I just can't decide who I should support in this case.

(60 Posts)
Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 00:59:53

MESSAGE FROM MNHQ - WE HAVE BEEN ASKED WARN YOU THAT THIS LINK CONTAINS GRAPHIC SEXUAL REFERENCES.

Does she have a point?

www.ravenews.ca/en/read/2013/march/28/

Dominodonkey Mon 24-Jun-13 01:04:59

There are no words...

squeakytoy Mon 24-Jun-13 01:08:20

god knows what you were looking for to find that... eughhhh....

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 01:11:31

Haha! A friend emailed it to be as we have an ongoing ethics debate. He wins. I'm stumped on this one.

saulaboutme Mon 24-Jun-13 01:20:44

nasty, vile, beyond any thing I this a totally disgusting practice, thought I was pretty open minded...

Apileofballyhoo Mon 24-Jun-13 01:30:25

Thought I was clicking on the Nigella thread and for some confused time wondered if their relationship difficulties were connected to this story.

I think the toilet is right. Acts should always be consensual. Everyone has the right to say 'no'.

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 01:34:32

But he is employed as a human toilet, and paid by the bar/club. Is it discrimination based on religious beliefs?

EricNorthmansFangbanger Mon 24-Jun-13 01:37:05

What the fuck did I just read? confused

The last time someone shared a link to Rave News it involved toilety stuff, as well. I think that entire website is a great big Poo Troll TBH.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Mon 24-Jun-13 01:44:13

The toilet has the right to say no. It's an interesting debate, similar to one that is recurrent in the more vanilla sex industry, when women working as prostitutes say they won't see men of particular skin colours/ethnicities. Yes, this is discriminatory, but any other option sees her being raped.

Shopkeepers can refuse to sell you their goods, publicans can refuse service too, and neither have to give a reason. Why not sex workers?

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 01:51:18

Because he did give a reason. He's a Kosher Toilet. I think, that the club owner should fire him.

That's not the case being heard, but that was my response.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Mon 24-Jun-13 02:05:40

As a toilet, he consented to receiving piss and shit. He did not consent to receiving blood. I'd like to see the contract of employment, as the employer seems supportive of the toilet.

I say this as an atheist who generally does not support "I have religious beliefs so I should be able to wear jewellery" bollox, or religious favouritism at all.

But for this toilet, menstrual blood is abhorrent. I may think that him thinking this is equally abhorrent, but let's face it, plenty of men are not keen on giving oral sex when a woman is bleeding and have no religious reasons for it.

All sexual acts should be consensual. If this toilet does not want to accept the urine of menstruating women (for whatever reason), he should not have to.

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 02:13:34

I agree all acts should be consentual, but we'd really need to see the employment contract, because a non-human toilet does recieve menstrual blood.

I find the interview with the complainant hilarious.

But my friend sure stumped me with this ethical mess!

Yonionekanobe Mon 24-Jun-13 02:30:44

I wonder if they're having this same debate over on Netmums...

Awww. Poor hun not being able to go pee-pee when she needed to, but as I always say 'happy toilet equals happy punter'.

🎉🎈🎊🎈🎉 mummy to a little 👼 and a cheeky 🙉 🎉🎈🎊🎈🎉

LadyRabbit Mon 24-Jun-13 03:13:15

WOW. JUST WOW. I came on MN because I can't sleep tonight. This hasn't helped. I even just had to wake up DH to send him the link.

If I was judge Judy I'd find in favour of the toilet.
(I think.)

I just hope they don't make a movie out of this particular lawsuit. Erin Brokovich it ain't.

I agree with old lady, the human toilet's rights are more important in this instance. However it has left me wondering how kosher shit is. Wouldn't milk and meat get all mixed up in the stomach?

MidniteScribbler Mon 24-Jun-13 03:46:55

That's it. It's all over.

I really have seen everything now.

