Pointing Percy INTO the porcelain

Although I've done my best below to address this topic with as much tact and sensitivity as the subject permits, if anyone is especially sensitive to the vulgar, please read no further. I couldn't find a chat forum for this and thought 'the natural world' seemed like the next best place for it.

Here goes. Fellas, would it really be an affront to the dignity of malekind if you were to adopt the habit of sitting down in order to go for a pee? As one who is frequently in despair at having to deal with the consequences of those who attempt to widdle from an upright position, could we once and for all please acknowledge the fallacy that men have the necessary directional aim to pull this feat off successfully?

I can't remember the name of the film, but there is a scene from one in which the Jack Nichiolson character's subjugation to his wife's domestic rule is supposedly damningly illustrated by the spectacle of him having been trained to sit on the loo while going for a pee.

What's the big deal here, guys? The unpleasant effects of this inexplicable male convention are evident in every male public toilet the world over - most of which can be nasally detected from within a two-mile radius. I can understand that it is convenient when taken short in a field, for instance, but what would it cost you to sit down on the loo in the privacy and comfort of your own home? Has it got something to do with marking out your territory, as it were? How can we get it over to you that it's not in the least impressive to find your sprinklings on the seat or the surrounding floor. I hope this thread isn't undermining of the serious purport of MN.

Aragon wrote:

Although I've done my best below to address this topic with as much tact and sensitivity as the subject permits, if anyone is especially sensitive to the vulgar, please read no further. I couldn't find a chat forum for this and thought 'the natural world' seemed like the next best place for it.

Here goes. Fellas, would it really be an affront to the dignity of malekind if you were to adopt the habit of sitting down in order to go for a pee? As one who is frequently in despair at having to deal with the consequences of those who attempt to widdle from an upright position, could we once and for all please acknowledge the fallacy that men have the necessary directional aim to pull this feat off successfully?

I can't remember the name of the film, but there is a scene from one in which the Jack Nichiolson character's subjugation to his wife's domestic rule is supposedly damningly illustrated by the spectacle of him having been trained to sit on the loo while going for a pee.

What's the big deal here, guys? The unpleasant effects of this inexplicable male convention are evident in every male public toilet the world over - most of which can be nasally detected from within a two-mile radius. I can understand that it is convenient when taken short in a field, for instance, but what would it cost you to sit down on the loo in the privacy and comfort of your own home? Has it got something to do with marking out your territory, as it were? How can we get it over to you that it's not in the least impressive to find your sprinklings on the seat or the surrounding floor. I hope this thread isn't undermining of the serious purport of MN.

I can only speak for myself, but while sitting, having your doda dip in the water below is not a pleasant experience.

This would be flying in the face of a "tradition" going back to the foundation of Armitage Shanks. However, if a smoking ban can work in Glasgow, anything is possible.

This is one that requires deep thought. I, for one, occasionally sit and piss, usually because of other neccessary toiletries.

I'm inclined to think that standing up is a social statement as much as anything else. Women sit, men stand up, it's simple enough. On an instinctive front, I do remember an episode of One Foot In The Grave when the long suffering wife questioned why men always have to do it against something (I'm not explaining the context). As far as marking territory goes, it's neccessary to stand, but also perhaps to miss.

At any rate, any minor inconveniences caused by spillage are overshadowed by the myriad benefits, social and biological, mentioned above (brevity's another one). I have talked to a man well versed in the publican industry (an inspector of sorts) who has assured me that the ladies's bathroom is always much worse than that of the gentlemen. I can't remember why.

my gf tried to convince me to pee in the dark (due to fan turning on if light is on) when going durnig the night.

very unpleasant consequences.

I once had the pleasure of seeing two sixty something year old ladies peeing at a urinal in the gent's facilities when I was working at a concert given by The Eagles at Lansdowne Road. Not particularly pleasant.

The ladies toilets always require more cleaning than the mens. And I notice no leakage around the mens urinals, which means the aim must be pretty good, even after a few drinks.

That said, my two young lads and their buddies use the downstairs loo and the floor needs a clean much more often.

Aragon what do you think of this for a proposal. For those who have fairly private gardens then peeing on the compost heap would solve a lot of issues - polluting the seas, using a flush of water where there's no need, adding much-needed nutrients to our soil when our crap forests are bleeding them away and then addressing the human environmental issues of the baffling (to men) toilet rage that most women tend to have. As some comedian recently said "Why can't women leaving the fcuking toilet seat up ffs?". He was single.

