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

[Mixxy]

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/

I assure you its real, Rosh.

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

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.

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

I just find the entire scenario really hard to swallow.

Why!?

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!)

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

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!

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?

I agree with the loo.

If its a sex act then sex rules apply

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...

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!!!!

DO NOT CLICK ON THE CONDOM LINK!!

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?

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.

Wow.. 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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.