Cognitive daily's casual friday survey had aninteresting topic and I thought I'd put it here for people's discussing pleasure.
Also, it made me wonder about those toilet seat covers you occasionally. A brief bout of googling preemptively has confirmed my suspicion that they're hogwash, but I'd also like to hear your knowledge and habits regarding the matter.
Armed with the knowledge that toilet seats are really one of the most bacteria-free things we generally encounter, I have never used nor fashioned my own toilet seat cover in a public, or private, restroom.
Also, I think the idea of more unisexing of bathrooms would be good, or having toilets in separate rooms opening straight into a hallway with sinks handy in the hallway or something would be good.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Um, toilet seat covers are required by law here.
Personally I wipe down with toilet paper, then use a cover.
My four year old doesn't like them so I carry a foldable plastic one that she can use instead.
Though I can intellectually know they're likely to be cleaner than the one at my home, that doesn't trump the ickiness factor, KWIM?
Also, I am not averse to using a friend's toilet in her/his home, though I am aware that the seat is likely cleaned far less often than the ones in public restrooms.
I am not opposed to unisex restrooms-- if they are one-seaters.
I am not opposed to family restrooms.
I am opposed to unisex restrooms being all that are available.
I have on occasion used the mens' restroom when it was a one-seater and all that was available (womens' was broken a few times; once, my four year old REALLY had to go and the womens' was occupied and the mens' wasn't.)
It is not an experience I wish to repeat.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm not worried about bacteria - I just don't want to sit in pee.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm not worried about bacteria - I just don't want to sit in pee.
Precisely.
A bunch of strangers' pee, even more so.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
To start with, I hate public restrooms.* I only use them when it's necessary. Because I only use them when absolutely necessary I tend to be in a rush and the thought doesn't really occur to me to make a toilet seat cover.
But on the concept of unisex bathrooms. I think there's some pretty major cons to take into consideration.
-Some men would find it even more awkward to use a urinal when there are women walking behind them. (Some women would also be more uncomfortable using the bathroom.)
-If you collapse the bathrooms into one unit, you have a new problem: Stall Demand. Often a man will use a urinal, but sometimes they need to use a stall, and for the reason stated above, they may be more comfortable using a stall in a unisex bathroom. Considering women would need to use stalls and some men would need them as well, it creates a sort of 'tension' on who gets to use the stalls, when, etc.
-Collapsing to a unisex bathroom would increase 'foot traffic' (That being a euphemism of sorts). I think the tidiness and cleanliness of bathrooms could be more easily compromised by unisex bathrooms.
All of that said, I'm fine with unisex bathrooms for areas with light demand (Say a scarcely traveled high-way's rest-stop), or 'one-person at a time' bathrooms because my problems with unisex bathrooms are substantially decreased in those situations.
For your last point on sinks in the hall way. I think that would be a bad idea simply because you would block the flow of traffic in the hall. Especially if you get a line to the sink. I understand your logic though. Many people don't wash their hands when leaving the bathroom, so the door handle and faucet knobs are unsanitary. (Faucet knobs because you turn them on with your hands not being clean.) I think the easiest solution would be to have paper towels readily available at the sink so you can turn the faucet off with a towel, then have a garbage can right outside the bathroom for you to throw away the towel. (Using it as a 'glove' on the door handle.)
... I think way too much about bathrooms.
*Major Vegas casinos like Caesar's palace are an exception. Those bathrooms are incredible and have inspired me to make a life goal in using a public restroom in every major Vegas casino. I've got Caesar's Palace and the Stratosphere down. I still have many more.
Edit for faulty parallelism.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
In places where there are public restrooms here, there usually are sinks in the hallway. It doesn't impede traffic at all, but they're usually not treated as an afterthought - planning went into this. The sinks in the hallway bit is most common in restaurants and food courts - pretty much everyone washes their hands before and after eating, especially if they're eating with their hands.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Our sinks at the park are outside the restroom. I like it, it allows you to wash your hands without going into the restroom if that's all you're doing.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think most men would probably object to unisex bathrooms on the basis that once there were ladies included they would have to queue for the loo, just like we do.
A lot of men can be somewhat smug about the fact that they don't usually have long waiting times for their toliets, while the line for the ladies' will often be round the block.
And yes, I don't see unisex urinals working out for anyone.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Multi-stall public bathrooms are a necessary evil, but I really don't want to share with a member of the opposite sex, thanks just the same. As for one-toilet bathrooms, sure, they can be unisex just like at home.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
And what would ya'll think of the pine 16 holer at the Hooper Rodeo Grounds. I never did see it fully occupied. But, it was a conversation pit so to speak. I didn't actually check the ladies one out. The building was the same length, so I assumed the facilities were similar.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't think twice about it.
My wife, on the other hand, feels much the same as KQ.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Um, toilet seat covers are required by law here.
Are you sure of that? I've definitely been to plenty of public restrooms that lacked even the dispenser.
They're also completely useless. Wiping down a seat with toilet paper (especially if there is evidence of any moisture, etc.) is far more effective.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
kq, I've heard several other women indicate that the women's tend to be as visibly gross, or more so, than the men's (they've had jobs cleaning both, or otherwise had exposure to the men's). I think the term "hovering" came up as an explanation - apparently this can cause some mess. (I wonder how many unisex restroom messes have been unfairly attributed to men). But I admit, sometimes men's rooms are awful. Men's rooms in offices aren't usually bad. In truck stops, it's pretty hit or miss.
Personally I'll sit directly on any seat that looks clean. It's not that I'm convinced that a clean looking seat is free from germs or traces of ejecta. It's just that as long as it's invisible traces, I'm OK*. I'd have a hard time sitting down on messes detectable to the naked eye.
*It's sort of like eating a fast food hamburger for me. I'm sure with sufficient study and patience, I'd eventually find something nasty on one of mine. I'd rather just eat it without looking too closely though.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Having had to clean both men's and women's bathrooms at BYU, I would say that the women are generally neater and more considerate than the men, although there were more clogged toilets in the women's due to, I imagine, more toilet paper being used. The exception was Women's Conference, when those little boxes next to the toilet were always full to overflowing (shudder).
I would not like to use a unisex multi-stall bathroom whether standing or sitting. If that were the only option I would probably hold it.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I was about to go to lunch, but now I find I'm not that hungry. Thank you thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Why do we have public urinals at all? Do you know anyone who has a urinal in their home? Urinals are the only reason to segregate bathrooms and I can't think of any reason for providing urinals in the first place.
The most gender equitable way to provide public restrooms would be to provide a row of individually totally enclosed (floor to ceiling) toilets with common sinks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why do we have public urinals at all?