For those who live in apartments with no garden, a massive flower pot on the balcony ?

What do you think of that?

(there is also this:

Quote :

If you're stuck in traffic when Mother Nature calls, Japan's Kaneko Sangyo Co. has developed the loo for you.

The manufacturer of plastic car accessories drew back the curtain on Tuesday on its new portable toilet for cars. The toilet comes with a curtain large enough to conceal users and a plastic bag to collect waste.

"The commode will come in handy during major disasters such as earthquakes or when you are caught in a traffic jam," a company official told reporters, according to Kyodo News.

The product is small enough to fit inside a suitcase, the company said.

It's called a "Kurumarukun" and can be used in the M50 when you're traffic jammed in your Porsche or it can be just used in the porch. )

clareman51 wrote:

The ladies toilets always require more cleaning than the mens. And I notice no leakage around the mens urinals, which means the aim must be pretty good, even after a few drinks.

That said, my two young lads and their buddies use the downstairs loo and the floor needs a clean much more often.

I was going to ask where on earth you'd been drinking! If you look at the floor near the urinals in most pubs there's anything from a damp area to an actual puddle by the middle of a busy night.

Standing up is quite useful when negotiating the frankly toxic Portakabins of our many Summer festivals with the possible exception of the Electric Picnic.

I'm a liberal so I'll let people make their own minds up but I find it's handier to stand than sit. I have great aim so I have no problems re any ah, collateral damage.

I'm all about equality, as such do not see why it's left up to men to take responsibility for toilet operations. It was been established in posts above that we are, as a general rule, not as good with aim as we ought to be.
Why then is it called of us to both lift the seat before using the facilities and then replace it once we are done? We know that this never happens in most cases.
I suspect this is a conspiracy by the fairer sex to collect nagging rights to further emasculate their men and move a step closer to making us all metrosexual "feeling" types.


But I resist and I will continue to piss all over the seat as long as you women types continue to stock the shower with a confusing array of bottles - which I cannot distinguish between when I don't have my galsses-, none of which are shampoo.

Which brings us to the next question. Taking a wizz in the shower, yay or nay?

zakalwe wrote:

my gf tried to convince me to pee in the dark (due to fan turning on if light is on) when going durnig the night.

very unpleasant consequences.

If you got it in her make up bag and claimed it was an "accident" and got away with it you deserve a prize.

cookiemonster wrote:

But I resist and I will continue to piss all over the seat as long as you women types continue to stock the shower with a confusing array of bottles - which I cannot distinguish between when I don't have my galsses-, none of which are shampoo.

So true - jojoba oil is all very well, but barely raises a lather, never mind the ruddy Nads. And conditioner ought to be made by law to have a distinctly coloured top. And a notice in braille.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

But I resist and I will continue to piss all over the seat as long as you women types continue to stock the shower with a confusing array of bottles - which I cannot distinguish between when I don't have my galsses-, none of which are shampoo.

So true - jojoba oil is all very well, but barely raises a lather, never mind the ruddy Nads. And conditioner ought to be made by law to have a distinctly coloured top. And a notice in braille.

I think there is a market for a male grooming product, packed in a large blue bottle with "MANWASH" printed on it is huge contrasting letters... and braille. This magical product would wash hair, face and body and smell like not-flowers.

johnfás wrote:

I once had the pleasure of seeing two sixty something year old ladies peeing at a urinal in the gent's facilities when I was working at a concert given by The Eagles at Lansdowne Road. Not particularly pleasant.

That sounds like something which one's brain is programmed to forget and forget quickly. You're brain is obviously broken. You need to drink more Everclear.

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Although I've done my best below to address this topic with as much tact and sensitivity as the subject permits, if anyone is especially sensitive to the vulgar, please read no further. I couldn't find a chat forum for this and thought 'the natural world' seemed like the next best place for it.

Here goes. Fellas, would it really be an affront to the dignity of malekind if you were to adopt the habit of sitting down in order to go for a pee? As one who is frequently in despair at having to deal with the consequences of those who attempt to widdle from an upright position, could we once and for all please acknowledge the fallacy that men have the necessary directional aim to pull this feat off successfully?

I can't remember the name of the film, but there is a scene from one in which the Jack Nichiolson character's subjugation to his wife's domestic rule is supposedly damningly illustrated by the spectacle of him having been trained to sit on the loo while going for a pee.

