) and BLOODY HELL, the size of it! Multiple cubicles, line of sinks and a God Damn Sofa, THEY GOT A SOFA!!!! Or another time I was at a club and there was just one men's room. Again, just a single toilet, so there were loads of us standing in a corridor waiting for our turn as girls were walking past us to use their facilities, which again included multiple cubicles and mirrors and sinks and chairs potted bloody plants, and we're all like "what the fuck? Unfair!"

Not that I'm saying that's always the case or anything of course, there's obviously multitudes of variations, it's just the narrative that women are being singled out as being hard done by for having equal access when plenty of places give them way more access, plus her whole tone was just that whole waiting in lines was an indignity women had to suffer, as though queing up for toilets is unheard of for men.

But having said all that, hey if women by and large do have greater needs for space and time for toileting, then I suppose that's fair enough if a business wants to cater for that to avoid queing. I mean I don't agree with any system that tries to enforce rules or laws on what toilet facilities a private business has to use (non-private businesses like schools or hospitals or what have you being a different matter of course). I personally think that what toilet facilities you wanna install should be entirely the businesses decision themselves.

And that's my real take on all of this, namely it'd be the business itself's choice what to do. If you have a coffee shop or whatever, and you don't want to have toilets there, or you only want unisex toilets there or if you only want men's rooms or only want ladies rooms or twice as much for one gender as the other or you want your toilet to be just a hole in the floor everyone has to squat over simultaneously etc. then that IMO should be your choice not a governments, and if customers have a problem with this, like the issues being described here they can not give them their business and bad mouth said business to anyone who'll listen. And given that it's in the best interest of any business to accomodate as many people as possible they'd be wise to listen, but if they don't wanna, more fool them and hopefully they'll lose out to a competitor that will fill that need, but at the end of the day I think it should be their decision not a law that's forced upon them.

sunglasses wrote:As for the bathroom situation, I've said before I've gone to the men's when the women's line is too long. I'm not the only one.

Oh hardly. Pretty much every time I've gone to a nightclub there's been two or three girls who'll come into the men's room with a "sorry lads, ladie's room is full, don't mind do youse?" With nerry a complaint in my experience. And ... I hate to be that guy but .... actually no, I LOVE being that guy, if I was to have done the opposite, stroll into the ladies room with a "sorry ladies, the Jacks is full, don't mind if I use your's do you?" I'd be thrown out of the place, and I'd be lucky if I didn't get a kicking from the bouncers or have the gaurds called on me.

But then again, you can hardly blame the women for taking advantadge of this double-standard, if us lads don't kick up a stink about it, why wouldn't they do it? I would if I was in their shoes.

I like Marc's idea about the single occupancy toilets. But those take up a bit of space. I like the idea of a large unisex restroom area with urinals in single closed off spaces like toilets, but with a sign that indicates they're urinals only. Or perhaps an area that just states: Urinals only, and another area that states: Toilets only, and perhaps a 3rd area that indicates a "family bathroom" which would include a changing area.


From talking to people whove worked in facilities with customer toilets that they've had to clean up- swimming pools, fast food restauarants etc. I think this overestimates how much power signs have on people's actions ... or basic human dignity. I've been told by a few that having to clean up shit and piss and tampons and underwear from right in the middle of floor, not just in a cubicle mind you, but right there in the middle of the actual bathroom, as though someone was just like 'screw this having to use a toilet bowl malarkey, I NEED TO POO NOW, to hell with society's rules ... and toilet paper!' is apparantly not an uncommon occurance.

Takes all sorts I suppose.
  • 10

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby Learned Nand » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:45 am

cmsellers wrote:Avi would say that the system of sex-segregated bathrooms is discriminatory, unworkable, and illegal. And I think I agree, but looking at the moral panic over transwomen using women's bathrooms, I fear that enforcing a rule desegregating restrooms is even more unworkable. The best case scenario is that large parts of the country people would remember which room was which, and men will be kept from the women's room by social pressure and possibly even threats of violence.

