Troll@219; it's a long long time since I've talked with you except here. it's pathetic you continuing to hang onto it. Move on. Stop stalking me. ps:get a life.

Bathrooms revisited:
BDF @ 216- as any janitor could tell you, the mess in the men’s rooms far exceeds that in the women’s.
Few drops here and there are nothing compared to what you may find there.
A sign in a co-ed room in a local bar asks men to aim better, following by, “Ladies, please remain seated till the show is over.”

Formerly known as nocute @ 217
“…he would have to raise the seat and there's no way he's going to touch the seat of a public toilet with his hands!”

I always raise it with the bottom or the side of my shoe, maintaining my balance on the other foot in the process.
Soccer and tai-chi have some hidden benefits.

I recall an amusing Penn & Teller episode which revealed (by doing swabs and analyzing them) that most people have more germs on their hands and faces than there are on the seat of public toilets.

Really: we touch things (objects, other people) all the time--with our hands. We hardly touch anything with our butts. It makes sense. Not that this changes how anyone feels about public toilets...although it might change how you feel about washing your own hands...

From The Forward's article on this column:

Stalag fiction was a genre of erotica, popular in Israel in the 1950s and early 1960s, that depicted often violent sexual encounters in concentration camps, generally between imprisoned Allied soldiers and female SS guards.

Read more: http://forward.com/the-assimilator/33835…

I hadn't known that!

Interesting Finchu. Thanks for that.

Hunter @219: To me, the words "dom" and "sub" imply some BDSM is going on. "Top" and "bottom" is just who takes control in vanilla sex. Who's on top.

CMD @222: When I was young I worked graveyard shift in a convenience store, so I was the lucky staff member who had to clean both the men's and women's toilets. I agree, the men made much more of a mess. Pee-yew. But do you think they'd be better behaved if they knew women were judging their bathroom manners?

I agree, seems easy enough to lift a toilet seat with your foot. You can brace against the side of the stall if your balance is bad. Lots of women flush with their feet, depending on the toilet configuration. If that's possible, so is lifting the seat.

Fichu @ 224
Such literature could still be found there some 30-40 years ago. I don’t think it was an exclusive Israeli experience as most seemed to be translated from different European countries.
The covers I saw (which of course I never, ever, ever read) depicted the lesbian kind.

BDF @ 226
I think some men will certainly make an effort, but not all.
The idea of a co-ed bathroom needs to be introduced in an early age in order for it to work.

I also flush with my foot, but did attribute this behavior to my male side. And speaking off: did you watch the Yids flushing Man U on Sunday?

CMDwannabe,

Most people start very young with mixed-sex bathrooms. I don't see a problem.

Fan@226. I don't think the troll cares about the distinction, he's just giving us a living example of rape culture. Harass a woman who has scorned him.
Toilet stories, must be when I depart for the week.

CMD: I'm afraid I have absolutely zero interest in football, English or otherwise.

This is my attitude towards football: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESVjzf4F…

Alison @ 228
That's right; children also don't have any racial biases in an early age. It's only later that they get all those from culture and enviornment.

BDF @ 230
I may have to recall the ambassador for consultations. Needless to say, no kitchen floor cleaning this week.

@CMD: I've read somewhere that your biases have a lot to do with what you *weren't* exposed to in the first ~6 years of life. If you lived in a racially uniform environment as a child, you are more likely to be racist later on, for example.

Interestingly, this behavior isn't unique to humans. Chickens, for example, will self-segregate by color, but only if as young chicks they were raised exclusively with birds of the same color. If there were several colors/breeds raised together, they continue to mix it up even as older birds.

Old Crow [201] - It's easy to say aggression is "more showy than vicious or lethal" when you're not the one getting the shit beaten out of you.
By "showy" I meant threatening, not harmful. Chest beating, showing teeth, growling, punching air, aggressive posture, maybe throwing things or even pushing.. I am under the impression that the biting, scratching, punching, head-focused real violence is limited to ousting an alpha (revolt) and war.

Have you ever, actually, had the experience of being non-lethally beaten?
Do you really want to know or is this a rhetorical question?

In my experience, humans tend to talk through conflict or shun. In the rural and urban areas I've lived in, a habit of settling conflict with fists is likely to land you in jail. Or ganged up on and severely injured.

And I agree that someone who injures you "deserves" to be injured in return.. either physically stopped or socially shunned.. I think bad behavior "deserves" redress with basic self defense. "Eye for an eye" worked before we had a justice system.

Lava - Kinda agree. Mothers have always done most of the child rearing. After marriage fathers helped more too maybe. But when I think of children raised in complete isolation, without play groups or outings or school, I think of Genie. She never learned English or social conventions very well. So this extreme does happen but rarely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28f…

Church, extended family, sports teams and other activities are also common... lots of ways the typical kid is socialized beyond mother&father. Not sure it's usually so different from a tribe.. but it can be.

Philo, I didn't mean that sort of isolation.
I'm saying tribal groups lives/ lived with each other, huts next to each other. Kids free around the dwellings, looked after by all the adults.
Isolated nuclear family is just a man a woman and kids. That's the isolation I'm talking if.
The structures that have evolved. Maybe that's why there is such a surge in poly and open relationships. Breaking down and reconfiguring, social structures.
I'm not saying the nuclear family has to be busted.. Though one of my favourite books in the 70s, was "Death Of The Family", by David Cooper .. It's limiting structure demands imagination to overcome it, and it serves the purpose of keeping the family unit close to each other.
So, in tribal groups all this thinking thinking about parenthood etc, it wouldn't have gone on. The energy of the group just looked after the kids along with finding food keeping danger at bay.
Not a life style I aspire to. Except the communal parenting bit.

Lava - Kids free around the dwellings
This sounds like recent history.. settling in one place.. and kids still get snatched up by tigers living like that.. but..
The energy of the group just looked after the kids along with finding food keeping danger at bay.
This sounds like most of human history. Maybe. Who knows how non-mothers treated kids before written history. The common chimp seems to be a big fan of infanticide. I think once the kids are big enough to run around a bit by themselves, they are safe from being eaten by other chimps. Maybe. I'm a bit fascinated by infanticide in chimps (and the recent Jarawa infanticide). It's not always for food. I don't think that mothers kill their own babies. And I don't think they've tested to see if fathers kill their own babies. It seems maladaptive, unless they only go for babies that seem to have problems. I don't think we've studied it enough to tell.

I think there's similar help for mothers in our countries as in tribes, though. Public assistance, public education. Extended family and play groups/teams/clubs seem similar to me. Supporting a kid is not much like finding nice berry patches any more. But kids are much more likely to survive.