What's the big deal here, guys? The unpleasant effects of this inexplicable male convention are evident in every male public toilet the world over - most of which can be nasally detected from within a two-mile radius. I can understand that it is convenient when taken short in a field, for instance, but what would it cost you to sit down on the loo in the privacy and comfort of your own home? Has it got something to do with marking out your territory, as it were? How can we get it over to you that it's not in the least impressive to find your sprinklings on the seat or the surrounding floor. I hope this thread isn't undermining of the serious purport of MN.

I can only speak for myself, but while sitting, having your doda dip in the water below is not a pleasant experience.

Your post necessarily conjures up images which for a variety of reasons are hard to put out of one's mind. I'm wondering if there isn't a sort of boast buried in it. I've been figuring out that the depth of the average toilet bowl is about one foot from seat to surface of water...

Aragon wrote:

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Although I've done my best below to address this topic with as much tact and sensitivity as the subject permits, if anyone is especially sensitive to the vulgar, please read no further. I couldn't find a chat forum for this and thought 'the natural world' seemed like the next best place for it.

Here goes. Fellas, would it really be an affront to the dignity of malekind if you were to adopt the habit of sitting down in order to go for a pee? As one who is frequently in despair at having to deal with the consequences of those who attempt to widdle from an upright position, could we once and for all please acknowledge the fallacy that men have the necessary directional aim to pull this feat off successfully?

I can't remember the name of the film, but there is a scene from one in which the Jack Nichiolson character's subjugation to his wife's domestic rule is supposedly damningly illustrated by the spectacle of him having been trained to sit on the loo while going for a pee.

What's the big deal here, guys? The unpleasant effects of this inexplicable male convention are evident in every male public toilet the world over - most of which can be nasally detected from within a two-mile radius. I can understand that it is convenient when taken short in a field, for instance, but what would it cost you to sit down on the loo in the privacy and comfort of your own home? Has it got something to do with marking out your territory, as it were? How can we get it over to you that it's not in the least impressive to find your sprinklings on the seat or the surrounding floor. I hope this thread isn't undermining of the serious purport of MN.

I can only speak for myself, but while sitting, having your doda dip in the water below is not a pleasant experience.

Your post necessarily conjures up images which for a variety of reasons are hard to put out of one's mind. I'm wondering if there isn't a sort of boast buried in it. I've been figuring out that the depth of the average toilet bowl is about one foot from seat to surface of water...

A foot you say?, yeah well, there you go.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Aragon what do you think of this for a proposal. For those who have fairly private gardens then peeing on the compost heap would solve a lot of issues - polluting the seas, using a flush of water where there's no need, adding much-needed nutrients to our soil when our crap forests are bleeding them away and then addressing the human environmental issues of the baffling (to men) toilet rage that most women tend to have. As some comedian recently said "Why can't women leaving the fcuking toilet seat up ffs?". He was single.

For those who live in apartments with no garden, a massive flower pot on the balcony ?

What do you think of that?

I dont know but I thought of that scene in Blackadder II when he's selling his house.

Mrs. Pants: [insistent for a real answer] What about the privies?
Edmund: [doesn't give away either of the two cups he holds] Well, what we're talking about in, erm, privy terms is the very latest in front-wall, fresh-air orifices, combined with a wide-capacity gutter installation below.
Mrs. Pants: You mean you crap out of the window.
Edmund: Yes!

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Although I've done my best below to address this topic with as much tact and sensitivity as the subject permits, if anyone is especially sensitive to the vulgar, please read no further. I couldn't find a chat forum for this and thought 'the natural world' seemed like the next best place for it.

Here goes. Fellas, would it really be an affront to the dignity of malekind if you were to adopt the habit of sitting down in order to go for a pee? As one who is frequently in despair at having to deal with the consequences of those who attempt to widdle from an upright position, could we once and for all please acknowledge the fallacy that men have the necessary directional aim to pull this feat off successfully?

I can't remember the name of the film, but there is a scene from one in which the Jack Nichiolson character's subjugation to his wife's domestic rule is supposedly damningly illustrated by the spectacle of him having been trained to sit on the loo while going for a pee.

What's the big deal here, guys? The unpleasant effects of this inexplicable male convention are evident in every male public toilet the world over - most of which can be nasally detected from within a two-mile radius. I can understand that it is convenient when taken short in a field, for instance, but what would it cost you to sit down on the loo in the privacy and comfort of your own home? Has it got something to do with marking out your territory, as it were? How can we get it over to you that it's not in the least impressive to find your sprinklings on the seat or the surrounding floor. I hope this thread isn't undermining of the serious purport of MN.

I can only speak for myself, but while sitting, having your doda dip in the water below is not a pleasant experience.

Your post necessarily conjures up images which for a variety of reasons are hard to put out of one's mind. I'm wondering if there isn't a sort of boast buried in it. I've been figuring out that the depth of the average toilet bowl is about one foot from seat to surface of water...

A foot you say?, yeah well, there you go.

I find the bidet useful for cleaning feet - perfect height

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

But I resist and I will continue to piss all over the seat as long as you women types continue to stock the shower with a confusing array of bottles - which I cannot distinguish between when I don't have my galsses-, none of which are shampoo.

So true - jojoba oil is all very well, but barely raises a lather, never mind the ruddy Nads. And conditioner ought to be made by law to have a distinctly coloured top. And a notice in braille.

I think there is a market for a male grooming product, packed in a large blue bottle with "MANWASH" printed on it is huge contrasting letters... and braille. This magical product would wash hair, face and body and smell like not-flowers.

One can always go for those reasonably distinctive black shower gel things. Unfortunately, that doesn't remove the problem of having to root around for it in a pile or basket of conditioner/shampoo/etc bottles - several of which will fall on your foot, and at least one of which will turn out to (a) have a loose cap, and (b) be incredibly expensive and difficult to replace, apparently.

Lord, but this is a marvellous thread. The title is inspired, Aragon.

Having garnered for myself a not inconsiderable reputation on p.ie for standing up against urinating in public places, I'm reluctant to get involved here, but what the heck.

The seat issue, I don't have a problem with - I don't leave it up for him, I don't expect him to put it down for me. That said, the whole thing just looks neater when the seat is down and his mother had him so well trained, I never needed to have a Mrs Meldrew moment.

Toiletries in the shower... this male fascination with one bottle that does everything just bewilders me, but then my body is not covered in hair to the extent that I require an all-over shampoo. I will defend to anyone my right to have an expensive shower gel that makes me smell like Nicole Kidman and a nasties-free shampoo that makes my hair smell like Turkish delight. All-over 'forest' or 'ocean' or 'refreshing' smells like something we'd use to clean the toilet = but most men, being unversed in that skill, don't often make the connection.

Difficulties I find only arise when there are two people in the shower and compromises are easilyreached without much consideration at all.

Re pee...
Standing or sitting shouldn't be an issue because after considerable training in the younger years, the old point and aim (and washing of the hands afterwards), should not be a feat that requires amazing dexterity or concentration. We recently had a male houseguest who peed everywhere but into the bowl - down the side of, around and beside but never, it seemed, into. He is an intelligent, able man holding down a good job and yet he can't pee straight? I don't get it - but I was glad when he left.

But the waft from the jacks can be gruesome. I remember one cruel moment in a hotel in the Midlands where I had to move because the smell from the gents 20 feet away was so bad I couldn't think straight. Ten minutes later the area I'd left was full of men eating big dirty fries, oblivious to the stink. Back in my old pub-working days, cleaning the men's toilets was a nightmare at the end of the night. I can't imagine why or how the ladies' could be worse - they rarely have been in my experience and I've been in a lot of them though I do remember a hideous place in Bray one time. There's so much less room for error in the ladies'.

Aragon, you have my sympathies.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

But I resist and I will continue to piss all over the seat as long as you women types continue to stock the shower with a confusing array of bottles - which I cannot distinguish between when I don't have my galsses-, none of which are shampoo.

So true - jojoba oil is all very well, but barely raises a lather, never mind the ruddy Nads. And conditioner ought to be made by law to have a distinctly coloured top. And a notice in braille.

I think there is a market for a male grooming product, packed in a large blue bottle with "MANWASH" printed on it is huge contrasting letters... and braille. This magical product would wash hair, face and body and smell like not-flowers.

One can always go for those reasonably distinctive black shower gel things. Unfortunately, that doesn't remove the problem of having to root around for it in a pile or basket of conditioner/shampoo/etc bottles - several of which will fall on your foot, and at least one of which will turn out to (a) have a loose cap, and (b) be incredibly expensive and difficult to replace, apparently.

