Toilet seat Debate - What logical fallacies are used?

[Dooey Jo]

If one would have such a silly rule, it would presumably be to minimize effort (although I hear that if you think it takes effort to move the toilet lid you should probably work out more often). Let's examine the different toilet use possibilities in a household with one male and one female:

Man, peeing; seat up; frequency: 3
Woman, peeing; seat down; frequency: 3 (maybe higher, in my experience)
Man, shitting; seat down; frequency: 1
Woman, shitting; seat down; frequency: 1
Man, puking; seat down; frequency: 0.001
Woman, puking; seat down; frequency: 0.001

So in other words there is just a 37% chance that the seat should be down to accommodate its user, so having the seat down as the rule will ensure that less effort is expended. It should be noted, however, that this effort will be on the part of the male all of the time, so in the name of fairness, the female can put the seat up sometimes.
Question for the reader: Calculate how often the female should put the seat up to make it fair.

[Broomstick]

In our household, we do not have a "seat up" or "seat down" rule. To make such a rule in the first place is stupid because it might lead someone to think he or she can actually assume the state of the toilet seat without bothering to check. The rule in our house is "it could be up, it could be down, so you should look before you sit on it."

That is YOUR house. Other houses have, as you put it, "stupid rules". I could well agree that they are stupid, nonetheless, people have them.

Certainly, when I lived alone the seat was always down. In all female house there might, indeed, be a rule, that the seat is always down. I have been in households where, prior to using the toilet, I've been told there is a house rule and as a guest I complied no matter what my opinion was because it wasn't my house.

Now, there are several ways to solve this conundrum. You could go by majority gender - in a household that has a majority of males they choose the default toilet seat setting, and in a household of females they choose the default. You could go with "equal inconvenience" and leave everything - seat and lid - down all the time so at least everyone would know what starting position the toilet is in. If Saturday morning hangovers are common leaving everything up might make sense from the standpoint of ease of clean up.

Sorry, but making a rule in the first place is an invitation not to check every time, which is foolish.

Yes, Mike, we realize that your answer to the "conundrum".

Generally, the only time I get caught not checking the seat is when I'm stumbling to take a piss in the middle of the night half awake and thus with a brain that's not functioning at a high level. If I have my glasses off it's even worse, as without them I can't see well enough to make a determination on the seat. Then I might get really stupid and not turn the lights on so as not to disturb others, so I'm trundling along blind, in the dark, and a good portion of my brain off-line. Yeah, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Fully awake, though, yeah, I'm much less likely to do something stupid, or rather, fail to do something intelligent.

Women never have to aim therefore we need not look at all.

Yes you do, to make sure the seat is down. I also have to wonder what kind of person stumbles backward toward a toilet. Don't you walk toward the damned thing at some point? Do you actually back up into the bathroom and then flop blindly onto the seat?

Mike, you can walk towards it without paying attention. People are horribly inattentive creatures. Particularly when they're in a hurry, making assumptions, or their experience with something has a default setting.

I agree, it can be a very stupid, foolish thing to do. People are often stupid and foolish. As stupid, foolish things go sitting in toilet bowls is pretty minor compared to say, driving drunk without a seatbelt on, or smoking, or any number of things. That is, of course, why sitting in toilet bowls is so embarrassing and mortifying. Some people, instead of becoming less stupid and foolish, try to protect themselves by instituting rules that let them be stupid and foolish without consequence.

Frankly, this whole argument is childish and it's only applicable to people who have never had kids anyway. Once you have kids, you would not even dream of having such a tightly controlled household that you could seriously expect consistent compliance with rules like this.

Well, not everyone has kids, either, or is going to.

[LaCroix]

On the "falling in" myth.

Yes, most european would think it to be a myth to actually sit in the water.

European style toilets are completely different to the bath tubs used on the american continent. Those things are huge! European toilets contain only half a litre of water in the s-pipe, and we use as much water for flushing as a american standard has constantly in it. No wonder that Toronto offers you 60$ if you replace your toilet with a more efficent one (whatever this might mean...)

