Put the Seat DOWN

5/12/25

At first glance, it seems counterintuitive: all the criticism from females that “men always forget to put the seat DOWN.” Men get labeled as a second-class gender, an inconsiderate species because they don’t put the seat DOWN after they finish their business. But what about the alternative? What if men always forgot to put the seat UP before taking a piss? What if that’s what they were known for instead? What if they just unzipped their fly and let it fly, regardless of resting seat position? What if they just waterblasted the U-ring with their unwieldy piss stream? What if the seat always got a fresh coat of yellow paint? Now that seat, that version of Reality would be pretty disgusting. That seat-related outcome would be an abomination. That seat would be a repulsive throne for either gender to sit on. After all, let us not forget that men also squat on the seat when they’re dealt (back)pocket deuces. Thus, inadvertently leaving the seat UP after finishing their business doesn’t appear to be the worst case scenario for all parties involved. So, what’s all the fuss about? Why do women seem more concerned about the seat’s final resting place than protecting themselves against an unanticipated shower bath of golden proportions? Shouldn’t they be more concerned about an unmanned exclusively-manned drone relentlessly raining urine DOWN from the heavens? Men are known to have imprecise aim. So, if this firing UPon the seat DOWN mission were to happen, then the entire bathroom would be covered in shrapnel. Collateral damage inflicted on any follow-UP patrons. This mental lapse guarantees a catastrophe. Collateral damage becoming inevitable. Unless the waste-releaser has the accuracy of a sharpshooting Chris Kyle, leaving the seat DOWN spells moist trouble for females (and any squatting males). So, why are women so insistent on getting us men to put the seat DOWN? This question is the basis of our scientifically-driven exploration.

Well, the TL;DR answer is this: because they don’t trust their own spatial awareness. Because they have a fear that’s far, far worse than sitting on a piss-covered seat. And that fear is falling in the toilet. They’re afraid to fall in. They’re afraid to fall. Kerplunk!!! A** meet toilet water. You’re gonna be stuck here for a minute. You’re gonna wish you had one of those LifeAlert necklaces that I’m convinced was never a real business because I’ve never actually seen someone wear that Safety First jewelry in public or private. I’m convinced that whole enterprise was created simply to fill afternoon slots on the infomercial channels. Remember when that was a thing? Channels?!? When we didn’t have access to a library of every movie ever made? Rather than picking the precise TV show and the exact episode that we want to watch, we had 3 options for entertainment before taking a nap on our stay-home-from-school sick day: 1) watching game shows, 2) watching 1 of 5 movies that TBS has bought the rights to in perpetuity, but the film must be “enjoyed” alongside commercials every 15 minutes so that just when you’re getting into the plot and beginning to escape the suffering of your illness, you get notified that Taco Bell is running a 2-for-1 chalUPa deal, and 3) infomercials. There’s all this talk of the youngest generation having a short attention span. But there’s another sneaky culprit lurking in the dark: the youngest generation’s undeveloped trait of delayed gratification. Sure, I would have preferred to binge 2 seasons of Saved by The Bell while I was stuck at home and ill on the couch. But no! I wasn’t afforded that luxury. I got to watch 1 episode. Then, I’d have to wait until tomorrow. If I fell asleep during that 1 episode (which carried about a 25% chance, because again, I’m sick), then I’d be  sh*t-outta-luck. SOL. I’d just have to wait til tomorrow. Nowadays, with 2 swipes and 3 taps, those rascals can be lost in whatever world they want after summoning it to the projector screen of their very own iPad. 2 swipes and 3 taps. Can hardly classify that as having to “work for it”. They don’t even have to drag their sickly body to the couch. They can just watch in bed. Endless possibilities afforded to them. Infinite options that they don’t even know to be grateful for. But alas, I’m 95% certain that the prior generation would say something similar about mine. “Back in my day, we didn’t even have a clicker! (Side note: “clicker” or “remote”?) We had to walk UP to the television set, crank the knob twice, then kick the box 3 times just to change the channel! Nowadays, you kids have got it so easy with your fancy lil remotes!” Side note: I have to say, “remote” sounds more sophisticated but “clicker” carries such a delightful onomatopoeia-phonetic simplicity. Like “buzz” or “kerplunk”. Wait… kerplunk reminds me of something… oh yeah! I forgot to put the seat DOWN!!! At 3:22am, this is the most treacherous of situations for the seat to be in its full & UPright position. This situation very well could raise the probability of a seat-related accident from 2.44% to 2.47%, the same 0.03% swing of catastrophe when the renegade in the row next to you begins texting during your flight’s landing procedures. Statistically significant? Worthy of blame if an accident did in fact happen? If an airline pilot crashed a plane, are we sure that the bloke who was sitting in Seat 24A deserves the blame? Even if he did text his girlfriend, “Landing in 5 minutes!!! Can’t wait to see you babe :)” when the flight attendant specially instructed everyone to keep their phones on Airplane Mode. Are we sure that he’s the one who deserves the blame as this feat of modern engineering was sent hurtling into the Potomac? After all, he was just trying to get back into his Mrs.’s good graces after he left the seat UP the night before he left for his business trip. He was still feeling the sting