One for Jackie

This is a letter to the editor of "The Builder" Saturday, August 22, 1846.

"Sir, - I see by one of your late numbers that it is in contemplation to establish in the metropolis public necessaries and urinals. It has long been a disgrace to the most civilized capital in the world, that public decency should be outraged, whilst an obvious remedy was at hand. But whilst we are thus seeking to provide for the comfort of our own sex, allow me, as a married man, to say a few words on the unfortunate condition of females in this regard. I do so in all honour and respect, but I esteem it a false delicacy to allow them to suffer, through want of some one able to speak for themselves. The consequences in many cases are lamentable, and it is the imperative duty of every husband and father, to guard those they love against diseases which render existence a burden.

The plan which I propose is easy and simple, perfectly consistent with the preservation of that delicacy of feeling which is the pride of our countrymen. In each of the great thoroughfares there might be established waiting-rooms for ladies, with the necessary convenience in an inner room. Let the outer room, as in the railway stations, be provided with benches, &c., and be under the superintendence of a respectable female; let there be also a counter, where cloaks, umbrellas, clogs, &c., could be ticketed, and left for a few hours to be taken care of: thus a reason would be furnished for any lady who might wish to enter. These waiting-rooms must be totally distinct from those of the other sex, and not even under the same roof. No gentleman ought to be permitted to cross the threshold on any pretence whatever.

I beg to apologize for trespassing upon your time, but it occurred to me that by means of your valuable and widely circulated journal, attention might be called to a grievance, under which those dear to us have long suffered in silence. - I am, Sir, &c.,

A SURGEON"

So next time you spend a penny, spare a thought for the poor girls of 1846. :eek:

And they still haven't got it right .... went to the ballet on Saturday ( to make a change from going to punk gigs ) and spent nearly the entire first interval in a queue for the ladies. this seems to be a fairly modern building ( state theatre, melbourne ) but the male architect( and it can't possibly have been a she ) 1. stuck the toilet in a location so that the queue going out of the door would interfere with people wanting to pass the doorway not wanting to go through it. 2. put a heavy style fire door on the entrance with a self closing mechanism and no hook to hold it back when the queue is long enough to go out of the door - result whoever is closest to the door has to lean hard against it to hold it open ( and some of the little old ladies who go to the ballet haven't got enough weight to hold the door open by themselves ). 3. didn't make the doorway wide enough so that those queuing don't have to breathe in as those leaving try to leave squeeze past. 4. stuck the wash basins in a location that means when you want to wash your hands you have to fight your way through the queue to get there and fight your way through the queue to get back. And of course there were only 3 or 4 cubicles anyway which just ain't enough when the performance is sold out and more than half of the audience wear skirts :mad: end of rant.

yep I'm glad I live now and not back then ... what i want to know though is when they were wearing those big crinoline dresses and laced up in corsets so they couldn't breathe properly much lest bend over how did they a) get into the toilet cubicle and b) get their knickers down and c) sit down with 40 yards of material and peticoats and stuff to hold out of the way .... you wouldn't want to be drinking your 8 glasses of water a day would you. :eek:

Ever been to Customs House in Sydney? The queue used to go out the door there. It's a very small pub and most of the punters stand outside in a roped off area. It was a very common sight to see girls coming out of the men's room because the queue was shorter and there were more, errrm, 'facilities' in the men's by virtue of the more efficient use of wall space ;).

The problem is made worse by the girls insisting on going as a pair or a trio. Why don't they go one at a time?

girls go to the ladies in groups for a number of reasons in my experience

1) there is someone to hold your handbag rather than put it on the floor which may be less than sanitary ( the hooks usually having been long ripped off of the back of the door ) and where it is vulnerable to being pinched by someone reaching under the door or side-walls ( the thief being safe in the knowledge that you aren't going to give chase with your knickers round your ankles )

2) there is someone to pass you toilet paper under the door / side-walls when it runs out ( which it frequently does ) :eek:

3) there is someone with patching up our make-up when the mirrors are broken or missing

4) if the mirrors are not broken or missing we have someone to tell us that we indeed look fantastic when the mirror insists on telling us otherwise :D