They also have that water at least 10 or more cm below the rim and the circumference is much smaller. So if you sit down with the seat up, you will be sitting on the toilet itself, which has about the diameter of the actual seat. To actually fall in is hard to do.

So, it is basically impossible to sit in water in a european toilet, while I found it very difficult to keep my stuff from hanging down into the water over in Canada. There are just centimetres between buttcheeks and waterline, very unsettling. Also, the sheer volume of water going down the drain while flushing makes me feel like I just have clubbed a baby seal.

But on the actual topic, women here say its unhygienic to leave it up, since that requires you to touch it, and come in contact with the eventually 'sprayed' underside. (Of course, ignoring the argument that when it is up, the underside can't get sprayed on.) So, same war, different reasons.

[Darth Wong]

Let me get this straight: you are contradicting my experiences as a parent by calling upon your experiences as a dipshit babysitter?

Here's a fucking idea: do your goddamned job and supervise the kid. When they're so small and helpless that they can't even pull down a toilet seat, you should accompany them to the bathroom anyway. That's what I did with my kids. Hell, when they're that small they shouldn't be sitting on a full-size toilet anyway, because they can fall in. That's why they sell special toilet-seat rings that you put on the seat for the kid: another reason why you always accompany kids to the bathroom at that age.

[Korvan]

There's an interesting parallel to this argument in computer programming. In of of the programming languages there's a function that lets you parse text by isolating individual words. It identifies words by the spaces between them, but by changing a global variable you can also break down text using say dashes or periods as separators. For instance, if you wanted to parse an web address like bbs.stardestroyer.net you'd use a period rather than a space for the separator.

The argument is over whether or not a programmer should set the global variable back to space if he has changed it to something else given that the majority of the time text would be parsed using spaces. Now a real good point is you can never assume a global variable holds a specific value as anything in the program can change that variable so you either need to check the value before hand, or just change it to the desired value directly before using it.

The general consensus is that while it is considerate to set the variable back to the default value, it is still your responsibility to check or set the variable before using it.

Regarding the toilet issue, in my house while the general policy is to keep both lid and seat down, the state of the toilets is usually completely random. Some will be up, others down.

[ArmorPierce]

Here is a point that has not yet been raised here: aerosol contamination of other bathroom surfaces from flushing.

AIMS: To determine the level of aerosol formation and fallout within a toilet cubicle after flushing a toilet contaminated with indicator organisms at levels required to mimic pathogen shedding during infectious diarrhoea.

...Micro-organisms in the air were at the highest level immediately after the first flush (mean values, 1370 CFU m(-3) for Serratia and 2420 PFU m(-3) for MS2 page). Sequential flushing resulted in further distribution of micro-organisms into the air although the numbers declined after each flush. Serratia adhering to the sidewalls, as well as free-floating organisms in the toilet water, were responsible for the formation of bacterial aerosols.

Now, a toilet seat and lid are not airtight barriers and therefore one should expect some distribution of aerosolized bacteria regardless. However, a closed toilet lid ought to significantly alter the distribution of those bacteria by blocking the majority of the possible paths out of the bowl. And if you're going to close the lid to try and dampen the spread of bacteria, why put it back up afterward?

a show from myth busters seemed to demonstrate that it didn't matter whether the toilet seat was up or not, the bacteria and shit got everywhere regardless.

As for women sitting without looking because they don't need to look, why would they sit their ass down without looking to see if their's any piss or shit on the toilet seat first?

The 2nd reason is why the hell does anyone put the damn lid up in the first place? In nearly 30 years of peeing standing up I've only accidentally hit the lid a grand total of three times, so why even bother to put the lid up at all. If laziness was really the issue the lid should stay down permanently as there is never any reason to lift it up in the first place. (unless you have issues with your eyesight/motor control that prevent you from aiming properly)

I find it hard to believe that you rarely have issue of stray sprays or drippage. The only way I can somewhat guarantee not hitting the seat is contorting in a odd position and hovering directly above the bowl and even then you can get the stray spray when you start.

[Stark]

On the "falling in" myth.

Yes, most european would think it to be a myth to actually sit in the water.