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 03:52:41

That's not the limit of Kosher laws. My husband was raised Jewish, though we are both non-believers. He said it refers to 'niddah' which are very strick rules regarding sexual contact between a menstruating woman and her husband and also to do with her filth after her period and pregnancy.

It is not important in Reform Juadism (think Sienfeld) or
OrOrthodox Juadism, but it is in Ultra Orthodox. Now what an Ultra Orthodox Jew is doing working as a human toilet, I don't know. The woman didn't want to menstruate on him, she just wanted to take a piss while
having her period.

MidniteScribbler Mon 24-Jun-13 04:00:34

OK I'm back. Pathetically, I can't stop thinking about this one.

Isn't it actually this woman that is being discriminatory? "I want to piss on anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs." She's the one discriminating against him. She has no religious belief which says that she must wee on another human being while she is menstruating. There were also plenty of other "toilets" she could have used, she didn't have to cross her legs, or pee in the gutter.

Morloth Mon 24-Jun-13 04:11:18

People are fucking crazy.

That is all.

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 04:18:17

But is that the point? This Jewish man is employed of his own free will as a human toilet. He refused service based on his religious beliefs. Is that fair?

My mother and I have been cracking up about this all day.

The ethics game my friend and I play is based on me beating him at an ethics debate years ago in Uni. We email ethical cases to each other and debate them. I just can't decide this one-which means he wins. Rats.

MidniteScribbler Mon 24-Jun-13 04:25:21

Doctors here can refuse to prescribe certain drugs (pill, morning after) because of their religious beliefs, however they are required to refer to a doctor that will. I guess this is sort of the same thing - there were others available, so he had every right to refuse.

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 04:29:33

This case is in Canada, so there might not be the same rights applying.

I just can't wrap my head around an active Kosher human toilet who would be repulsed by trace amounts of human menstrual blood. Unless there was a possibility of HIV infection, but I can't remeber if menstrual blood can transfer that.

Sokmonsta Mon 24-Jun-13 06:10:51

Removing the argument of kosher food laws which would deal with the forbidden mixing of dairy and meat products in fecal matter and presumably any by-products which may be passed in urine I would answer thusly;

If he is a 'ladies only' toilet, he is allowed to discriminate against women as it is kosher law not to engage in sexual activity during menstruation. The woman would simply have to wait her turn to use another, as she would in any other toilet facility if no toilets were available.

However if the toilet set up is unisex, he would also have to refuse any male. While homosexuality is not forbidden, engaging in homosexual relations is and the definition of a urophile is someone who gets sexual gratification from being urinated on.

Roshbegosh Mon 24-Jun-13 06:28:49

It's some kind of joke surely. Don't believe it.

maddening Mon 24-Jun-13 06:38:36

But he didn't refuse her based on her religious beliefs. Possibly discrimination based on sexual grounds as only a woman can menstruate?

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 06:40:39

I assure you its real, Rosh.

OrangeLily Mon 24-Jun-13 06:46:47

For fucks sake! That needs to come with a warning. I am eating breakfast sad

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 06:48:08

The information is poor in this argument. Keeping Kosher and adhering to the other rules means avoiding sexual contact between a woman who has had a period
In the last 7 days. How would a human toilet asssertain that? His religious beliefs seems to be bullshit in this case.

There is no information to suggest he refuses ALL female urination, just female urination during her period. And if it really is his religious beliefs, has he previously assertained all menstrual history of clients? I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with this human toilet.

Mixxy Mon 24-Jun-13 06:49:12

Sorry Orange, I do wish I had put a warning on it. No way to change it now withou t help from MNHQ.

bragmatic Mon 24-Jun-13 06:49:29

I just find the entire scenario really hard to swallow.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 24-Jun-13 07:53:46

Why!?

<reaches for the brain bleach>

Aetae Mon 24-Jun-13 08:15:50

Can you post more of your ethical debates? While quite gross, it's really interesting.

