The conversation: Caught short: we need to talk about public

Ask questions about Paruresis, tell your story, talk about it!
Post Reply
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:57 pm

The conversation: Caught short: we need to talk about public

Post by jeremy » Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:11 pm

This came up in my news feed. No mention of paruresis/shy bladder. So thought maybe some folks here might like to write some constructive comments (the website requires comments with full names, so just be aware of that): ... lets-60450

The conversation is an academic publication with a large focus on public policy. So some awareness of paruresis in this field may go along way. Overall though, I think what they're arguing for is good. More public toilets would certainly be better for us and indeed paruresis should help their argument too. If we could achieve greater awareness about privacy in the design of toilets (especially men's) that would be even better.

Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:57 am
Location: Hunter Valley NSW

Re: The conversation: Caught short: we need to talk about public

Post by Derek » Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:23 pm

Interesting, local councils, buildings and shopping centres are only concerned with the provision of public toilets, or whether or not they have to be provided.
There is no legislation dictating design, or whether they have to have adequate space (cubicles and urinals) to cope with the traffic flow. (at varying times)
Service stations for instance often used to have all their public toilets under lock an key, and not necessarily obliged to provide them to the public.
As far as councils go recall back in my youth, busy park toilets for weekend junior sport often provided a 2-3 man trough and only one cubicle - often with the door broken or not maintained. It was the stuff of nightmares - Australian local councils catering almost exclusively for the lowest common denominator.
The problem is for paruretics and non-paruretics alike, that toilets are adequately provided.

Post Reply