h a l f b a k e r yFutility is persistent.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Public toilets are disappearing at an alarming rate here in the UK, and those that do exist are usually only open for about two minutes every day (apparently nobody passes waste between the hours of 6pm and 8am). The two reasons almost universally cited for this unfortunate regression of service are:
1)
Lack of funding
2) Fear of people having sex
I submit that dedicated public sex toll-cubicles can solve both of these problems at once.
I always find it strange that people should have an objection to sex in public toilets, with the main reason cited by complainants being the length of time it can take to have sex, causing public inconvenience to those waiting to use the facility. But this strikes me as bizarre: what is the normal course of action when demand for a service is high? Usually, an increased level of service is offered: Parking lot always full? Build a multi-storey car park. People buying lots of milk? Stock more milk. Buses always full? Lay on more buses. Toilets always full? ... Build more toilets!
But all these extra toilets are going to cost money, of course, which is where the "toll" aspect comes in. Whereas people are loathe to pay a mere 20p to use a public toilet for a tinkle, most would not hesitate to pay £1, £2 or more for ten or so minutes of privacy to enjoy another person's company. Not only would the sex cubicles pay for themselves, but would also allow renovation of existing toilets and perhaps raise enough funding to prevent our nation's bogs swirling down the crapper.
Segregating the cubicles by function, as already occurs with the segregation of urinals, toilets and basins, would be a way to ensure that more urgent bodily functions are prioritised. Segregation of the sex cubicles could also prevent sexual noise-pollution and avoid the resulting awkward questions from curious youngsters.
The main barrier to this, in the UK at least, is the legacy of prudishness which still haunts us even a century after the death of history's greatest prude, Queen Victoria. Even as recently as this decade, NEW legislation has been introduced here to specifically outlaw sex in public toilets, even in locked cubicles.
This would therefore only be plausible in toilets provided by the private sector ("private" toilets), or in more sexually mature countries such as in the neighbouring Germanic and Romance nations.
writ luxurious
http://www.links.ne.../lodging/lovehotel/
love hotels [Voice, Jan 15 2011]
[link]
|
| |
For two quid? How cheap do you think I am ? |
|
| |
Surely this and other functions of a public toilet are
performed by Travelodge? |
|
| |
// performed by Travelodge // |
|
| |
What, screwing the end user for an extortionate fee and delivering an unacceptably sub-standard service ? |
|
| |
We think you are confsing them with the British Airports Authority. |
|
| |
I always assumed they were synonymous. |
|
| |
Perhaps a second person could join you, Ian. |
|
| |
// performed by Travelodge // |
|
| |
Travelodges of course do not offer by-the-minute booking and are not as widely distributed as public conveniences, making them very poor value for money and comparatively inconvenient. |
|
| |
Furthermore, neither travelodges nor inner city love hotels donate their profits to local councils, so this approach would not fund and preserve the utility of public conveniences. |
|
| |
//What kind of pervert do you think I am?// |
|
| |
// What kind of pervert do you think I am? // |
|
| |
The sort of seedy, amoral gannex-mac-wearing degenrate who hangs around public places at twilight, attempting to pervert and disgust youngsters of all three genders and draw them into your sad, sick life of depravity and corruption. |
|
| |
Why, have we missed something ? Oh yes. domestic and domesticated amimals. Them too. |
|
| |
// this approach would not fund and preserve the utility of public conveniences // |
|
| |
It would, however, facilitate the secure and effective installation of multiple pay-per-view webcams. What's not to like ? |
|
| |
[8th_of_7] That's reportedly Chatroulette's new business
model. So, kudos for a very practical idea (unless it was a
joke, in which case, demerits for truth stranger than fiction). |
|
| |
//Public toilets are disappearing at an alarming rate\\ |
|
| |
Q: Public toilet is running fast. Man with trousers on knees is following and just can't catch it. |
|
| |
So your problem was you were trying to find a place to take a dump at night, but the public toilets were closed because people have sex in them? |
|
| |
So your solution is public sex cubes so the public toilets can stay open at night. |
|
| |
Hmmm... well people might not want to use it because of embarrassment. |
|
| |
How about having two unisex toilet, that have an extra door in the back of each, that leads to a shared sexytime room. |
|
| |
Toilet is free, however to reach the back, both participants needs to lock the toilet, and insert money into a slot. |
|
| |
This can be expanded by adding more unisex toilet to the same sexytime room, so you can have a tri, or a gang! |
|
| |
[AM] we are making progress, but if you lock the toilet door then it remains unavailable for peeing and pooing while you are romping. Really, when you pay to go through the second door, the outer cubicle door should automatically unlatch and show "vacant". |
|
| |
My understanding of the "sex in public toilets" scene is that