I agree with you, the toilet's position is weakened by his inability to accurately determine his clients' menstrual situation. I'd also question whether he's being selective in his application of Jewish law - surely other aspects of being a human toilet are forbidden?

But do these weaknesses in his argument undermine his stance from an ethical perspective? In this case he does know she's menstruating and let's assume everything else he's doing is fine (?!?).

In which case the debate comes back to what constitutes discrimination against women. Only women menstruate, which means it's obviously a male/female issue. But that doesn't mean by extension all things female are discrimination fodder.

Does a woman have an equal right to piss on a human toilet as a man? I would have thought this fell into the area of consenting sexual relations NOT basic rights - he has a right to say no for whatever reason he likes. Saying he must let anyone piss on him implies he is an inanimate toilet, which gets into sex slavery etc. Which is ethically wrong, due to coercion in an area that is fundamental to self-expression.

I agree with the toilet I think.

(not something I ever thought I'd write!)

OrangeLily Mon 24-Jun-13 22:22:36

Just showed DH this story and we clicked on the 'used condom party snack' type link at the top of the page hmm

Utterly baffled and I thought I was fairly chilled out. Now feeling sick again!

Thoroughly disturbed.

DP has just said "Pixie, when I get to that part of the internet, where they are discussing a human toilet being sued for not letting somebody piss on them, I turn off the browser and say 'Goodnight Internet.'"

I really don't know why I just read that.

Oh, and yes he has the right to choose who does pee on him, something I never thought I'd write!

crumblepie Mon 24-Jun-13 23:21:42

just read this and the condom link , it has got to be a joke surely , are there really people that sick out there .

Hang on, surely he couldn't be a toilet for anybody not Jew, what if they had eaten non-Kosher meat? That would make what comes out of them non-Kosher right?

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 24-Jun-13 23:58:17

I agree with the loo.

If its a sex act then sex rules apply

DeepPurple Tue 25-Jun-13 00:08:27

The toilet has the right to decide who uses him. It's a sexual act and as such he has the right to say no.

Does the club have real toilets too? Mind boggles...

Mixxy Tue 25-Jun-13 00:17:43

I emailed a Rabbi friend for further instruction. Her response was that god would probably disagree with more than the kosher element in this situation.

wtf did i just read?

i dont know whether to laugh or be horrified

am actually doing both and its very weird!

eeewwww!!!! shock

DO NOT CLICK ON THE CONDOM LINK!!

<goes to lay down> confused

Lioninthesun Tue 25-Jun-13 01:06:31

Ha ha ha at emailing a rabbi!
What happens if said woman is unaware of impending menstruation - a few days out or whatever; would she have broken the law if this guy wins?

Lioninthesun Tue 25-Jun-13 01:08:50

An ex of mine had an addiction to this kind of porn completely unbeknownst to me. Needless to say that is why he is the EX. I couldn't eat anything brown for months when I found his stash. Grim.

DioneTheDiabolist Tue 25-Jun-13 01:33:04

Wow.shock. Erm, just wow. Never expected to read anything like that when I woke up this morning. Or ever.

I think that the human toilet wins, although it's very close. It comes down to discrimination vs exploitation. Consent must always be sought from the sex worker. Where it is not, the crime of sexual assault happens. Patrons of such clubs are aware of the consensual nature of what goes on inside. She may be pissed off that he won't let her piss on him, but she has no legal recourse.

So that's it. He wins because if she does a crime will be committed.grin

mrssprout Tue 25-Jun-13 02:09:48

I really am speechless. Now I really need to find out how to clear my internet browsing history ! Someone warned me to find out how to do this when I first joined here, I should have listened

MidniteScribbler Tue 25-Jun-13 04:03:50

OK, couldn't let it go. I asked a friend last night who is in to this "scene" (perfectly lovely chap, shows toy poodles and works as a florist!) about what he thought of it. He was firmly on the side of the "toilet" and said that these sorts of groups had very strict rules of etiquette surrounding clubs and interactions and that regardless of what "position" you took in a situation, that you always had the right to say no, with no questions asked and you didn't have to justify why. He questioned whether the girl was new to the scene as his quote was "unless anyone can say no, at anytime, then the whole scene just won't work". He had pretty strong feelings about it.