European style toilets are completely different to the bath tubs used on the american continent. Those things are huge! European toilets contain only half a litre of water in the s-pipe, and we use as much water for flushing as a american standard has constantly in it. No wonder that Toronto offers you 60$ if you replace your toilet with a more efficent one (whatever this might mean...)

I see! I had wondered if Broomstick was simply made of twigs, because even a size 6 teenage girl would struggle to squeeze her ass down the bowl far enough to touch the water in my toilet. I'm a skinny guy and my ass is too wide to even fit between the rim.

It amuses me to think that Americans basically shit in bathtubs full of water. I wonder what shit splashing against your ass feels like? Now I understand the fear of falling in, but I don't understand why this means people don't pay more attention.

[Broomstick]

It amuses me to think that Americans basically shit in bathtubs full of water.

New toilets can only use a maximum of 1.6 gallons per flush (about 5-6 liters), and some models use even less. So we're slowly moving towards a more ecologically sound flush method. There is not requirement, however, to remove old toilets until they actually require replacement. So, for example, at the home I'm helping to rehab we had a "bathtub" toilet installed in 1946, when the house was built, but the one upstairs had a cracked tank and needed to be replaced, so it's a new one that only uses 1.6 gallons per flush.

I wonder what shit splashing against your ass feels like?

Not good. Mostly wet. Actually, since I usually don't expel shit with great force this is usually not a problem.

Now I understand the fear of falling in, but I don't understand why this means people don't pay more attention.

People are oblivious idiots.

[Sriad]

The obvious but horrible solution is for men to pee in the sink.

[Singular Intellect]

The obvious but horrible solution is for men to pee in the sink.

You might want to talk to Superman (the user) on that one.

[Terralthra]

From a game theory perspective, one would attempt to balance the number of toilet-seat-toggling actions between the people living in the household. I would repeat the analysis, but I remembered another one done by a game theorist a while ago.

The toilet seat problem has been the subject of much controversey. In this paper we consider a simplified model of the toilet seat problem. We shall show that for this model there is an inherent conflict of interest which can be resolved by a equity solution.

Consider a bathroom with one omnipurpose toilet (also known as a WC) which is used for two toilet operations which we shall designate as #1 and #2. The toilet has an attachment which we shall refer to as the seat (but see remark 1 below) which may be in either of two positions which we shall designate as up and down.

Toilet operations are performed by members of the human species (see remark 2 below) who fall into two categories, popularly designated as male and female. For convenience we shall use the name John to refer to the typical male and Marsha to refer to the typical female.

The performance of toilet operations by John and Marsha differ in a number of respects. The costs of these operations are peculiar to the respective sexes and are fixed except with respect to the position of the toilet seat. In particular:

Marsha performs toilet operations #1 and #2 with the seat in the down position. John performs toilet operation #1 with the seat in the up position and toilet operation #2 with the seat in the down position. If the seat is in the wrong position before performing the toilet operation the position must be changed at an average cost C. Optionally the position may be changed after performing the toilet operation, also at an average cost C. (Changing the position of the seat during the performance of a toilet operation is beyond the scope of this note and is definitely not recommended.)

Consider the scenario where John and Marsha each use a separate toilet. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that each minimizes the seat position transfer cost by not altering the seat position after performing a toilet operation.

For Marsha the seat position transfer cost is 0 since all operations are performed with the seat in the down position. For John the cost is greater than 0 since seat position transfers must be performed.

Let p be the probability that John will perform a #1 operation vs a #2 operation. Assume that John optimizes his seat position transfer cost (see remark 3 below.) Then it is easy to determine that John’s average cost of seat position transfer per toilet opeation is

B = 2p(1-p)C

where B is the bachelor cost of toilet seat position transfers per toilet operation.

Now let us consider the scenario where John and Marsha cohabit and both use the same toilet. In our analysis we shall assume that John and Marsha perform toilet operations with the same frequency (see remark 4 below) and that the order in which they perform them is random. They discover to their mutual displeasure that their cohabitation adversely alters the toilet seat position transfer cost function for each of them. What is more there is an inherent conflict of interest. Attempts to resolve the problem typically revolve around two strategies which we shall designate as J and M

Strategy J
Each person retains the default strategy that they used before cohabiting. This strategy is proposed by John with the argument “Why does it matter if the seat is up or down?”. As we see below this strategy benefits John.