For the same reason that there's always a line outside the women's restroom, and almost never outside the men's.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would say urinals save gallons and gallons of water. They don't get touched, and therefore don't need "seat covers" for every new use, they take up far less space in the restroom and require little to no partitioning, and therefore allow higher volume and faster, um, processing. They're far more efficient, and likely one big reason the lines at men's restrooms are shorter and move faster than women's. Having one in the home would be overkill, but having them in men's restrooms has got to save costs and time. A unisex bathroom with fully enclosed stalls and no urinals would IMO cost more to build and maintain and generate longer lines for everyone.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I wouldn't ever use a multi-stall unisex bathroom. I am NOT comfortable with the idea that I may be exposed to men's genitalia at random. No. Just... no.
A one-at-a-time unisex bathroom, sure. I've used those.
I've never used a seat cover in my life- I just wipe the seat off. I rarely even see them in the stalls here in Ohio. Granted, I also live in a dorm, so I'm used to sharing a bathroom with a lot of people- but it gets cleaned every day, so I'm not concerned.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've heard people proudly describing their at-home urinals.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I wouldn't ever use a multi-stall unisex bathroom. I am NOT comfortable with the idea that I may be exposed to men's genitalia at random. No. Just... no."
I'm not sure what you mean. We don't walk around the bathroom with our junk hanging out.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I never assumed you did. It's just that the idea of pulling my pants down in a place where men are doing the same makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Not that I'd oppose other women doing the same, if they wanted to. I just wouldn't myself.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Um, toilet seat covers are required by law here.
Really? You mean just making them available, or actually using them?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "I wouldn't ever use a multi-stall unisex bathroom. I am NOT comfortable with the idea that I may be exposed to men's genitalia at random. No. Just... no."
I'm not sure what you mean. We don't walk around the bathroom with our junk hanging out.
[sotto voce]We don't?[/sotto voce]
I ::clears throat:: I...of course we don't! What kind of barbarians do you take us for?
::straightens tie::
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: My four year old doesn't like them so I carry a foldable plastic one that she can use instead.
A foldable plastic one? Tell me more!!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
... I think I'd prefer to buy it new, even if it's been sterilized.
Yeah, if you're fastidious enough to want to carry one of those around, you're not likely to be willing to buy a used one. Weird.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I've heard people proudly describing their at-home urinals.
At a university sponsered high school music camp where the girls were staying in what would have been a mens dorm during the school year, many of the girls were excited about the helpful "nylon rinsers" that were provided. To a lass, they wanted one in their home.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My daughter's is a kid-sized Sesame Street one. This one.
At home she's outgrown the need for a potty seat but since she doesn't like the cover I like her to use this, and since public toilets are often constructed differently from the ones at home, she prefers the security of always having a solid seat, too.
rivka, providing toilet seat covers is required by law, although there are a few exemptions(parks, for instance) which is why I 1) usually carry my own and 2) have a back-up procedure of making them out of toilet paper. But last I heard it was still the law.
I've heard of women "hovering" but this does not seem to be as frequent in CA, because of the afore-mentioned seat covers. Or maybe for some other reason? Anyway, I don't encounter it as often here as I did in Dallas. As for bathroom nastiness, there may be more stuff on the seats but I always find more stuff on the floors in the men's room. At least the ones I've been into. And since I wipe down the seats before use anyway (with a disinfectant wipe, if necessary) the floors being nasty is rather repellant to me.
And I know several folks who have a toddler urinal for their little boys. (Personally, I find it a bit creepy!)
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
My employer has a paper towel and a sanitizer dispenser in the rest room. I use both on the seats, figuring a little caution can't hurt. Especially if the cleaning people haven't made their twice-daily visit, yet.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Wow, I watched the cleaning lady at my work on Sunday put the clean paper towels in the same bin (there were no individual compartments) as the bags of trash she was taking out. It just makes you realize that maybe, washing your hands isn't really getting them clean.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You need to have separate-sex bathrooms anywhere where there is a sufficient volume of people to make urinals a good idea.
Because you want urinals.
Also, a lot of the places I frequent (bars, nightclubs) are a pressing argument for not having unisex bathrooms because it would be so. freaking. weird.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
You've got a point there - the whole social aspect of girls taking a trip to the bathroom to freshen up and gossip would be shot.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'm not sure what you mean. We don't walk around the bathroom with our junk hanging out.
I have known guys who would take the opportunity to do so if women were around.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
After having to share a bathroom with about two dozen others my freshman year at college (more than one toilet, but still), I have no qualms about using public bathrooms.
Bring it on, I've seen it all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: You've got a point there - the whole social aspect of girls taking a trip to the bathroom to freshen up and gossip would be shot.
Beyond social aspects, it would be way, way too problematic. Would a girl want to use a restroom in a nightclub if you had drunk guys liable to follow you in there, or otherwise just be hanging out in there?
Big-time issues. That has to be sovereign territory, for sure. Also, guys would not have to wait in line.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I find many sites claiming otherwise, but not a single citation. And most are either bloggers, or people/companies who manufacture and/or sell the things. I believe we have an urban legend.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Oh yes - I didn't mean to make it sound that that aspect was what you were referring to, I should have had an "and" in there!
I completely agree. I've been to a nightclub with a (very, very, VERY small two-stall) unisex bathroom, and the only reason girls actually did use it was because it was a gay club Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: kq, these lawyers claim there is no such law.
I find many sites claiming otherwise, but not a single citation. And most are either bloggers, or people/companies who manufacture and/or sell the things. I believe we have an urban legend.
Really? Because I've always been told so, including by people who weren't allowed to open their business until they put in toilet seat covers.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have been in plenty of businesses that didn't have 'em.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
I was going to ask which hellish nanny state would require toilet seat covers, but of course it had to be California.
If people are concerned about "sitting in pee," I have a couple observations: a) a flimsy piece of paper is not going to do much good against that, and b) there would be a lot less pee on the seats if not for all the "hoverers." Then there are the people who leave their flimsy piece of paper on the seat or draping wet from the bowl.
Now, a really useful bathroom law would be to ban cell phones in public restrooms.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
That cell phone discussion is happening at Sakeriver.
It's an eerie bathroom/forum parallel.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: I was going to ask which hellish nanny state would require toilet seat covers, but of course it had to be California.
Did you read my post or link?
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: I was going to ask which hellish nanny state would require toilet seat covers, but of course it had to be California.
Did you read my post or link?
Yes, I did. But it's interesting that people obviously think it's a law, isn't it? The nanny is looming over you wagging her finger, even when she isn't!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Some people. I'd never even heard that anyone thought it was a law until today, and I've lived in California over 25 years.
Given any ridiculous belief, I'm sure you can find some people who believe it. That doesn't mean it has any bearing in reality.
(*waits for KoM and/or Tom to consider that a cue*)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why do we have public urinals at all? Do you know anyone who has a urinal in their home? Urinals are the only reason to segregate bathrooms and I can't think of any reason for providing urinals in the first place.
The most gender equitable way to provide public restrooms would be to provide a row of individually totally enclosed (floor to ceiling) toilets with common sinks.
The reason is they are cheaper to both build and maintain, use less water, and increase the number of people who can use a bathroom...increase the "flow" of people, so to speak. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I did find a law that specifies that certain service stations are required to maintain public restrooms which are "clean and functional" and that
quote:For purposes of this subdivision, "clean and functional" refers to functional and operative plumbing fixtures, dry floor surfaces, adequate supplies of toilet paper and paper seat covers, and either paper towels or functional air-drying equipment, and functional electric lighting.
Haven't found it anywhere else yet but haven't looked that hard.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Biggest problem for unisex bathrooms, I think, would be the embarrassment factor. Bad enough your same-gender friends possibly overhearing your actions, would you want your first date in the stall next door?
I hear long-time couples talk about proudly leaving the bathroom door open at home or walking in on each other without a qualm, but no. In 23 years of being together, Teres and I have never felt the need or desire to lose the mystery.
Also? There are plenty of guys who would totally expose themselves, "accidentally" or on purpose, or worse, to cute girls. Think of the actions of some of the obnoxious guys you've reluctantly encountered at bars and imagine meeting them in a situation where they're expected to open their pants.
No problem with the shared sinks. It may even increase hygiene, as people tend to wash their hands more frequently under peer pressure.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I just don't see the advantage in unisex bathrooms.
Edit: Great TOPP post.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The reason is they are cheaper to both build and maintain.
Do you have any data on that? I'd be highly surprised to find than urinals were enough cheaper to build and maintain to offset the cost of maintaining separate facilities for men and women.
quote:use less water,
This is certainly not always true, some urinals even run continuously. If the concern is water usage, there are plenty of water conserving toilet designs. Most modern European toilets offer a small flush that uses no more water than the flush on a urinal and a large flush for when it is needed.
quote:and increase the number of people who can use a bathroom...increase the "flow" of people, so to speak
I doubt this is a significant factor. I can't imagine the that the time it takes to open and close the door to a stall is a significant fraction of the time it takes the typical man to urinate.
I suspect that it is possible to fit more open urinals in a confined space than closed stalls but if space is the issue, they can get rid of the lounge area they put in many women's restrooms.
If you really want to see inefficient bathroom design, check out the ladies room at the Utah state capital when you get a chance. It has something like 5 couches and 2 toilets (no joke). I guess at least women have a comfortable place to sit while they wait to urinate.
I've been to a number of establishments that have two single use bathrooms, one labeled men and one labeled women. Sometime the men's room will have a urinal and a toilet, sometimes just a toilet but in both cases the room is clearly intended for 1 person at a time. Frequently the two bathrooms even share a sink. Why not have two unisex bathrooms?
There is one big reason for unisex bathrooms. Separate is inherently unequal. If you doubt it, look at the difference in the lines between the mens and the women's rooms. If toilets are fully enclosed top to bottom, individuals should have more than enough privacy to do their thing.
If it really bothers you to have someone of the opposite gender urinating on the other side of the wall then you are in big trouble anywhere that the men's and ladies rooms have a shared wall which is most places right now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While I have no doubt some urinals do run continuously, I have seen and used numerous urinals in several countries, and not a single one of them has been running continuously (the closest was a sort of 'wall urinal' in the bathroom at the campus pub of the university of east anglia in norwich, and it just ran water periodically and automatically, not continuously).
From a little googling, it seems a modern low-flush urinal uses about a third the water of a modern low-flush toilet.
edit: not counting the funky waterless urinals, which obviously use much, much less water than a modern low-flush toilet
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't know if the difference in cost between urinals and toilets is enough to offset savings for unisex toilets, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a significant difference in cost between the two.
IIRC, I've seen a decent number of washrooms in China with urinals but no toilets due to cost.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: There are plenty of guys who would totally expose themselves, "accidentally" or on purpose, or worse, to cute girls. Think of the actions of some of the obnoxious guys you've reluctantly encountered at bars and imagine meeting them in a situation where they're expected to open their pants.
I have never had a guy "accidentally" expose himself to me on the way out of the men's room, I don't see why it would be more likely if he were coming out of a stall in a unisex bathroom.
In fact I think that such incidents would be less likely in a shared unisex bathroom where people know there are likely to be both other men and other women present than the incidents of perverts going into the ladies to expose themselves or take a peak.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I doubt this is a significant factor. I can't imagine the that the time it takes to open and close the door to a stall is a significant fraction of the time it takes the typical man to urinate.
Negotiating a stall door and putting up the toilet seat might add ten seconds to a process that ordinarily takes under a minute. That's a significant slow down. As fugu13 pointed out, there is a water usage difference too. (You could have waterless sit-down models a la campgrounds but they are kind of unpleasant.)
Fully enclosing stalls to the extent that people perceive privacy, instead of using the typical partitions, would be pretty expensive, I think. You'd effectively have as many separate restrooms as you now have separate stalls.
quote: Separate is inherently unequal. If you doubt it, look at the difference in the lines between the mens and the women's rooms.
I think another simple answer is to make the women's restrooms as big as they need to be in order to reduce the lines. Sitting down (not to mention dealing with different garments & issues) probably makes women slower at using the restroom, so they need higher capacity. I'm sure this has been studied and information is easily available on how big the women's facility needs to be to compensate for lower receiving unit throughput.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Personally I wipe down with toilet paper, then use a cover.
...
Though I can intellectually know they're likely to be cleaner than the one at my home, that doesn't trump the ickiness factor, KWIM?
Also, I am not averse to using a friend's toilet in her/his home, though I am aware that the seat is likely cleaned far less often than the ones in public restrooms.
I am not opposed to unisex restrooms-- if they are one-seaters.
I am not opposed to family restrooms.
I am opposed to unisex restrooms being all that are available.
I have on occasion used the mens' restroom when it was a one-seater and all that was available (womens' was broken a few times; once, my four year old REALLY had to go and the womens' was occupied and the mens' wasn't.)
It is not an experience I wish to repeat.
Pardon me while I quote almost your entire reply, but I agree with you 100%.
Not only that, but the toilet seats in our office's ladies room are as cold as ice, so covers make them more bearable. The shivering hits a few seconds later as opposed to instantly.