of the shame when she absolutely berated him the next morning on his way out the door. The way she questioned his moral character, this minor infraction seemed to threaten the sanctity of their relationship: “How fhe f**k could you leave the seat UP!!! Didn’t anybody ever teach you not to be a Neanderthal?!? Clearly you don’t care about me. If you did, you would think about me every single time you go to take a piss. I don’t care that you pee 12 times per day because of your Tight Bladder Syndrome (TBS), I want to be top of mind for you every single time urine begins to flow out of your pen15. If you make another mistake, then that’s it. It’s over! I’m ending it! I just can’t take it anymore. Last night, I almost fell in.” Whoop! There it is!!! The real reason behind the female’s shame infliction. Hiding in plain sight. But buried in her tirade’s last line. “I almost fell in.” As we’ll observe here, the female stabs her shame sword into the heart of the male’s moral character in order to coerce him into changing his lid-lifting behavior. Because, when he was a bachelor or when he simply lived (and lived simply) with other men, the onus was placed on the toilet bowler to put the seat in its proper position, depending on his about-to-be-flowing action. If it were a #1, then it ought to stay UP to prevent his uncontrolled sprayage from translating into residual drippage. If they were about to drop a #2, then it’d be best to put the seat DOWN so that it could be sat UPon. Inhabitants of this humble all-male abode never had their character questioned on the basis of their post-session seat position. Each bathroom goer simply took responsibility for their relative seat position decision. “Do I want the seat UP or DOWN based on what I’m about to be doing?” (Or “hopefully doing” if the user was confronting that all-too-harrowing case of constipation.) If one of these lads fell into the toilet after a lapse in spatial awareness, then this blunder would be on him. The percentage blame that could be assigned to the previous porcelain patron would hover at ~0.03%. And even then, that might be generous. Instead, the now-soggy-bottomed bloke would be the bearer of the responsibility. His intention was to have his bum meet the seat. But instead, his booty met the bowl. So, this unintentional swim in the polluted ocean of his own waste became his own mess to clean up. Like the BP oil spill, if you will. Well, nevermind, I guess that doesn’t apply here. BP got government-bailed-out of their blunder. But our private parts polluter didn’t become a whistleblower on the previous toilet bowler. The blame didn’t rest anywhere but on his own shoulders booty. But not our timid traveler, he’s decided to carry-on the shame that his partner packed for him since this business trip departure. He’s wearing that shame like a Badge of Blame. Now, he does all of his business exclusively in Men’s Only bathrooms. He’s not sexist. He just fears the possibility of being yelled at by another female follower. “For goodness sake!!! Who didn’t put the seat DOWN?!?” He’s unsure whether he can withstand another knife wound cutting into his moral character. So, he’s been ingesting laxatives for the past 24 hours in hopes of clearing out his bowels until his next work trip. He’s also been slurping DOWN gallons UPon gallons of water in the hopes of creating a state of preemptive hydration storage, like a desert camel. Because once he returns home from this work trip, he’s resolved to not use his shared home bathroom anymore. He doesn’t want to risk the verbal abuse from his lover for leaving the seat UP again. So, he’s doing his best to clear out his system in these exclusively, low-maintenance male public restrooms. These stalls carry not expectations. Seat UP or seat DOWN? Doesn’t matter one way or the other. Nobody in these stalls really gives a sh*t. Although, if the seat was left DOWN there’s a chance it’s covered in piss. The only real drag (on the pipes) is if the prior patient didn’t flush the toilet. That’s becomes a real bummer real quick. Because this act of negligence increases the likelihood of cloggage from 12% to 35%. And there is a 95% confidence interval that this 23% delta is statistically significant. So, who is responsible for the relative seat position? Is it the task of the previous waste excreter to anticipate the needs of the following patron? Should they be doing the math, running the numbers, calculating the probabilities? If it’s a female, then there’s a 100% chance that they’ll prefer the seat DOWN. If it’s a male, then there’s a ~30% chance they want the seat DOWN (when considering the relative frequency of #1 vs #2 and assuming that the bathroom in question does not present the option of a urinal, the presence of which would solve this whole dilemma from the beginning). So, if the population of possible attendees is evenly split at 50% each (matching the rough gender split of the entire populous), then the probability that the next user will want the seat UP is 35%. Peer reviewers ought to check my math but I got there by multiplying (Probability Male) * (Probability It’s A Pee) = 50% * 70% = 35%. There’s all sorts of assumptions buried in this calculation. This assumes there’s exactly 1 bathroom and it’s shared exclusively by 1 male and 1 female. Obviously not always the case. This assumes that the male and female frequent said bathroom at the same rate. Also not always the case (especially if one of the bathroom goers has been munching laxatives like they’re gummy vitamins or drinking gallons of water for preemptive hydration purposes or if one of the patrons suffers from TBS). Also, the #1 vs #2 split is entirely illustrative. I won’t pretend that the 70:30 pee:poo ratio has been empirically proven. Feel free to adjust according to your own anecdotal observations. But regardless, the 35% result and the entire case study itself