Strategy M
Each person leaves the seat down. This strategy is proposed by Marsha with the argument “It ought to be down.” As we see below this strategy benefits Marsha.

Consequences of strategy J:
Under strategy J the toilet seat is is in the up position with probability p/2. The respective average cost of toilet seat transfer operations for John and Marsha are:

John: p(3/2-p)C
Marsha: pC/2

The incremental costs (difference between pre and post habitation costs) are:

John: ( p - 1/2)pC
Marsha: pC/2
Total: (p^2)C

John’s incremental cost would actually be negative if p were less than 1/2. This is not the case; p>1/2. Note that Marsha’s incremental cost is greater than John’s for p<1. Marsha objects.

Consequences of strategy M:
In strategy M the seat is always left down. When John performs operation #1 he lifts the seat before the operation and lowers it after the operation. The respective average cost of toilet seat transfer operations is:

John: 2pC
Marsha: 0

The incremental costs are:

John: 2(p^2)C
Marsha: 0
Total: 2(p^2)C

In these strategy Marsha bears no cost; all of the incremental costs are borne by John. John objects. Note also that the combined incremental cost of strategy M is greater than that of strategy J.

It is notable that John and Marsha each advocates a strategy that benefits them. This is predictable under game theory. However the conflict over strategies has a cost M in marital discord that is greater than the cumulative cost of toilet seat transfers. It behooves John and Marsha, therefore, to adopt a strategy that minimizes M.

This is not simple. A common reaction is to advance sundry arguments to justify adopting strategy M or J. All such arguments are suspect because they are self serving (and often accompanied with the “If you loved me” ploy.) A sound strategy is one that is equitable and is seen to be equitable. In this regard there are three candidate criteria:

(1) Minimize the joint total cost
(2) Equalize the respective total costs
(3) Equalize the respective incremental costs

The argument for (1) is that John and Marsha are now as one and it is the joint costs and benefits of the union that should be considered. This principle is not universally accepted. It is readily seen that (see remark 5) that the joint total cost is optimized by strategy J which has already been seen to be suspect.

Criterion (2) seems plausible. It requires, however, that Marsha put the seat in the up position after performing a toilet operation some percentage of the time. No instance of this behaviour has ever been observed in recorded history; ergo this criterion can be ruled out. (But see remark 6.)

Criterion (3) argues that the mututal increased cost of toilet seat operations should be shared equitably, i.e., neither party should bear a disproportionate share of the costs of cohabitation. A short calculation reveals that criterion (3) can be achieved if John leaves the seat up after performing toilet operation #1 with a frequency

f = (2p-1)/p

Since the value of p is seldom precisely measured and is variable in any event it suffices to use an approximate value of f. If we assume that p=2/3 then f=1/2. This suggests the following convenient rule of thumb:

In the morning John leaves the seat up after performing #1.
In the evening he puts it down.

This rule may not be precise but it is simple and approximately equitable; moreover the use of a definite rule sets expectations. The seat is put down in the evening to avoid the notorious “middle of the night surprise”.

I expect that this analysis should settle the toilet seat controversey for once and for all - if John and Marsha are mathematicians.

* * *

Remark 1: The toilet has an additional attachment called the toilet seat lid which can only be down if the toilet seat is down. When the lid is down the toilet is (or should be) non-functional for toilet operations. Some persons maintain the toilet seat lid in the down position when the toilet is not use. For these persons the analysis in this note is moot. Such persons pay a fixed cost in seat movement for all toilet operations.

Remark 2: Toilets are also used by domestic animals as a convenient source of drinking water unless the lid is down. (See remark 1)

Remark 3: Experimental evidence suggests that almost all bachelors optimize the seat transfer cost, the exception being those who put the seat up after performing a #2 operation.

Remark 4: Folklore has it that Marsha performs more toilet operations than John, hypothetically because of a smaller bladder. John, however, drinks more beer. We shall not discuss his prostate problem.

