Talk:Toilet seat/Archive 1

=Archive of Toilet seat cover=

Comment
Leaving "(colloquially called an ass-gasket)" as many younger people only know these covers by this name. In fact, I am 25 and had difficulty finding the proper name because I, among with others, thought that a toilet seat cover was one of those carpet looking covers that are sold in a kit of other carpet looking bath mats.

This is a reasonable request to leave the edit in place. I was respectful in my writing and followed the Wikipedia standards by adding contributing content to the article that may help others locate the history and background of these devices.

66.11.0.7 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep something as colloquial as this in the article, you'll have to find a reliable reference for it. Generally this slang is not something appropriate for an encyclopedia. -207.6.247.80 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

... https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=ass+gasket ... do these not count? Have you ever tried to find the name of these things when trying to fill a supply order from Cintas at work? Looking up toilet seat cover brings you to many results for lids or fabric decorative covers, but search for "Ass Gasket" and show it to your Cintas guy and be amazed at the strange names it comes up as under his order forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.0.7 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Saniter Mfg Section
This reads like an advertisement and does not sound neutral to me. While there must be better references this " [amazon category http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_hi_4?rh=n%3A16310091%2Cn%3A%2116310161%2Cn%3A317971011%2Cn%3A3310293011%2Cn%3A3310300011] " lists other manufacturers as higher in sales rank. Saniter is hardly "one of the only manufacturers". Grantbow (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. I've duly tagged the article.  Unfortunately, I am just not an expert in this field.  We'll have to wait for an expert to come along.  Qworty (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

=Archive of Toilet seat=

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)
 * 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)

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

I agree! when i sit on an open front seat i have to be very careful to keep my legs from touching the porcelain bowl surface AND the possible urine that has dripped on it. With a round/closed seat most men will lift it when urinating so if they drip on the porcelain i don't have to be concerned. i don't get the open front at all! 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)66.121.52.2 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In the new strictly unisex bathrooms, urine is always on the porcelain rim, between the splits, and on the floor. When women pull down their clothing to mid thigh and sit down, the rim area is exactly lined up with their clothing, the inside surface of their underwear. This is extremely disturbing. Alternatively, if they lower their clothing farther down their legs, they risk dragging their pant legs in the urine on the floor.Quasicon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

== Seat up or down =+

Toilet seat has a LID, if you do not close the lid - it is not a back rest it is a LID. You can drop things in pile of shit. That's why toilets have a LID, and it wise to close it when not using it to shit or piss. I am MALE, and do not care about sexes, female or male, things drop in toilet if not closed, close f*in lid when not in use. EOD.

protip; if you find toilet LID open, drop personal item (Toothbrush) in piss-water. only than will they learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.77.179 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.179.150 (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I don't know why this article does not go into it. The split toilet seats are mostly North American. Ditto for black toilet seats. In most countries, the standard round white toilet seats that are found in homes are found in public washrooms too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.107.171 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that too. This is very USA/Canada-centric. I have been all over Europe, the Middle East, Australia, and Latin America, and most toilet seats are white and not split. Stedrick (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Separation between the toilet seat and the water in the bowl
This seems to be an item you missed. If the separation is too small, a male user may be subjected to the indignity of his genitals coming into contact with the water in the bowl. There are also possible sanitary concerns when this happens. I have been searching various plumbing standards to see if this is mentioned - no luck so far.

Kpeal (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This IS a problem when a female reaches down to wipe themselves, front to back. Suddenly we find our hand dragging through contaminated water.Quasicon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Solve the Debate!
What if you never put the seat up in the first place? That would solve the seat up/down debate. 108.71.120.95 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not raising the seat is for young men with a good stream, not too tall. Many men cannot easily hit the water without missing the seat or rim, or floor.Quasicon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)