Eastpoint Tue 25-Jun-13 04:19:26

I don't understand what the woman was supposed to do. Was she supposed to ask each toilet if they minded her having her period before she used it? Does the club also have normal toilets? There is no mention of them.

Mixxy Tue 25-Jun-13 04:24:51

Interesting. I get that on the scene consent is everything, but what made it interesting to me is that hes employed as a worker, not sort of doing it for fun.

I just find it shock that somebody involved in all this is so religious and repulsed by menstrual blood.

Being paid to do a job doesn't necessarily mean that you have to carry it out indiscriminately. It depends both on the seriousness of the objection and the degree of discrimination that the client experiences. So religious B&B owner refuses to let to gay couple is unlawful because the owners' objections are unreasonable. A club offering only one toilet, which happened to be a human toilet (!) and which did not cater for menstruating women would be unlawful (on the part of the club) because any menstruating women would be very disadvantaged. A religious surgeon doesn't have to carry out terminations as their objections are (considered) reasonable.
However, in this particular case it is not unlawful because the 'toilet's' objections are reasonable, not because of kosher but simply because the act of swallowing someone's urine (ick) must be wholeheartedly consented to otherwise it becomes assault. Nobody can be contracted to be assaulted against their will. Furthermore, the client wasn't disadvantaged because there were other toilets she could use.

Steben Tue 25-Jun-13 08:10:56

There really are no words. I must have led a very sheltered life.

Ellellie Tue 25-Jun-13 08:15:09

Dafaq hmm

Mixxy Tue 25-Jun-13 08:16:59

But swallowing the urine is his job. Just because you and I are replused by it, doesn't mean its not his job and he was not forced to do it. I'm unsure of Canadian law regarding service employees. While I feel that the woman was discriminated against, I now think that the toilets right to avoid assault or exploitation trumps her. I do feel the religious reason is bullshit as he is not applying the Kosher Laws across the board, I see that the need to avoid exploitation trumps discrimination. I suggest that qomen wear stars on their sleeves if they wish to use the Kosher toilet.

differentnameforthis Tue 25-Jun-13 08:56:43

He refused service based on his religious beliefs

A religious doctor refused to refer me for a termination, all in the nicest possible way. I didn't kick up a fuss, even though it meant I had to make another appointment, because I respected her religious beliefs.

It's about respecting people's boundaries. If a woman is a prostitute & she refuses to do anal/s&m, is that discrimination against her 'customer'. No of course it isn't, because it is her right to choose what she does with her body, regardless of what else she chooses to do with it.

passmetheprozac Tue 25-Jun-13 09:01:50

I am with the guy on this. He had every right to say no, regardless of the fact he was employed to do this. The club owner is on his side so I am assuming that in his contract is a clause to say no, the guy likes people pissing on his face and he is employed to have people piss on his face. He in my opinion is allowed to draw the line at menstruating women.

When I am on my period, the river runs red iyswim?

It is a sexual act, and he has every right to say no. In this scenario if she had ignored him, would it have been some kind of assault?

This is quite interesting.

CheerfulYank Tue 25-Jun-13 09:05:55

I...I just...I...hmm.

<clutches pearls>

But I'm on his side. Such as it is. <boak>

crashdoll Tue 25-Jun-13 09:21:00

I can feel my breakfast trying to make another appearance. sad

DioneTheDiabolist Tue 25-Jun-13 09:48:14

If I were the boss of the club, I would tell my toilets and other staff that No, is a full sentence and that they should not give the customer any reason when they refuse.

NeoMaxiZoomDweebie Tue 25-Jun-13 09:53:53

Just lol at "Kosher toilet"

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now