I think the best case scenario is that most accommodations set up multiple single-stall restrooms, or create stalls where the walls and door go all the way to the ground. Alternately, just like white southerners got used to going to the bathroom with black southerns, men and women could get used to using the same facilities.
  • 2

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby DamianaRaven » Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:47 am

I haven't had a chance to read all the other replies, but I'm sure one of them has pointed out that in single-occupancy bathrooms, there's really no law against using the wrong one, because (as you pointed out) there's no rational way to actually enforce such a law. Imagine some prosecutor telling a judge, "well he should have just shit his pants, Your Honor - that's not against the law."

The "male" and "female" signs are probably just a traditional formality, more a polite suggestion than anything else. Use whichever one is unoccupied and the worst that'll happen is some stranger gives you a weird look when you come out. I always get weird looks anyway, on account of being weird - half the time, the fact that I'm muttering loudly to no one in particular is of MUCH more concern than my walking out of the men's room.

Ladies, the single-occupancy bathrooms are NOT A PLACE TO PRIMP. Do that shit literally anywhere else a reflective surface can be found! Don't make other women (who may or may not be experiencing an actual medical emergency but at best, are waiting in mild physical discomfort) stand there and wait on you to reapply your fucking eyeliner and mascara. Wash your hands and get the fuck out, unless you're OK with being called a vain, selfish cunt, 'cause I will if I'm still standing there even sixty seconds after I heard you flush the toilet and wash your hands! I'll knock politely first, because there's always the chance you don't know I'm waiting, but that's one of the reasons you need to just go ahead and NOT use the hand washing area as your own private dressing room.
  • 6

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby PSTN » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:20 am

My solution here is single occupancy toilets. Just toilets, not full facilities. Put the sinks out in public, so everyone can look and judge you for not washing your hands (I'm convinced this would be the single greatest public health advancement of the 21st century). The toilets themselves should be designed to discourage lollygagging, such as being soundproof so people don't sit there holding back worrying whether anyone can hear them, and being surrounded by a faraday cage, so people don't just sit there on their phones.
  • 8

User avatar
PSTN
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:24 am
Show rep
Title: II

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby DamianaRaven » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:03 am

PSTN wrote:The toilets themselves should be designed to discourage lollygagging...


This'll do it. Such innovation would ensure that people move on the moment they're done instead of "soon as I finish this level."
  • 1

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby D-LOGAN » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:58 pm

DamianaRaven wrote:Ladies, the single-occupancy bathrooms are NOT A PLACE TO PRIMP. Do that shit literally anywhere else a reflective surface can be found! Don't make other women (who may or may not be experiencing an actual medical emergency but at best, are waiting in mild physical discomfort) stand there and wait on you to reapply your fucking eyeliner and mascara. Wash your hands and get the fuck out, unless you're OK with being called a vain, selfish cunt, 'cause I will if I'm still standing there even sixty seconds after I heard you flush the toilet and wash your hands!


Not if they wait until AFTER they've finished doing their make-up thang till they flush you won't. It'd just appear they'd been taking a particularly long poop in that case and you'd be none the wiser.

Not that I'm trying to give such people tips on how to get away with it of course ... just saying.
  • 3

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby Kate » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:32 pm

I have heard justifications that if you don't sex segregate the stalls, women will have to sit in pee when they sit to pee.

Clearly, those people have never actually used a woman's restroom. There's always someone who decides to splash pee on the seat and not clean it up.

Spoiler: show
Off topic, that link that sunny posted with the dad complaining about the changing table not being walled off:

First off, wtf do you think most changing tables are like for women? Sometimes they're in the handicap stall,
which can be problematic because then you're taking up the stall for a significant amount of time sometimes when someone who is in a wheelchair might need it OR you need to wait to change a diaper until the wheelchair person is done, or until whoever wants the "nice" stall is done using it. Often, they're out in the open where everyone is washing their hands. It's not like men are particularly precious and can't deal with a baby being changed in their presence if women do on the regular, or like it's somehow worse for a room full of men to see a diaper being changed than a room full of women. Get over yourself. Also,

"I like changing diapers because it provides an important bonding opportunity for me and my daughter. I also derive satisfaction from making sure my daughter is clean and avoids diaper rash." No. No one bonds over diapers.
What happens when your daughter's next movement is explosive and right in your face? Oh yes, it happens. Bond over that.