Remark 5: “Readily seen” in this context means “It looks obvious but I don’t know how to prove it; you figure it out.”

Remark 6: The toilet lid solution is to put the toilet lid down after all toilet operations. This solution imposes a cost of 2C on each party and is accordingly more expensive. It is, however, more esthetic. It also eliminates the “doggy drinking” problem.

[ArmorPierce]

It amuses me to think that Americans basically shit in bathtubs full of water. I wonder what shit splashing against your ass feels like? Now I understand the fear of falling in, but I don't understand why this means people don't pay more attention.

Well it would be water and most toilets the water level isn't high enough for that. Having experienced both types of toilets, I personally prefer American toilets.

[FSTargetDrone]

Well, I now know far more about the bathroom practices of people than I ever dared dream.

Out of habit, we keep the seat and the lid down. That prevents accidentally dropping things in, keeps pets out of the toilet and it really isn't a big deal.

In any case, there are dual-flush toilets available in the US and other countries that allow one to use more or less water for solid or liquid waste.

[aerius]

The solution is to have a man's washroom and a woman's washroom in every residence; the man room where the seat's up unless someone's shitting in it and the woman's room where the seat & lid's down and the toilet has a fluffy lid cover.

[Stark]

You mean a soltUion where nothing whatever is resolved?

[Adrian Laguna]

I like to leave the toilet in its lowest energy state for the reduction in accident probability. Granted this reduction is so marginal so as to be essentially irrelevant, but for many years I used a toilet with a broken hinge, which made it necessary to leave the seat down - the lid was stuck open - else it would almost certainly come crashing down a minute later. Also, my father taught me to leave (functioning) lids down to keep things from falling in.

Well, I now know far more about the bathroom practices of people than I ever dared dream.

This is SDN, there have been threads about penis length and ejaculation distance. Bathroom practices is nothing.

[Darth Wong]

It amuses me to think that Americans basically shit in bathtubs full of water. I wonder what shit splashing against your ass feels like? Now I understand the fear of falling in, but I don't understand why this means people don't pay more attention.

A lot of Americans have seriously fucked-up internal plumbing, and their shits alternate between "Holy shit what a mess" and "OMG it's been four days". There's a reason why "upset stomach" and laxative drugs are such big money makers. Just look at the shit they eat, like "corn dogs" and "chicken fried steak".

A low-water toilet doesn't work well for Americans because you never know what kind of an unholy mess they might leave in there.

[Aaron]

New toilets can only use a maximum of 1.6 gallons per flush (about 5-6 liters), and some models use even less. So we're slowly moving towards a more ecologically sound flush method. There is not requirement, however, to remove old toilets until they actually require replacement. So, for example, at the home I'm helping to rehab we had a "bathtub" toilet installed in 1946, when the house was built, but the one upstairs had a cracked tank and needed to be replaced, so it's a new one that only uses 1.6 gallons per flush.

Well you can also lower the amount of water in a "bathtub" toilet by adjusting the level of the float (I think that's what it's called. The rubber ball on a rod.) in the tank. I'm not sure if that makes it easier to clog the toilet but I've done it on several.

In the Kendall house, we keep the seat and lid down though because the cat likes to swat the water around.

[Broomstick]

Well you can also lower the amount of water in a "bathtub" toilet by adjusting the level of the float (I think that's what it's called. The rubber ball on a rod.) in the tank. I'm not sure if that makes it easier to clog the toilet but I've done it on several.

True. You can also put something in the tank to occupy some of the space that would otherwise be water. However, you do you reach a point of diminishing returns and you are unlikely to cut the flush volume down to 1.6 gallons. The older toilets are designed to flush with a lot of water and using less increases the chance of malfunction, clog, failure to fully flush, and so forth. You can reduce the water used, which is to the good, but not to the extent you'd get with a new low-flow toilet where the innards are designed to need less water to function.

[Civil War Man]

The solution is to have a man's washroom and a woman's washroom in every residence; the man room where the seat's up unless someone's shitting in it and the woman's room where the seat & lid's down and the toilet has a fluffy lid cover.