And then there is the whole accidental use of tanning product fiasco which befalls all of us at least once. It seems to be less of an issue if we don't use it in our hair because at least they can get a laugh out of it first.

Oh yes, they can tell the difference between squeezie bottles of hand lotion and handwash, they jnow which conditioner to use with which eye make-up but can they replace the battery in the smoke alarm or replace the lightbulb in the hallway, no. You need a willy for that.

They are not irrational creatures though. There is, apparently, nothing weird about bring 2 handbags to work. And there is nothing odd that one of those handbags contains a different pair of shoes in case the ones she is wearing start to hurt.

But we love them anyway, and they keep us around to change lightbulbs and clear the gutters...

Kate P wrote:

Lord, but this is a marvellous thread. The title is inspired, Aragon.

Having garnered for myself a not inconsiderable reputation on p.ie for standing up against urinating in public places, I'm reluctant to get involved here, but what the heck.

The seat issue, I don't have a problem with - I don't leave it up for him, I don't expect him to put it down for me. That said, the whole thing just looks neater when the seat is down and his mother had him so well trained, I never needed to have a Mrs Meldrew moment.

Toiletries in the shower... this male fascination with one bottle that does everything just bewilders me, but then my body is not covered in hair to the extent that I require an all-over shampoo. I will defend to anyone my right to have an expensive shower gel that makes me smell like Nicole Kidman and a nasties-free shampoo that makes my hair smell like Turkish delight. All-over 'forest' or 'ocean' or 'refreshing' smells like something we'd use to clean the toilet = but most men, being unversed in that skill, don't often make the connection.

Difficulties I find only arise when there are two people in the shower and compromises are easilyreached without much consideration at all.

Re pee...
Standing or sitting shouldn't be an issue because after considerable training in the younger years, the old point and aim (and washing of the hands afterwards), should not be a feat that requires amazing dexterity or concentration. We recently had a male houseguest who peed everywhere but into the bowl - down the side of, around and beside but never, it seemed, into. He is an intelligent, able man holding down a good job and yet he can't pee straight? I don't get it - but I was glad when he left.

But the waft from the jacks can be gruesome. I remember one cruel moment in a hotel in the Midlands where I had to move because the smell from the gents 20 feet away was so bad I couldn't think straight. Ten minutes later the area I'd left was full of men eating big dirty fries, oblivious to the stink. Back in my old pub-working days, cleaning the men's toilets was a nightmare at the end of the night. I can't imagine why or how the ladies' could be worse - they rarely have been in my experience and I've been in a lot of them though I do remember a hideous place in Bray one time. There's so much less room for error in the ladies'.

Aragon, you have my sympathies.

Kate, promise me you'll never visit the Middle East. I had to hold up my trousers and wade into the gents and I am reliably informed that the women don't bother usingh the toilet at all. Straight. Onto. The. Floor. I kid you not.

and you will inavirably, out of curiosity alone, spray yourself liberally with the hose things they have. And I would take a guess that you will do it while in the restrooms of an expensive restaurant.

Sounds unpleasant, cookiemonster - and I found those vile squat things in China and Italy to be barbarously primitive.

Was it as bad as covering yourself in fake tan? Still trying to figure out how any man could do that... accidentally...

Two pairs of shoes thing is actually very, very practical, though I don't do it all that often. I recently met the President and had heels for the meeting but had to park so far away, I put the heels in the bag and wore a pair of very light, flat shoes as far as the venue and then swopped over. And did something similar at another gig lately too because there was a lot of walking outdoors before a swanky indoor event. Not because of hurty feet, but because it's difficult to make much progress in comfort in heels of any height. And they are not all-terrain footwear.

I used to laugh at my mother always having umpteen pairs of shoes in the car for different reasons - and then I realised that I have those flat shoes, rubber boots, hiking boots, sometimes runners if I've a gear bag, and more shoes in an emergency overnight bag because some nights are very unpredictable. And I use them all, regularly.

Kate P wrote:

Was it as bad as covering yourself in fake tan? Still trying to figure out how any man could do that... accidentally...

No. I washed my hair with it, bit it did odd things to my face. I've washed myself with most thing in the bathroom that are not shower gel. I'm blind as a bat without my glasses, see.

I do know of a bloke who wears fake tan. He says he's straight but even his girlfriend isn't so sure anymore.