Ahem.
  • 6

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby Lindvaettr » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:43 pm

Kate wrote:I have heard justifications that if you don't sex segregate the stalls, women will have to sit in pee when they sit to pee.

Clearly, those people have never actually used a woman's restroom. There's always someone who decides to splash pees on the seat and not clean it up.


As someone who uses the men's bathroom on the regular, there's almost never pee on the stall seats. Sometimes there's a drip or a drop, but that's a far sight better than my horrifying college days that sometimes involved cleaning women's restrooms. My god. It's like the whole "lady like" thing is a facade to hide the fact that women are the most disgusting bathroom barbarians ever to exist. It's like walking into a coprophilic murder scene.

Men are not the culprits here. Sitting down on a nice clean toilet is one of the best joys of the world, and I will not have it ruined by sharing my bathrooms with seat-peeing women who sometimes seem to intentionally pee on everything except into the toilet. What is wrong with you people?
  • 8

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby sunglasses » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:53 pm

I can explain a few of the womenfolk peeing on the seat thing.

Some women insist on the hover method. I, personally, am comfortable in the knowledge that there tends to be more bacteria on doorknobs then toilet seats and that you legit cannot get crabs from toilet seats. So, that being said, I'm happy sitting down. BUT when you hover, it's easy for sprinkles to happen as you are then higher and the stream hits the water with more force, resulting in splashing. Much the same way number 2 can sometimes result in ...the splash. This method results in splashing all over the fucking seat.

Sometimes, women hold it for longer then is healthy. The result is a mad dash to the bathroom with a rather force full stream. Due to the force, splashing and sprinkles happen. Think of a hose on full bore hitting the side of your house. This method often results in splashing towards the front of the seat and is often missed if the person is in a hurry. i.e. they don't notice it to clean it off with tissue paper.

And then...there's...well I'm going to spoiler it

Spoiler: show
Sometimes, for various reasons, the labia will stick together and you don't realize it when you go to pee.
You soon realize it rather quickly and the piss splashes everywhere. Goes completely off target. Much like an after sex piss or morning boner piss (for men, or rather how I've heard it described).


So yeah, a few reasons why ladies have splish splashes. I like to keep in the mind the old poem, 'if you sprinkle when you tinkle be a sweetie and wipe the seat-y.'

Now, if only I can get the doctor I work with to stop getting piss on the seat or floor.
  • 10

TCS Etiquette Guide

Rules and FAQs

Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
User avatar
sunglasses
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 11541
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Show rep
Title: The Speaker of Horrors.

Re: Restroom Sex Segregation and "Potty Parity"

Postby DamianaRaven » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:54 pm

As someone who will use the men's room without hesitation, fear, or shame, I can personally confirm that it is WOMEN (and ONLY women) who piss all over public toilet seats. Specifically, it's those Hovercraft Hussies who feel that the rest of us are MUCH too diseased and disgusting to risk sitting in the invisible filth we've (surely) left behind. It's just beyond ironic to espouse this belief while LITERALLY pissing all over everything and just walking away.

The ones doing this KNOW it's bullshit and here's how you can tell - it NEVER happens when there's a line. This means that they're only doing it when they know they won't be immediately "busted" by the next person who uses that stall. It's the likes of me they're afraid of, that one who will loudly ask if you're going to walk off and leave your piss there for all to behold and enjoy. THIS is why I spend so much time in the men's room - because the only time I can be sure that there's not piss all over seating surface is when I have to stand there and wait half an hour. Fuck that and THANK YOU gentlemen for your hospitality and consideration in this matter. I have not ONCE been challenged, harassed, or even stared at when using a men's room, much less molested in any way. This notion that men will turn into uncontrollable rape monsters if you make us share bathrooms with them is BULLSHIT. When it comes to restroom etiquette, boys rule and girls drool!
  • 5

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests