3 ms·

One thing I haven't really understood is why exactly is a Indian toilet seat seen as inferior to the English toilet seat. - True that the English seat occupies

One thing I haven't really understood is why exactly is a Indian toilet seat seen as inferior to the English toilet seat. - True that the English seat occupies less space, but its adoption has not always been based on space savings. - True that sitting appears more gentleman like, rather than sitting half subtended in air, but hey who is watching? - True that elderly find the english version easier to use because of the supporting nature of the seat, but its not a hard rule. A hybrid of both (Anglo-Indian) seat is more suited to them, and ailing patients. - The Indian version is more hygienic, as no part of your body directly touches any part of the seat. Besides superior genital cleanliness over time due to wider leg positions. - The Indian version is decisively easier to clean/maintain compared to the English version. - Moreover the Indian version, is more suited to over-weight people than a English version. - And relatively, due to its production in labor intensive market such as India/China, the Indian version is cost-efficient, suited for developing nations, who still have a fairly large population that needs proper sanitation structures.

enscr 13y ago
- Plus squatting is a better posture for properly emptying yourself. Although sitting for longer than 5 minutes is painful and gets worse with age.
- rikacomet 13y ago
  Yeah, that drawback can be seen as a JUST motivation for not taking your time in the toilet always. Even 5 minutes saved one time, is equal to 10-15 minutes everyday. 70-100 minutes a week and around 60-90 hours a year to put that into perspective.
  - enscr 13y ago
    For some, it's not an option.
  - sjtrny 13y ago
    I find my time on the toilet quite productive, it's usually when I have Eureka moments.
    - rikacomet 13y ago
      I figured so, occasionally it is the same for me. But I didn't say everyone should be saving time.
- rainedin 13y ago
  I had a good book titled 'Humanure' that stated that the sitting posture is quite unnatural and drop toilets or rather throne-less were better for us. At university (UK) I couldn't work out why some toilets had shit all over them, like people just evacuated all over the seats. I thought: what animals/dirty tricksters! After reading that book I realised that it was non-uk students who were struggling with the UK style toilets. Some suggest standing on the throne as a compromise, but it's a bit precarious, and it's not nice if you miss the target. I prefer squat toilets myself, as long as they are kept clean.

enscr 13y ago

- Plus squatting is a better posture for properly emptying yourself. Although sitting for longer than 5 minutes is painful and gets worse with age.

rikacomet 13y ago
Yeah, that drawback can be seen as a JUST motivation for not taking your time in the toilet always. Even 5 minutes saved one time, is equal to 10-15 minutes everyday. 70-100 minutes a week and around 60-90 hours a year to put that into perspective.
- enscr 13y ago
  For some, it's not an option.
- sjtrny 13y ago
  I find my time on the toilet quite productive, it's usually when I have Eureka moments.
  - rikacomet 13y ago
    I figured so, occasionally it is the same for me. But I didn't say everyone should be saving time.
rainedin 13y ago
I had a good book titled 'Humanure' that stated that the sitting posture is quite unnatural and drop toilets or rather throne-less were better for us. At university (UK) I couldn't work out why some toilets had shit all over them, like people just evacuated all over the seats. I thought: what animals/dirty tricksters! After reading that book I realised that it was non-uk students who were struggling with the UK style toilets. Some suggest standing on the throne as a compromise, but it's a bit precarious, and it's not nice if you miss the target. I prefer squat toilets myself, as long as they are kept clean.