Has anyone considered how this would put a kink in the social habits of women, stereotypically speaking? For instance, I know a woman who has a daily routine of applying cosmetics in the ladies room every morning. If she weren't concerned about just anyone seeing her do so (like if she applied make-up in her car or at her desk), then she wouldn't go into the ladies room to take care of the task. What about things like tampon/pad dispensers? Would a young teenage girl OR boy feel entirely comfortable with those in plain sight and use? Maybe some wouldn't be phased, but I would have been mortified at age 12 to have to use one in a unisex bathroom.
[ January 08, 2009, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Traceria ]
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Traceria: Not only that, but the toilet seats in our office's ladies room are as cold as ice, so covers make them more bearable. The shivering hits a few seconds later as opposed to instantly.
If you're ever near a Swissotel, go in and use the bathrooms. The seats are heated! Ohhh, it's so nice.
This form of disposal, not so nice. Or so I imagine.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: If you're ever near a Swissotel, go in and use the bathrooms. The seats are heated! Ohhh, it's so nice.
This form of disposal, not so nice. Or so I imagine.
Wow! That must be so nice!
And yes, that form certainly wouldn't be. Speaking of shivering.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: think another simple answer is to make the women's restrooms as big as they need to be in order to reduce the lines. Sitting down (not to mention dealing with different garments & issues) probably makes women slower at using the restroom, so they need higher capacity. I'm sure this has been studied and information is easily available on how big the women's facility needs to be to compensate for lower receiving unit throughput.
There was a study done by the state of Washington in the late 80's on bathroom usage that found that women and men spend equal amounts of time using bathroom sinks and mirrors but that women take on average double the time using the toilets (or urinals). This is almost certainly do to the need to undress and redress. The study recommended that to be equitable, public bathrooms should have twice as many female toilets and male toilets and urinals. That study was done 20 years ago and I have yet to discover a public bathroom that met those standards which brings us back to the conclusion that separate is inherently unequal.
Its easy to talk about how the problem could easily be solved by simply providing a sufficient number of toilets in the women's room but the fact is that hasn't happened.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote: That study was done 20 years ago and I have yet to discover a public bathroom that met those standards which brings us back to the conclusion that separate is inherently unequal.
Its easy to talk about how the problem could easily be solved by simply providing a sufficient number of toilets in the women's room but the fact is that hasn't happened.
So...are males architecting all the restrooms, or what? Why would it be easier to convince them to go with unisex fortresses of solitude than to give the ladies a couple of extra stalls?
I think the inequality here is as much in the mechanics as it is in the architecture, though. We can solve for standing in line, but in the end, women will still need more time to use the restroom.
Costwise I think increasing the number of women's stalls still might be cheaper, even though it's apparently a hurdle. (I don't know why; I can't imagine that male architects get that much satisfaction from seeing women standing, or hopping, in line.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I always thought it was unfair that women got lounges in their bathrooms and men never did.
As well, all the times only the women's bathrooms have had baby changing stations in them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That study was done 20 years ago and I have yet to discover a public bathroom that met those standards which brings us back to the conclusion that separate is inherently unequal.
Without comment otherwise, how much opportunity do you have to count the number of stalls in each set of bathrooms?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I always thought it was unfair that women got lounges in their bathrooms and men never did."
I have no idea why anyone would want that. As a man, thank you universe for preventing other men from having an excuse to lounge in the restroom.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "I always thought it was unfair that women got lounges in their bathrooms and men never did."
I have no idea why anyone would want that. As a man, thank you universe for preventing other men from having an excuse to lounge in the restroom.
One good example--the library at college, and having a couch to lie down on during all-day study stints.
I agree that the men's bathroom isn't a social place. I wouldn't choose it to have a get-together with friends.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote: That study was done 20 years ago and I have yet to discover a public bathroom that met those standards which brings us back to the conclusion that separate is inherently unequal.
Its easy to talk about how the problem could easily be solved by simply providing a sufficient number of toilets in the women's room but the fact is that hasn't happened.
So...are males architecting all the restrooms, or what? Why would it be easier to convince them to go with unisex fortresses of solitude than to give the ladies a couple of extra stalls?
Its a space issue. To do what the studies require would mean making the ladies room more than double the size of the men's room. That would mean taking space away from other uses, which no one wants, or cutting the men's room size in half. It doesn't matter what the data says, most people won't see it as fair to dramatically reduce the size of the men's room room to provide adequate ladies room facilities. Most men don't consider it to be unfair when there is a long line in the ladies room and none at all in the men's room. Many men out there presume that women are gossiping or primping and have no idea that the line is really just to use the toilet. To do what the studies recommend (twice as many toilets for women and toilets an urinals for men) would mean cutting 1/3 to 1/2 of the toilets and urinals in the typical mens room. Would it be worth it to you to have 1/2 as many toilets available simply so you didn't have to share the bathroom with the ladies.
And by the way, I've used many bathrooms that have floor to ceiling enclosed stalls and they hardly qualify as fortresses of solitude.
quote:I think the inequality here is as much in the mechanics as it is in the architecture, though. We can solve for standing in line, but in the end, women will still need more time to use the restroom.
Costwise I think increasing the number of women's stalls still might be cheaper, even though it's apparently a hurdle. (I don't know why; I can't imagine that male architects get that much satisfaction from seeing women standing, or hopping, in line.)
My view is certainly skewed by having worked in many older science and engineering buildings that originally didn't even have women's bathrooms on every floor. I've been a bit involved with trying to negotiate and remodel space for women's bathrooms and simply trying to get equal space for women is a giant hurdle. The most rapid and inexpensive solution is always to convert an existing men's room into a Unisex bathroom. This is always much much less expensive than the remodeling necessary to add a women's room.
In any case where there are existing men's and women's restrooms, it is far less expensive to convert both restrooms to unisex bathrooms than to remodel to add additional space to the women's room.
Its not a question of male architects, its a matter of history. Historically, men's and women's rooms have generally been the same size at best. In many older buildings in male dominated areas, women's restrooms are much smaller than the mens. The men who were the architects 50 years ago often had weird misconceptions about what women did in the restroom, hence they provided large lounge areas but few toilets. Changing that requires both persuading the majority of people that this is inequitable and coming up with the money to change it.
[ January 08, 2009, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think people are against using unisex restrooms where you can overhear members of the opposite sex as much as see. So I think floor to ceiling won't cut it - it needs to have a built in wall and well fitted door. (If we're going to try to accommodate people's anxiety about hearing bathroom activities.) Typical bathroom partitions, even extended floor to ceiling, aren't very private.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "I always thought it was unfair that women got lounges in their bathrooms and men never did."
I have no idea why anyone would want that. As a man, thank you universe for preventing other men from having an excuse to lounge in the restroom.
One good example--the library at college, and having a couch to lie down on during all-day study stints.
I agree that the men's bathroom isn't a social place. I wouldn't choose it to have a get-together with friends.