1. It is mostly a male homosexual scene (though I understand there may be exceptions in the toilets of nightclubs)
2. There is already nothing to stop gay couples from getting a room in a hotel, except that
3. They may be "in the closet" and not want to be seen anywhere without a "cover story" and, in any case, they might like the frisson of risk and randomness associated with public-toilet sex. |
|
| |
So, basically, the only people who would use these cubes would be those who would generally be using hotels or other venues in any case, so they would not contribute to the un-clogging, so to speak, of public toilets. |
|
| |
P.S. In case you're wondering, my only direct experience of this scene took the form of an unwelcome proposition once, when I was a lot younger and less ugly than I am now, and just wanted to use the toilet. |
|
| |
P.P.S. I am not Queen Victoria, but I am disturbed by the image of [Idris83] as a young man who feels the need to blame Queen Victoria for people not wanting to see his penis. He might like to give some more thought to other possible reasons why they might not want this. |
|
| |
// I am not Queen Victoria // |
|
| |
Another illusion shattered .... life's just one disappointment after another .... |
|
| |
// I am disturbed by the image of [Idris83] as a young man who feels the need to blame Queen Victoria for people not wanting to see his penis. // |
|
| |
There was never a suggestion of penises being exposed in public areas or imposed on others - in fact, by offering a legitimate place for sex to occur in a private cubicle, I'd speculate that much of the impetus that drives people to expose themselves would be lost; especially if the sex cubicle area was segregated; this would probably be the most effective way of reducing unwanted attention in public toilets above any other approach: if you don't want it happening at the urinals, in parks and at truck stops, then move it somewhere else: into sex cubicles. |
|
| |
// There is already nothing to stop gay couples from getting a room in a hotel, except that // |
|
| |
If hotels were a solution, then there would *already* be no sex in toilets, no cruising in parks and woodland, and no (whether gay or straight) people having sex in dark alleys around the backs of nightclubs. I suspect these people do not use hotels because they are usually far away from where they are at the time, and they would have to pay £70 for a room for a whole night when all they want is a quick shag. I suspect a large number of these people would use private cubicles in public conveniences instead, if it were legal to do so. |
|
| |
// It is mostly a male homosexual scene // |
|
| |
This probably has a lot to do with gender segregation. I mentioned that neighbouring Germanic states would be a good place to try this idea - Sweden belonging to this set. In Sweden, unisex toilets are not unusual; that is, where men and women use stalls adjacent to one another, with shared wash basin areas (and no urinals). I don't know how this affects the demographics of cruising, or if sex is even prohibited in toilet cubicles in Sweden; but I expect the ratio of hetero : homo sex is probably more balanced there than it is here. |
|
| |
Sweden can be somewhat disconcerting to visitors from other localitles, not least because of their provision of mixed-gender saunas, which can be a source of surprise and embarrasment to travelles from more "staid" countries. |
|
| |
We're not saying that it's a bad thing per se, it would just have been nice to have some sort of warning. Useful hint: take a newspaper into the sauna with you. Even if you can't read Swedish, it gives you something to cover your emabrrasment. |
|
| |
//mixed-gender saunas// and mixed species, clearly. |
|
| |
Anyway, I'm sure the Borg have nothing to be ashamed of. At
least I've heard it's nothing. |
|
| |
Segregating the sex cubicles from the normal cubicle sounds sensible, but there should also be a combined option, for people who don't know whether they're coming or going. |
|
| |
Disappointed. When I saw the idea title I was thinking in terms of stock cubes not toilet cubicles. |
|
| |
I'm going to have to readjust my vacation plans. Sweden sounds fun! |
|
| |
A major university in Vancouver Canada has coed
washrooms and Showers! My ex-gf insisted nothing
ever happened in them though. |
|
| |
I keep reading this as "pubic sex cubes", and that
makes me think of lose hairs, squares, and
welllll...sex. |
|
| |
I am surprised with union, euros and all that the British do not now have those outdoor walls I found in France and Belgium, next to which one could urinate at any hour outside under the open sky. |
|
| |
Initially I understood these to be only certain designated walls but on watching the natives I learned that this was actually every wall, and also parked cars. |
|
| |
Walls (and cars) like these would solve the toilet problem, and perhaps a freeing of the mind similar in character but greater in scope also the sex venue problem. |
|
| |
Baked. I don't know if it's baked for hetro's, but I dropped a
friend of mine of at a club like this about a decade ago. |
|
| |
This is about private sex, not public sex. |
|
| |
Public sex cubes would have glass walls. |
|
| |
you can take a page out of the american public
restrooms book, and throw a condom machine in
there. much more appropriate in a booth actually
intended for sex. |
|
| |
I think that was why hippies lived in tents? |
|
| |