5) so we have someone to tell us that we have accidentally tucked the hem of our skirt into our knickers before we take the long walk across the dance floor with the eyes of the multitude upon us :eek: :o

6) ( main reason) so that we can slag off the guys that we are with / tell each other jokes/gossip which are not suitable for male ears. :D :D

Geez Jackie, giving out the sisterhood's secrets to a bunch of blokes. I hope it doesn't get out :D :D

Actually it's probably just as well that you do all go together. It gives the guys a chance to discuss who's going after who (assuming that issue hasn't already been resolved - much too late for me now). My favourite line from one guy to another when resolving this issue, made in reference to the least attractive of the prospectives is/was "I don't like yours much" :D.

Of course I never indulged in this kind of behaviour. I always thought girls went for the sensitive shy type. Turns out I was wrong but things worked out OK in the end ;)

not secrets Craigb, common-sense :D . Of course guys next time SWMBO disappears off to the powder room with the girls you'll all be sat there wondering what juicy piece of gossip you're missing out on and hoping that it isn't about you :D

silentC I suspect that the theory is that girls go after the sensitive shy type cos if guys are sensitive and shy then they aren't going to be chasing after girls. ... and we therefore find our curiosity being piqued and chase after them to find out why they aren't overcome by our charm, good looks and ability to rewire the house without burning it down ( UK of course ).

Of course if the guy is sensitive and shy but boring then he might find himself being cast back into the pool fairly promptly ( unless of course he is sensitive and shy and boring but rich :D as money tends to overcome most other glaring faults).

Those males who aren't sensitive and shy can do their own chasing and therefore we have no need to go to the effort of pursuing them ... we just have to decide whether to stand still and be caught or not.

What about if you're ignorant, obnoxious, boring, poor but look like Brad Pitt?

hmm ... better make the most of it while you've still got your looks ... you're probably in for a lonely old age

..... can't see the attraction in Brad Pitt's looks myself

That was a hypothetical question. I look more like Patrick Stewart from Star Trek or that bald guy from ER - Dr Green :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackiew

Of course guys next time SWMBO disappears off to the powder room with the girls you'll all be sat there wondering what juicy piece of gossip you're missing out on and hoping that it isn't about you :D

---

C'mon Jackie, everone knows you girls can't keep juicy gossip to yourselves. If you wan't to know what was discussed in the loo, you just have to bide your time, and ask. :D :p :D

I notice your age is not listed.......... :D :D


Now hush, before you show the rest of us up by knowing about more than just timber expansion rates, and converting Imperial to Metric. https://www.ubeaut.biz/chuckle2.gif https://www.ubeaut.biz/chuckle2.gif https://www.ubeaut.biz/chuckle2.gif

Ben.

I'm 42 Ben and therefore in my prime ;).

I'm not sure age is that relevant to most things in life ..... I've met 17 year olds that are already heaps better value than their parents and others who as far as I can see are already marking time until they are on that last trip to the crematorium.

working in a male dominated environment ( until recently there were more women's toilets than women where I work :D ) I wouldn't say that women have the monopoly on gossip :p

Jackie,

I was only stiring when I mentioned that your age wasn't listed, you wern't supposed to answer. I was expecting a "mind your own business thank-you-very-much" type answer. :)

You put me on the back foot, so it took me a day to reply. :D

You are correct, of course, age isn't always so important.

I conceed, woman may not have the monopoly on gossip..... but they do at least have the whole side of the board with Mayfair and Park Lane. :D :p


Ben.

I remember in the mid 70's when railway stations had female waiting rooms (in Vic), us poor buggers had to stand outside even if it was raining.
Then there was the exodus from the Ladies lounge to the bar and no female toilets.
MOst were the radical left wingers who could hold their own in a urinal anyway.......
(I think I could have phrased that a bit better)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain

MOst were the radical left wingers who could hold their own in a urinal anyway.......
(I think I could have phrased that a bit better)

---

You must have met the same ones as I did. :eek:

Peter.

P.s. And yes you could have phrased it better.