I can't see why you'd want to provide that place inside the restroom. I understand the decision to use it for that purpose if it's there, and you don't have better options...but I think the foot traffic, restroom smell, and restroom noises would make it rather unpleasant as a place to rest.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
My experience with high-volume restrooms has been as many urinals as possible, with no partitions. Sometimes even just a trough you have to shoulder up to. If there is a proving ground for masculine solitude, that is it. Absolutely no conversation whatsoever in that kind of situation. You look nobody in the eyes, and you do not let your gaze stray from that neutral space directly in front of your person. Men are willing to put up with that if that means saving space. Heck, men are willing to be redirected to trees if that's what it takes. So if there are going to be lines for the restroom, I say let the women take all the space they need.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think people are against using unisex restrooms where you can overhear members of the opposite sex as much as see. So I think floor to ceiling won't cut it - it needs to have a built in wall and well fitted door. (If we're going to try to accommodate people's anxiety about hearing bathroom activities.) Typical bathroom partitions, even extended floor to ceiling, aren't very private.
People once made similar arguments to justify racial segregation of bathrooms. My advice -- get over it. People are often uncomfortable standing next to the boss or one of their professors at a urinals. They get over it. Its not always comfortable listening to a same gendered person in the toilet stall next to you. We get over it if we have to. If unisex bathrooms were widespread, people would get over that to.
My discomfort and inconvenience in having to wait in line to use the toilet trump your discomfort with hearing a women peeing through the wall.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I can't see why you'd want to provide that place inside the restroom. I understand the decision to use it for that purpose if it's there, and you don't have better options...but I think the foot traffic, restroom smell, and restroom noises would make it rather unpleasant as a place to rest.
I agree fully.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "I always thought it was unfair that women got lounges in their bathrooms and men never did."
I have no idea why anyone would want that. As a man, thank you universe for preventing other men from having an excuse to lounge in the restroom.
One good example--the library at college, and having a couch to lie down on during all-day study stints.
I agree that the men's bathroom isn't a social place. I wouldn't choose it to have a get-together with friends.
I can't see why you'd want to provide that place inside the restroom. I understand the decision to use it for that purpose if it's there, and you don't have better options...but I think the foot traffic, restroom smell, and restroom noises would make it rather unpleasant as a place to rest.
Far from ideal, but better than nothing. And you'd be competing with only half the population for a couch. Just put another wall and door between the lounge and the facilities, and it wouldn't be too bad.
Better yet, hang a TV on the wall with ESPN playing 24/7. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:That study was done 20 years ago and I have yet to discover a public bathroom that met those standards which brings us back to the conclusion that separate is inherently unequal.
Without comment otherwise, how much opportunity do you have to count the number of stalls in each set of bathrooms?
I have a husband and many male friends and we compare observations on this things. Its true we don't do it all the time and are most likely to do it when there is a long line in the ladies room so my sampling is not unbiased.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, as a point of negotiation, I'd be ok with unisex bathrooms but the urinals stay. Its not just about bandwidth (although the bandwidth would drop substantially without them anyways) but the drop in latency would be obnoxious.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: think another simple answer is to make the women's restrooms as big as they need to be in order to reduce the lines. Sitting down (not to mention dealing with different garments & issues) probably makes women slower at using the restroom, so they need higher capacity. I'm sure this has been studied and information is easily available on how big the women's facility needs to be to compensate for lower receiving unit throughput.
I have yet to discover a public bathroom that met those standards
Technically my work place is not a public bathroom but there are two separate rooms for the women and only one for the men. With there being only one urinal and two stalls in the mens' bathroom I am quite certain there are at least double the facilities between the two womens' rooms.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think people are against using unisex restrooms where you can overhear members of the opposite sex as much as see. So I think floor to ceiling won't cut it - it needs to have a built in wall and well fitted door. (If we're going to try to accommodate people's anxiety about hearing bathroom activities.) Typical bathroom partitions, even extended floor to ceiling, aren't very private.
People once made similar arguments to justify racial segregation of bathrooms. My advice -- get over it. People are often uncomfortable standing next to the boss or one of their professors at a urinals. They get over it. Its not always comfortable listening to a same gendered person in the toilet stall next to you. We get over it if we have to. If unisex bathrooms were widespread, people would get over that to.
My discomfort and inconvenience in having to wait in line to use the toilet trump your discomfort with hearing a women peeing through the wall.
Honestly, I can see far more women being disgusted with having to deal with the noises the men are making and a stall a man just left than the other way around. Would the women want to welcome in the men if it meant larger facilities and presumably shorter lines?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"My discomfort and inconvenience in having to wait in line to use the toilet trump your discomfort with hearing a women peeing through the wall."
I want to solve your waiting problem, too. I'm not holding up my own comfort as more important than yours; sorry if I gave that impression. I do think that others (not me) have indicated they aren't at all OK with going in the same room as the opposite gender. I was only pointing out that it might be as hard to convince everyone to go unisex - barring expensive construction - as it has proved to convince people to devote more real estate to the women's room.
(I did have a pretty surreal experience once with having a woman come into the men's room, but if a restroom was officially unisex it'd be a lot easier for me I think.)
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Re: the noise issue. Since no one's really come out and said it, I for one would be SUPREMELY uncomfortable being in the stall next to a male acquaintance/friend/coworker when I had to do fun things like unwrapping sanitary napkins.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I believe that many cities (and possibly even some states) have passed laws stating that when new buildings or restroom facilities are built, that women's facilities must have have double the number of stalls as the men's. However this only applies to new facilities, meaning that old bathrooms that weren't built this way, don't have to be updated. I don't have time to google it right now, but I'm pretty sure that I've read this before.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: Re: the noise issue. Since no one's really come out and said it, I for one would be SUPREMELY uncomfortable being in the stall next to a male acquaintance/friend/coworker when I had to do fun things like unwrapping sanitary napkins.
Amen. And Rabbit, I agree with afr -- it's probably mostly women who would object to the side effects of unisex restrooms. I know I would.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Better yet, hang a TV on the wall with ESPN playing 24/7.
You need to come to Baltimore and visit the ESPN Zone.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think people are against using unisex restrooms where you can overhear members of the opposite sex as much as see. So I think floor to ceiling won't cut it - it needs to have a built in wall and well fitted door. (If we're going to try to accommodate people's anxiety about hearing bathroom activities.) Typical bathroom partitions, even extended floor to ceiling, aren't very private.
People once made similar arguments to justify racial segregation of bathrooms. My advice -- get over it. People are often uncomfortable standing next to the boss or one of their professors at a urinals. They get over it. Its not always comfortable listening to a same gendered person in the toilet stall next to you. We get over it if we have to. If unisex bathrooms were widespread, people would get over that to.