prompts an interesting question: “Should the male in question be solving for what’s in his best interest or in the best interest of the collective?” Because the 35% probability of the next bathroom goer desiring a seat DOWN position takes into account the needs of the female. If the male were entirely self-interested, then he would only care about the 70% chance that his next waste disposal will be liquid. And yet, if the male wanted to consider the needs of all stakeholders in this shared resource, then he would look at the 35% figure. The assumptions are the same. The calculations are the same. And yet, the statistics guide this male to two completely different actions depending on his peespective. His analysis of what to do with the seat after he’s done with his business starts & ends with the question: “What is he solving for? Optimizing for his own self-interest or optimizing for the interests of the collective?” For what it’s worth, the male in question might also be solving for something other than anticipating the needs of the next patron. He might be solving for minimizing his work output. If he wanted to minimize the number of times the seat moved over its useful life, then he’d never move the seat in anticipation of the next patron. Because if he just took a piss (presumably with the seat UP), and then he put the seat DOWN (as a courtesy to his female spouse), but then he was the next attendee in the bathroom and he needed to pee, then he’d have to move the seat UP once again. That would lead to 2 sUPerfluous movements of the lid (DOWN after pee #1 and UP before pee #2). From this peespective, trying to anticipate the needs of the next patron introduces unnecessary waste into the system (sh*tty pun intended). Because if the female entered after the male’s pee #1 and the seat was left lazily (or, quite thoughtfully) UP, then she would make 1 movement to put it to the DOWN position to do her business. Then, if she left the seat DOWN (notice how there’s no expectation that females anticipate the needs of her partner patron), and the male returned for pee #2, then he would move the seat UP again. This would mean that there were 2 movements of the seat for the male to take both of his pees and the female to do her business (assuming that she went pee too, since girls don’t poop). This is the same number of movements that would have occurred if the male accurately anticipated this sequence of events (putting the seat DOWN after pee #1 and putting the seat UP before pee #2). However, as discussed, this anticipatory approach also creates the possibility for actions to be wasted. SUPerfluous seat movements. So, if the male decided that he was solving for minimizing waste, then he would leave the seat where it is after finishing his business. Moving the seat to the desired position would become the responsibility of the patron who was about to greet the porcelain. When running the numbers, the bathroom goer might also consider minimizing the risk of an emergency situation. If the female (or a male preparing to dropoff the kids at the pool) goes to sit DOWN on a toilet seat that’s been left in the UP position, then there is ~15% probability that they’ll get accidentally stuck. Nowadays, the latest generation tends to bring their phone into the bathroom. So, if the person who fell in is a Toilet Scroller, then they have a 97% chance of being able to call their own ambulance (the 3% delta is for all those who got swindled into switching to T-Mobile and don’t have service on their homefield toilet bowl). The Boomers have the habit of bringing the newspaper with them to the bathroom, so they’re SOL if they go down. That said, ~62% of Medicare Advantage members wear LifeAlert lanyards around their necks (according to the infomercial). However, there’s also a 78% probability that LifeAlert is a completely fictitious company (judging by my own anecdotal observations that I’ve never seen this injury-prevention jewlery out in the wild). So, when weighing the risk of a tumble into the toilet ending in death, the analysis must consider (Probability Getting Stuck) * (Probability NOT Toilet Scroller OR NOT LifeAlert Customer AND LifeAlert Real Company) * (Probability of Pissed Off Partner Ignoring Them Because Partner Is Pissed That They Left The Seat UP Which Led To Falling In And Getting Covered In Piss). The calculus seems quite complicated and bending statistics to fit my narrative math was never really my best subject… But hey! Would you look at that! The sun is coming UP and I’ve got head to the bathroom myself! Saved by the Bell! So that’ll be all for now. However, it feels as though this research project has only scratched the surface of the “Seat UP or DOWN” question. Further exploration is needed into whether residual smell or irrevocable stainage is a significant factor in the UP or DOWN determination, especially if a full-lid cover is present. Follow-UP research might also consider key situational characteristics, such as whether participant is visiting the home of the relative(s) who raised him or the in-law(s) he’s attempting to impress. All that to say, this study has proven far more complicated than initially anticipated. Additional grant funding will be of the utmost importance. So, for now, don’t let your spouse or relatives convince you that putting the seat DOWN is a matter of indisputable etiquette. The statistics suggest that there’s a lot more to consider. And, as the bathroom goer, one must ultimately answer life’s most challenging question: “What are you solving for?” But, until this whole conundrum is concluded, it’s in everyone’s best interest that you approach the potty with your very own spatial awareness. Avoid getting stuck. Open your eyes. Look UP from your phone as you walk into the bathroom. And if you’re reading this as you’re about to sit DOWN, then know that you’re risking — kerplunk!