Gentlemen, it is with great displeasure that I must inform you that we’re doing it wrong.

  • Drinvictus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    115
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sitting is 10 times better. Easier to pee, no need to aim, no splash so you don’t fuck up the bathroom. But I’d use a urinal over any toilet when I’m outside because 1) it’s faster 2) I don’t want to sit down on a common toilet).

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you mean no need to aim? I hope you’re not just letting your dick rub against the toilet bowl while you pee.

        • Thisfox
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          American toilets are just weird. Why do they need to evacuate into an overful lake like that? Always seems so wasteful, putting 50 litres of water into each flush too.

          • DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The oval shape is so a penis doesn’t touch the seat/bowl when you sit.
            On round toilets, someone with a penis might need to touch the seat with their hands the whole time they are seated.

            • Thisfox
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They’re oval here too, but don’t require all that extra water, a lake in every flush. I think you mistead overfull? And I had never seen a real plunger in Australia, we don’t ever need them. Our toilets just work.

          • clutchmattic@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Eh. New toilets sold in places like California, Arizona (ie dry places) use such very little water that sometimes I need to flush twice to ensure the toilet doesn’t stink

          • heckypecky@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            American toilets use a different mechanism, a siphon sucks the water out while in Europe we just dump water into it and hope it flushes. Water usage is the same as far as I know.

            • Axiochus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Huh? European toilets also a siphon, that’s what maintains a barrier to the sewage line. Source: my siphon broke, it was not nice.

              • insomniac@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There are 2 types of toilets, siphonic and wash down. Wash down toilets don’t necessarily use less water but they are usually capable of 2 different volumes of flushing. There’s 2 buttons to flush, one uses more water than the other. The big flush is basically the same amount of water as a siphonic toilet but you have the option to use less water. Siphonic toilets don’t support 2 different flush sizes. If you have 2 different ways to flush, you have a wash down. Wash down toilets are also less prone to clogging.

                It’s not quite as cut and dry as American vs European since siphonic toilets do exist in Europe and wash down toilets have become a lot more popular in America.

                There were attempts to make siphonic toilets use less water but they were terrible. I have no idea if the rest of the world uses them but America has abandoned them in favor of wash down toilets. Other countries have standardized on wider drains (not sure how common this is) which might make them work better in other places. But I have no idea.

            • Thisfox
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Water usage per flush here in Australia is significantly lower. And yet the system is cleaner and more reliable. I had never even seen a plunger until my first US visit; We don’t need them here because our toilets work, unlike the huge American toilets which clog and require too much water.

              • Followupquestion@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Australia, IIRC, standardized on larger drain pipe sizes, so of course your toilets don’t clog. For some reason only some commercial buildings use the larger standard here. As for water usage, my toilet uses 1.3 gallons per flush, and they sell more expensive toilets that use much less but have a stronger pressure system. If/when this toilet breaks I’ll be getting one of those most likely.

        • sfgifz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s an American tradition, the setup in other countries don’t have that problem

    • RaivoKulli
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t want to pull down my pants and don’t want to have to do a sitdown and stand up for a pee. Those would be my cons.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      If all you touched was the outside of your outerpants and the waistband of your unders, there’s no need to wash your hands either!