My discomfort and inconvenience in having to wait in line to use the toilet trump your discomfort with hearing a women peeing through the wall.
Honestly, I can see far more women being disgusted with having to deal with the noises the men are making and a stall a man just left than the other way around. Would the women want to welcome in the men if it meant larger facilities and presumably shorter lines?
Sure, people can put up with and get over a lot of things if they have to. Take for example my brief stint in Belize where all you had to work with was a hole in the ground. Did I make use of it? Sure. Did I like and would I have all my 'restrooms' at home converted to that set-up? Never in a million years. If you're considering feelings, you can't discount the discomfort and potential anxiety some people would go through. Would it be worth the complaints, etc. just to make people 'get over it?' There is a woman I know who comes over to my house quite often along with several others for a regular function. We have a guest bathroom with a door that is open to the living room area and then a second bathroom back in my bedroom. She asked the first time if she could use the one in the bedroom because she didn't feel comfortable knowing all those people in the living room were only a couple panels of wood away, and she grew up as a missionary's kid in Africa, South and Central America and so isn't necessarily a stuffy or modest person in that sense.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: Re: the noise issue. Since no one's really come out and said it, I for one would be SUPREMELY uncomfortable being in the stall next to a male acquaintance/friend/coworker when I had to do fun things like unwrapping sanitary napkins.
Amen. And Rabbit, I agree with afr -- it's probably mostly women who would object to the side effects of unisex restrooms. I know I would.
I agree. Uh...perhaps this is a little too much info here, but using cloth napkins, I've even waited for the ladies room to clear before exiting a stall and having to tuck that away. :\
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: (I did have a pretty surreal experience once with having a woman come into the men's room, but if a restroom was officially unisex it'd be a lot easier for me I think.)
Heh. This reminds me of the time in college that I was sitting in a stall doing my business, when I realized that someone else who had come in was doing his business outside the stalls, at the urinals. My dorm had previously been a men's dorm and I was so used to seeing urinals that I didn't realize til then that I had wandered into a men's room by mistake. I was quiet like a mouse til he left and made a clean getaway.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Traceria: Take for example my brief stint in Belize where all you had to work with was a hole in the ground. Did I make use of it? Sure. Did I like and would I have all my 'restrooms' at home converted to that set-up? Never in a million years.
Little tidbit, I read recently that squatty potties are actually healthier in some respects. The squat position- while uncomfortable for those of us who didn't grow up using it- is easier on the plumbing (i.e., the human plumbing!) than sitting upright. People in countries with the squatties get far fewer hemorrhoids. So "they" say.
Isn't this discussion fun. Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:Originally posted by Traceria: Take for example my brief stint in Belize where all you had to work with was a hole in the ground. Did I make use of it? Sure. Did I like and would I have all my 'restrooms' at home converted to that set-up? Never in a million years.
Little tidbit, I read recently that squatty potties are actually healthier in some respects. The squat position- while uncomfortable for those of us who didn't grow up using it- is easier on the plumbing (i.e., the human plumbing!) than sitting upright. People in countries with the squatties get far fewer hemorrhoids. So "they" say.
Isn't this discussion fun.
Ha ha... This IS too much fun! XD Do they make them with handrails for people like my grandmother who like to lose their balance just standing upright?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
This past winter/fall (don't know when) I had the opportunity to listen to a short segment on NPR concerning the women's bathroom in Congress - I think it was the House, specifically. Women Representatives were complaining that getting to the women's restroom - which was added sometime last century - was about a five minute walk from the Chambers of the House, and only had a few stalls. Between the walk and the wait, some Reps were finding it difficult to get out, do their business, and then get back in time for a vote. The men bathroom, in comparison, had plenty of stalls and was right next door.
I don't think a solution was decided on when the bit aired, but I think the women were pushing for renovation to the Congress building to add a decent-sized women's bathroom next to the Chambers - and until the renovations were complete, the men and women should switch bathrooms every month.
... wish I could find a link. Edit: here's an older news story on the same issue.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I believe that many cities (and possibly even some states) have passed laws stating that when new buildings or restroom facilities are built, that women's facilities must have have double the number of stalls as the men's. However this only applies to new facilities, meaning that old bathrooms that weren't built this way, don't have to be updated. I don't have time to google it right now, but I'm pretty sure that I've read this before.
When a city opts to do this (which I have no doubt several do and more probably should), then they're creating an amendment to the IBC / IPC (International Building Code / International Plumbing Code). The IBC makes a standard assumption of a 50-50 population distribution in the building, and correspondingly the fixture count for both genders is required by code to (minimally) be equal. Male restrooms tend to be smaller because there is a provision where you can replace water closets (stalls) with urinals, which require less space. Incidentally, this is why you often see a Janitor's closet accessible from the male restroom.
While the IBC lays down a minimum, there is absolutely nothing other than space and cost that prevent a building from being designed with a 2:1 female to male fixture count. In many buildings, doing so would make no sense (how often do you encounter lines in a new office building?) Where it would make sense, and in some cases is being accounted for, is structures with intermittent peak occupancies, such as movie theaters, concert halls, or sports arenas (IE, any place that is prone to forming the dreaded 'line'). Some newer designs for these types of buildings are taking this into account.
As for the simple answer of "why not just do it", the answer is always cost. There is a reason a majority of restrooms you encounter are designed similarly. Wet walls (walls in which you run plumbing and vents) are significantly more expensive than a traditional wall. If you line fixtures up back to back (male on one side of the wall, female on the other) then you can have two fixtures on the same wet wall. Ever wall with fixtures located on it will require a vent, and depending on the building design, you may have a different roof penetration for each vent, and any penetrations in the roofing system are additional weak points, hence undesirable from a maintenance and liability standpoint. When you start having restrooms that are significantly non-symmetrical (barring the occasional urinal), then sharing a wet wall becomes difficult. Doubling the fixture count would make sharing a wet wall dubious at best (based on how you set up the lavatory and water closest areas), if not infeasible.
From an architect's end, it comes down to this. If you choose to deviate significantly above and beyond the code, then you must explain to the client why you have done so, and defend increasing the cost of the project. And since 95% of projects come down to budget, with significant changes made late in the design to limit money spent or assign priorities, having an item as significant in scope as redesigning an entire plumbing core just before (or just after) bidding is not an attractive proposition.
Trying to accomplish the opposite is an horrific battle with code and civil entities... It's possible to keep the same number of fixtures and attempt to argue the 50/50 split, though this requires making presentations to various reviewers, as well as compiling historical data to back up your argument. An example I worked on was a Fire / Police training academy. The current enrollment was 95% male, 5% female. In 20 years, they were projecting 90% male, 10% female enrollment. Even so, the code requires an equal amount of fixtures for both. We argued our case over four months, and eventually got it approved, just so we could include one additional urinal in each male restroom and make it count towards the required fixture count (they allowed a split of 40/60). Buildings that tend towards such uneven percentages are ones in which you start seeing truly individual restrooms / showers.