Technically the optimal solution would be to install a urinal in any bathroom the man frequents. That way, the man uses the urinal if he needs to pee and the toilet seat stays down 100% with no complaints.

I personally don't see why some guys make a big deal about it, though. It's not like moving the seat up, pissing, then putting the seat back down is a lot of work. If they really can't afford to spend the energy, they should either install a urinal or learn how to aim better.

[CaptainChewbacca]

What kind of barbarian pees standing up anyway? The whole issue is moot.

Uh... what kind of many only pees sitting down?

[Justforfun000]

What I keep thinking about is that men ALWAYS look before they piss or sit. It's naturally ingrained to check whether the seat and cover is up before you urinate, and naturally when we need to defecate, we look to see if the seat is down and if not, drop it.

The biggest contention here is that women NEVER use the toilet with the cover/seat up. They always sit down to do their business and if they are used to it being always down, they would naturally assume it is if they aren't paying attention. I gather it would be simplest to adopt the habit of completely closing the toilet after every use. Then everyone would have to lift the cover and adjust the seat as appropriate.

(mispelled a word..edited)

[CaptainChewbacca]

I have to keep my toilet closed because I have an accident-prone cat. Really, once I went into the bathroom and raised the lid, then he ran into the room and jumped INTO the toilet.

In this case, what gets me is the looking. Do women not look at the place they're going to sit on a regular basis? If you don't want to sit in water, can't one devote the extra 3 watts of brain energy it takes to note 'oh, the seat is up' ? I try to leave the toilet in a 'safe' situation, but it seems to me that just like you should never assume there's not a pair of scissors on a chair, you should never assume a toilet seat is down.

[Akkleptos]

Who sits IN water? Someone's toilet water level is WAAAAY too high. And getting your pants in it? Are you climbing in?

I'm a skinny guy and my ass is too wide to even fit between the rim.

It amuses me to think that Americans basically shit in bathtubs full of water. I wonder what shit splashing against your ass feels like? Now I understand the fear of falling in, but I don't understand why this means people don't pay more attention.

ITT we learn that Australia has heavy water-use regulations. They're encouraged to take one minute showers, and in some parts, IIRC, they have to take showers with buckets around them to catch unused water. How sad.

I have to keep my toilet closed because I have an accident-prone cat. Really, once I went into the bathroom and raised the lid, then he ran into the room and jumped INTO the toilet.

Regarding lids, and as CaptainChewbacca kindly explains, if you have animals, it's always wise to keep them down, for cats might fall into them and dogs will like to use them as fountains.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I have to keep my toilet closed because I have an accident-prone cat. Really, once I went into the bathroom and raised the lid, then he ran into the room and jumped INTO the toilet.

In this case, what gets me is the looking. Do women not look at the place they're going to sit on a regular basis? If you don't want to sit in water, can't one devote the extra 3 watts of brain energy it takes to note 'oh, the seat is up' ? I try to leave the toilet in a 'safe' situation, but it seems to me that just like you should never assume there's not a pair of scissors on a chair, you should never assume a toilet seat is down.

I agree with Chewie here. It's a basic, really basic safety tip. I don't care if women raised in 'women dominated' households are conditioned to expect the seat to be down all the time, this applies to much more than just toilet seats. If you don't look where you're going to place a part of your body, you run the risk of encountering something harmful and/or unpleasant and have no one to blame but yourself. Don't look where you're stepping and you might miss a step and roll your ankle, or step barefoot on broken glass, or accidentally tread on an irritable rattlesnake. Don't look where you sit and you might miss the chair, sit on a splinter, sit in a puddle of spilled mayonnaise or fail to realize the toilet-seat is up.

I check for far more than just the seat being up anyways. Public bathrooms or private, occasionally things get left on the seat that I'd much rather not sit in. Hairs, droplets of urine or worse. Really, arguing that you're conditioned not to check where you're sitting is like arguing you're conditioned to look away from whatever you're scooping into your mouth. Yeah, it does occasionally happen, but when you accidentally get a mouthful of lint, you really have no one to blame but yourself.