Talk:Toilet seat

hey

Headline text

Most toilet seats for homes are round and closed. Some institutional toilet seats are oblong and open at the front. What are these called and what is the design purpose? -- Dajhorn 17:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The open front is to prevent men from dribbling urine onto the seat. Also, the penis frequently touches the rim when sitting on closed-rim toilet seats, so it may also prevent any sanitary issues from arising in this regard. That's my guess. As for the name, I've no idea. --Shadow Puppet 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know some cultures use a squatting position for which they have to raise or remove the toilet seat. I've seen where they've been ripped off by the owner so as to make more room for the squatter. However, I'll not mention which culture as I have no reference but only personal knowledge. --Shadow Puppet 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hanging penis excuse makes me laugh, personally I'd rather hang on the seat than on the filthy porcelain surface, sheesh!

Seat up or down

I don't think the toilet seat is used in the down position 3/4 of the time. As a male, I need the seat up 3 or 4 times a day, as opposed to only once down. I'd say the value should be closer to 5/8, or better yet 8/13.

Here's how I see it. There are basically 3 uses for the toilet (other ones like vomiting are not counted as they are usually very rare):

urination (male), requires the seat to be up

urination (female), requires the seat to be down

defecation (both), requires the seat to be down

Now, I'm no doctor, but I'm fairly certain that, barring any medical conditions or pregnancy, men and women urinate an equal number of times over any given period. So, assuming a household consisting of an equal number of men and women, that leaves the "times when seat up is more convenient" vs. "times when seat down is more convenient" at 50/50. Thus far no clear answer to which is the preferred position. However the deciding vote is cast by defecation. Even though both genders defecate less than they urinate, it still makes up a significant proportion of toilet usage and is one which requires the seat to be down. This tips the vote towards the seat being down as the most convenient position to find the toilet in for the majority of visits; therefore putting the seat into the down position afterwards is most likely to be convenient to the next user. --86.138.30.122 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a regional thing? I've never heard of the issue in Scandinavia, only through American media. A simple solution would be to put the seat in the desired position, be it up or down, prior to using it. Problem solved. --90.231.34.215 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is not convenience, it's sanitary. We simply should not be touching the dirty bottom side and edges of the seat with our hands, that is gross. Men should sit to pee, they should not be touching the seat edge and bottom with their hands either since they don't even wash their hands half the time. NO, the seat should be down all the time for sanitary reasons, LEAST TOUCHING POSSIBLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.245.17 (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the seat is not used in the Up position 75% of the time. In addition, this whole section seems prejudiced to me, especially in the part where the author says one argument "puts an end" to the discussion. I suggest the section be revised to be less prejudiced and more common sensical. Damaband (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems ridiculous to have a debate on this and have never had this problem in my household of 2 males and 2 females, it just seems logical to just look/move the seat before using it. Also, how does having a toilet seat down have anything to do with health benefits? I read the article and it only says that the toilet sprays water, regardless of a toilet seat being up or down, that argument is only if the cover is up or down.

I agree that this is ridiculous. This only appears to be a problem in the USA. People have bigger problems in life. Oh and the seat should be kept up otherwise when a male uses the toilet it will get wet with pee (based on my experience from my military service it takes only one stupid person to pee with the seat down for the whole platoon to become constipated due to the yuck factor). 79.103.94.223 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

600 dollar toilet seats

I flagged the "toilet seats in the news" section as POV because "actually fair and reasonable" is a phrase that should never appear in an article except as a quote. There are other POV bits in that section, so I couldn't just add a FixPOV note. Raindog469 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the quotes around fair and reasonable, and identifed the profession of the individual who had made that determination at the time of the event. I re-read the section and everything there is documented fact, not opinion. Bsmcg 23:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see citation of sources for all of this, or else it has to be cut. This is controversial material, and according to WP:RS that means it must be attributed to a reliable source. DickClarkMises 14:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is true or not, it still reads POV. Phrases such as "some unknown Senate Staffer", "trumpeted it to the news media", "President Reagan had actually held", and "incorrectly reports" show narrative bias. ~ Eidako 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the tag was removed, but the problem still stands. I plan to remove that content if it is still unsourced next month. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still work for the US Government, and am not authorized to comment on this subject, and therefore be personally identified. I was involved in the decision not to expend government tax dollars to update the OEM's original drawing that misnamed this item, and ultimately lead to this controversy. I also was involved in answering numerous congressional inquiries concerning this procurement. President Reagan did indeed display this shroud to the world on national television. I didn't bother to write down the actual broadcast date at the time, because it didn't seem to matter. How are you supposed to support a truth like that in this forum? Some of the facts in the ORIGINAL article are off a bit... the Aircraft in question was the P3 Orion, not the B52 for example, but the information that the Originator wanted publicize is otherwise factual.

If you chose to remove the article, you will be doing your readership a disservice, as the facts in this matter would, once again, be swept under the rug. There really are cases of Government waste in some of our procurements (AF tanker deal, in-flight coffee pots and refrigerators that are speced for 15Gs, etc), but this was a case of a Senator running with his "Discovery of Pentagon Waste", even after he had all the facts proving that this was not the case.

In the end, the Navy resorted to super glue to repair cracked shrouds, after Congress passed a law forbidding procurement of any new shrouds for anything over $140, and Tom Clancy et al still write about the $640 toilet seat. Bsmcg1 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The expensive toilet seat is famous, and belongs in this article, IMO; but of course everything here needs verifiable references. Tempshill (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a funny story, sure, but does this sort of trivia really belong in an encyclopaedia? Especially one that is supposed to have a worldwide view. --90.231.34.215 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This incident belongs in some article. Which news service first "reported" the $600, and how did they attribute their discovery? How many shrouds were procured, how many repaired?

Better picture?

Can we get a picture that wasn't cut out in paint by a retarded 6 year old? For gods sake, someone go take a picture... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.180.219 (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split Toilet Seats

This was in the article under the section header. This si not encyclopedia material. It needs to be corrected.

The reference to OSHA as originating the requirement for split seats is not correct. I remember seeing them in 1948, (and in subsequent years), in the latrines in the Army barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. And for urination, there was a trough in the latrine that accommodated three or four soldiers at a time. So the stools were not used for that purpose. OSHA did not come into existence until many years after 1948. Those barracks were the old wooden barracks built during WWII. One of the WWII barracks, and a mess hall and an orderly room have been preserved at Fort Leonard Wood. A photo of the historic WWII barrack latrine at Fort Leonard Wood showing both the split seats and the trough for urination can be viewed at: www.flickr.com/photos/army_arch/3791293583/ Leviathanlover (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick Google search about split toilet seats to verify my beliefs, but there appears to be quite a debate about why there is a split in the seats. I am quite convinced that they are there for sanitary reasons that have nothing to do with male urination on the seat! The split was put there to keep both male and female genitalia from being able to touch the same places on the seat. It has nothing to do with urine dribble, or helping the janitors keep the bathroom cleaner. Some municipalities actually require (or have required in the past) that split seat be installed for sanitary reasons citing reducing the possibility of spreading disease. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahWes (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]