Alright, you may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.
Feyd Baron, DoC
EDIT: Type, one of many I'm sure.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
It shouldn't have to be so difficult to have a women's restroom placed closer at hand. *shakes head*
Wonder if the women make use of the shoe shining feature? Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For public toilets, squat toilets are often used in China, at the low-end for obvious cost reasons and at the high end they seem to sometimes import European(?) white ceramic-style flush squat toilets for cultural reasons although our seated toilets seem to be getting the upper hand.
The creepiest washroom story is once when I was at a karaoke club in Beijing. There was an employee of the club that aggressively gave shoulder massages and chewing gum to people that were at the urinal. Luckily, I was with a white guy so I dodged that particular problem (and the tip).
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It doesn't matter what the data says, most people won't see it as fair to dramatically reduce the size of the men's room room to provide adequate ladies room facilities.
But no one would see it as "reducing" the size of the men's room. It is just what it is - no man would walk into a men's room and say, "Hey! This men's room should be ten feet wider with three more stalls!"
EDIT: It just occurred to me that maybe you were talking about re-construcing existing restrooms, rather than designing newly built restrooms. If so, you may have a point there.
EDIT2: It just ocurred to me again, that if this is what you meant (re-constructing existing restrooms), then no re-construction is necessary. Management could just announce, "Both restrooms are now open to anyone." I think in such a case, a man would be less inclinded to think of it as a reduction in his available space.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Most men don't consider it to be unfair when there is a long line in the ladies room and none at all in the men's room. Many men out there presume that women are gossiping or primping and have no idea that the line is really just to use the toilet.
I think this is a little unfair. It's a stereotype about what men stereotypically think of women. Personally, it has never crossed my mind that this might be the reason for long lines into the ladies' room. Maybe you have known men who think this, but I'd have a hard time believing that a significant number do.
I have, though rarely, had occasion in my life to stand in line for a men's room. It has always been to access the toilets or urinals. I have never been inclined to think the ladies' room lines are for a different reason.
And I would consider the line disparity unfair, but I will admit; I don't think about it much, since it doesn't directly affect me. But...
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Would it be worth it to you to have 1/2 as many toilets available simply so you didn't have to share the bathroom with the ladies.
...Yes. I would agree to this.
[ January 09, 2009, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Sean Monahan ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For public toilets, squat toilets are often used in China, at the low-end for obvious cost reasons and at the high end they seem to sometimes import European(?) white ceramic-style flush squat toilets for cultural reasons although our seated toilets seem to be getting the upper hand.
The creepiest washroom story is once when I was at a karaoke club in Beijing. There was an employee of the club that aggressively gave shoulder massages and chewing gum to people that were at the urinal. Luckily, I was with a white guy so I dodged that particular problem (and the tip).
What can be even worse is that you have to pay to use alot of the Beijing public toilets. It's extremely hard to fish around for the correct change when your la du zi kuai yao guo xia qu.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmm, my Mandarin is limited so I don't follow the latter, but as to the former this was not my experience. While I didn't exactly go out of my way to find washrooms I can't say I ever encountered a pay toilet.
Are you sure you paid someone that was supposed to be paid? (Or do you just mean paying for toilet paper?)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, my Mandarin is limited so I don't follow the latter, but as to the former this was not my experience. While I didn't exactly go out of my way to find washrooms I can't say I ever encountered a pay toilet.
Are you sure you paid someone that was supposed to be paid? (Or do you just mean paying for toilet paper?)
Yes, it was right by the great wall, it was the only toilet around, and he had an official booth.
If you understood la du zi, then kuai yao guo xia qu means "is going to go out quickly."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, understood.
Hmmm, its possible, but it still sounds suspicious.
I probably went to a different section of the Great Wall, but I'm glad to say that at least in 2006, I didn't encounter any pay toilets there (or in the rest of Beijing for that matter.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmmm, my Mandarin is limited so I don't follow the latter, but as to the former this was not my experience. While I didn't exactly go out of my way to find washrooms I can't say I ever encountered a pay toilet.
Are you sure you paid someone that was supposed to be paid? (Or do you just mean paying for toilet paper?)
Yes, it was right by the great wall, it was the only toilet around, and he had an official booth.
How do you know it was an official booth?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ah, understood.
Hmmm, its possible, but it still sounds suspicious.
I probably went to a different section of the Great Wall, but I'm glad to say that at least in 2006, I didn't encounter any pay toilets there (or in the rest of Beijing for that matter.
It would not surprise me if they had eliminated pay toilets in that location by then. The event I was talking about took place between 1997 and 1998.
Noemon: How do I know? After 11+ years in China you can eventually figure out the difference. It would be pretty risky to park yourself next to a large public restroom strafing the great wall, build a booth, create an official looking sign, and hope that none of the roving police notice or care.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, that makes much more sense in that time frame.
IIRC, I believe my father mentioned that when he was traveling in those days that they would charge foreigners a different admission rate to tourist locations like the Great Wall than the locals, something he was only able to avoid by standing away from the white guy he was traveling with.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I was just being silly, Blackblade. Sorry if that didn't come through.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ah, that makes much more sense in that time frame.
IIRC, I believe my father mentioned that when he was traveling in those days that they would charge foreigners a different admission rate to tourist locations like the Great Wall than the locals, something he was only able to avoid by standing away from the white guy he was traveling with.
Yep definitely remember the different rates, but it was so cheap anyway you wouldn't really notice the difference.
Noemon: *runs out of the room in shame*
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It doesn't matter what the data says, most people won't see it as fair to dramatically reduce the size of the men's room room to provide adequate ladies room facilities.
But no one would see it as "reducing" the size of the men's room. It is just what it is - no man would walk into a men's room and say, "Hey! This men's room should be ten feet wider with three more stalls!"
EDIT: It just occurred to me that maybe you were talking about re-construcing existing restrooms, rather than designing newly built restrooms. If so, you may have a point there.
EDIT2: It just ocurred to me again, that if this is what you meant (re-constructing existing restrooms), then no re-construction is necessary. Management could just announce, "Both restrooms are now open to anyone." I think in such a case, a man would be less inclinded to think of it as a reduction in his available space.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Most men don't consider it to be unfair when there is a long line in the ladies room and none at all in the men's room. Many men out there presume that women are gossiping or primping and have no idea that the line is really just to use the toilet.
I think this is a little unfair. It's a stereotype about what men stereotypically think of women. Personally, it has never crossed my mind that this might be the reason for long lines into the ladies' room. Maybe you have known men who think this, but I'd have a hard time believing that a significant number do.
I have, though rarely, had occasion in my life to stand in line for a men's room. It has always been to access the toilets or urinals. I have never been inclined to think the ladies' room lines are for a different reason.
And I would consider the line disparity unfair, but I will admit; I don't think about it much, since it doesn't directly affect me. But...
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Would it be worth it to you to have 1/2 as many toilets available simply so you didn't have to share the bathroom with the ladies.
...Yes. I would agree to this.
Okay, so being a woman, I use toilets- men use toilets and urinals. How likely is a man who has to pee to use a toilet versus a urinal in a public restroom situation?
Given that urinals are only used by men, then men who will now join the women's lines most likely have to take a dump. Anecdotally I've found that when #2 is involved, men usually take longer than women. A woman friend of mine was surprised to hear a delighted male friend of hers gleefully confided that he had pooped in the fastest time he could remember- it was just under a minute and he timed it. She was merely bewildered that it usually took so long for anyone to poop unless they were a bit constipated. I don't know how speedy men generally are at taking dumps, but I don't know if I want to pad the women's line with people who will take longer than we do usually.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Okay, so being a woman, I use toilets- men use toilets and urinals. How likely is a man who has to pee to use a toilet versus a urinal in a public restroom situation?
Personally, I always use a urinal, unless there are none available. But, for personal observation of others, I'd say about 1 in 5 men use a stall for #1 when there are urinals available. YMMV.
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: ...but I don't know if I want to pad the women's line with people who will take longer than we do usually.
But they wouldn't do that unless their own was full; which is never, since there are no lines.
But note that I was not suggesting that because it's an option that I favor. I was only suggesting that as an alternative to reconstruction of existing facilities.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Pay toilets are common enough here in malls here. I had an interesting experience at one. I was told it was Rs.10, but I only had a Rs.1000 note and they didn't have change. The lady was very adamant that I had to pay the Rs.10 even though I wasn't arguing, so I went back to Fahim to get change. I come back, pay the Rs.10, and then that very same lady tells me in a very loud voice that if I didn't have change they would have let me in at no cost. ???? And of course it's only after you pay that you get the toilet paper, two squares, dispensed. Which is why I keep a stash of all sorts of things in my purse...
As for foreigners being charged more than locals, that is government policy here for all tourist attractions. The stated policy is for foreigners & residents versus tourists. In practice, everyone who's brown, including tourists, is charged the local price, and everyone who's white, including residents, are charged the tourist rate. The tourist rate is 10-20x the local rate.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
I don't want to give men an excuse to hang out where women are going to the loo.
A man hanging out in a ladies room would be forcibly removed by an authority figure or other men when a woman went to get help.
A man hanging out in a unisex bathroom could linger and linger and linger until he got a woman alone in there.
I think unisex bathrooms would be a boon for rapists.
I'm against separate but equal, but we gotta keep it in the case of restrooms. I'll wait in line rather than be alone in a ladies room at night with some creepy guy that's just been waiting for me.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
So you're not against separate but equal at all then. You're against many, perhaps most, implementations of it. But the concept itself is not *always* wrong, is it?
"Separate but equal" applied to race was always wrong, because race was never relevant to anything it was applied to.
But sex is relevant sometimes, isn't it? For restrooms if nothing else, even the people who are normally trying to tear down walls of sexual discrimination realize that sometimes it really does matter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Why would this be more likely to happen in a unisex bathroom than in any other unisex part of the world?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Women don't usually take their pants off in other public areas.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Assaults in bathrooms are not just paranoia. It's a closed room, generally not too large, and a would-be attacker can be certain there is no one else who can see what is going on, and there is usually only one exit, which could only be used after first getting past the attacker.
There are generally no security cameras recording events.
The victim may be distracted by what they're doing (since people generally don't just hang out in restrooms, they're probably busy performing some task).
I know a man who got assaulted in a restroom by another man; unfortunately for the assailant, the would-be victim was armed with an extremely high-powered flashlight. After temporarily blinding the assailant, he proceeded to kick the living snot out of him.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Women don't usually take their pants off in other public areas.
If you take my recommendation of having totally enclosed stalls, women wouldn't be taking their pants off in any "public" part of a unisex bathroom either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Everything Seatarsprayan listed would still be true.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: So you're not against separate but equal at all then. You're against many, perhaps most, implementations of it. But the concept itself is not *always* wrong, is it?
The concept is wrong, but setting an easy stage for rape is MORE wrong.
Rabbit: Unisex or not, I would love to have fully enclosed stalls with their own ventilation and sound proofing. The lack of privacy in the restroom is unnerving... especially when the woman in the next stall decides it's a great time to strike up a conversation.
However, they're more expensive, harder to clean (there's a reason there's a space under each stall), would require their own drain and people would tend to have sex in them more.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Assaults in bathrooms are not just paranoia. It's a closed room, generally not too large, and a would-be attacker can be certain there is no one else who can see what is going on, and there is usually only one exit, which could only be used after first getting past the attacker.
There are generally no security cameras recording events.
The victim may be distracted by what they're doing (since people generally don't just hang out in restrooms, they're probably busy performing some task).
I don't see that this makes them particularly unique. I could point to half a dozen spots in the buildings where I work that meet all those criteria and which are not restrooms.
quote:I know a man who got assaulted in a restroom by another man; unfortunately for the assailant, the would-be victim was armed with an extremely high-powered flashlight. After temporarily blinding the assailant, he proceeded to kick the living snot out of him.
I also know of cases where men were assaulted in a public restroom. The problem is that I can't see any reason why assaults become more like in a unisex bathroom.
Despite pix's arguments, I really don't think it would be at all difficult for a man to assault someone in a ladies only bathroom. All a man would have to do is hide in one of the stalls until a woman comes in alone. Or he could simply watch the door from the hallway until he knows a woman is in there alone.
Under any circumstances, assaults in public bathrooms are most likely to happen in a restroom that has very low traffic and if unisex bathrooms became widely accepted, traffic in them would likely be twice as high as in single sex bathrooms.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:The concept is wrong, but setting an easy stage for rape is MORE wrong.
So, if there was a security guard on duty all the time, you'd be fine with unisex bathrooms then? Your preference for separate but equal restroom facilities is based solely on security?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There are some particularly orderly areas where you could feasibly have unisex restrooms.
Like I've mentioned, that would be the exception and not the rule. It is the height of stupidity, for instance, to not have mens and womens bathrooms at sports facilities, bars, nightclubs, dance clubs, fast food restaurants, etc.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Seat: There are other issues, but security is the main one.
So long as there was an all surrounding stall (really more of a room than a stall) as Rabbit describes and a security guard...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)