Goodness. Nothing screams "don't date me!" like someone who thinks this is funny.

Though it's slightly less misgynistic and vile than the female open mouth toilets.

What I wonder, though, is why the creators of these things feel a need for making them, or better yet, why some men think it's such a sign of masculinity to actually part take in so-called "male-bonding" by using these types of toilets and telling stories about them ...

Masculinity and misogynistic consumerism aside, one should feel slightly embarrassed using these things, because they're cheesy.

I don't think that any huma body part shoud be used a fun novelty products and quite frankly, the picture in this topic is disgusting and very misogynistic.

Wow. Just wow. There isn't really anything left to say at this point.

Are those... in a public restroom? Well, presumably like at a strip club if anything, but really. I can think of more than one guy who'd get a little pee-shy if he had to relieve himself between the legs of a hard, plastic, jaundiced, armless and headless and badly-proportioned woman. I mean, look at the breasts there.

You'd think they'd get more complaints from people who really just wanted to pee.

Also, I'd say the worst, by far, is the mounted breasts, because of the obvious and very creepy serial killer connotation. Someone with a scat fetish is disturbing, but someone with a "dismembered body parts" fetish could be very, very dangerous.

That's just gross and weird.

What is interesting is that those are the low urinals that grade schools have. So these are presumably designed to train our next generation of misogynists at an early age.

I'd rather take a piss on the toilet designer.

If my partner came out of the bathroom and described this scenario to me, we would be leaving the establishment right after we lodged a complaint. If it was a restaurant or anything of that nature I would be refusing to pay my bill as well. They're making money off of violent sexual fantasies, they obviously don't need/deserve my money.

What is with this? Obviously there is a demand for this, if they're popping up all over the place. Why do so many men want to urinate on women's chopped up body parts? And why is anyone catering to this?

Not only is this disgustingly misogynistic, but seriously, what guy would want to do that? Who wants to pee between the legs of a plastic dummy? What man finds this to be a pleasurable way to go to the bathroom. If I went into a restroom where I had to sit on some male dummy's lap to pee I would be completely freaked out. And this looks like a hygiene nightmare. The guy in the pic if holding the mannequin, and it looks like his "equipment" might actually be touching her legs. I don't think most dudes want to put their stuff where another guy has rubbed all over it. Creepy, awkward, dirty, and terrible all around.

. . . and now I puke.

Agreed with everything that has been said already, and I just want to ask...

What's with the the bras going ON TOP of the breasts, rather than UNDER them?? Are men really that clueless as to how lingerie works??

I have this question, though: I am not understand the idea of disememberment. Perhaps someone can explain this one to me.

To me, whether the woman had a head and all the body parts or not, misogyny is misogyny no matter what. What difference would this make if these statues had heads - they'd still be serving as objects for these men, and more importantly, it'd still be creepy.

Explanations would be much appreciated.

Maybe this is because I'm a lady, but I never understood urinals. I guess it might be easier, but what's with peeing in front of other dudes? Whipping out your wang in front of other guys is kind of gay, isn't it? I'm not saying gay is bad, but if guys are going to "prove" their masculinity by peeing in a urinal shaped like a very odd-looking woman, it doesn't really make any sense.

ProFeministMale, I agree with you. These urinals would still be sexist if they had heads. But these urinals restate the idea that women are simply body parts. Only the parts that make women physically women are shown, while the part that makes any woman a unique person (i.e., a face) is absent.

Am I the only one who has heard the "compliment" about aiming urine in that area? Maybe it's a young people thing. Here goes:

"That chick is hot."
"Yeah, I'd pee in her butt."

klynn44: ew!! Are you serious? I've never heard that before, but sadly, I'm not surprised.

The only time I've ever had anyone pee on me that wasn't under the age of 5 is when I stepped on a Man-O-War in Florida, and apparently, that isn't even a viable cure. (It certainly didn't help at the time).

I can't add anything to the discussion that hasn't already been said, other than I'm thankful to have a feminist male partner who would walk out on any location if he saw that.

Disgusting.

And heteronormative to boot, in the way they “narrate� the guys using them as straight.

That’s what’s most interesting to me—the way these urinals both make assumptions about the people using them, and how they force guys into interacting with (replications of) female bodies in a particular, very sexualized, way. They invite (even demand?) that the guy imagine himself in a sexual encounter with a “woman,� one who, conveniently, will never require consent. It teaches men to see women as being at their sexual disposal.

And--these urinals reinscribe a particularly “sex-act based� vision of masculinity on any guy who uses them. So there’s masculinity-production at work here, the kind that labels men as sex-crazed, at the expense of the sexual degradation of women.

Oh, wait, scratch all that. It’s just “a joke�!

/sarcasm

"What's with the the bras going ON TOP of the breasts, rather than UNDER them?? Are men really that clueless as to how lingerie works??"

Perhaps they're on top of the breasts because the breasts are so low on the ribcage. They're a good 4-6" below where they ought to be--the lower edge is almost even with the waist. I'd say the designer understood lingerie well enough--he just knew nothing about female anatomy.

Actually, that would explain a lot. The person who designed these has never seen a naked woman before!

Gee, I wonder why?

OMG!
I would 'Carry Nation,' these statues if they were in my hometown!

Thats the only way to stop this crap. I say, get a group of women with sledgehammers, pile on into the bathrooms, and knock em down. If women continued to smash these revolting figures, then the owners would be forced to shell out money to re-install them. Eventually it would be too costly to keep the figures around. If they wanted to institute police to block the group, or set up barricades near the entranceway then it would deter anyone from using it. It would become wayyy to much just to take a piss.

Anyone agree?

whoa whoa whoa whoa.

No need to go bashing on atypical women's body shapes. I think the boobs are just supposed to be natural and large, and therefore saggy. Breasts being relatively low on the ribcage runs in my family.

I really don't know about the bras -I guess they're no longer on, or something?

ProFeministMale wrote:
I have this question, though: I am not understand the idea of disememberment. Perhaps someone can explain this one to me.

To me, whether the woman had a head and all the body parts or not, misogyny is misogyny no matter what. What difference would this make if these statues had heads - they'd still be serving as objects for these men, and more importantly, it'd still be creepy.

Explanations would be much appreciated.
___________________________

To me, it's just a little bit worse when the "women" are headless or faceless because it is a literal reinforcement of the notion that a woman is just a body/object/sperm receptacle.

Wow. From the way the guy in the photo is standing it looks like you can pee with one of those without having to resort to making it look like you're going at it doggy style with the mannequin.

I wonder what would happen if a bunch of guys actually started doing that, and not to pee.

That’s what’s most interesting to me—the way these urinals both make assumptions about the people using them, and how they force guys into interacting with (replications of) female bodies in a particular, very sexualized, way.

I'm going to venture a guess and say that these are somewhere that are "straight" identified, or at least where they wouldn't assume gay men would traditionally go. Unless it's at a sports bar or something, but other than that you're right, it's very narrow minded. Though you can bet if there was a male version of the doll THEN you can bet the menz would be freaked out and upset. Or else whoever used that urinal would catch hell.

FEMily! - You can fit more urinals in a bathroom than you can stalls and it is a quicker process to go in one. There is a reason the line moves quicker for the men's room. If one is too insecure to go in front of other people, they can always use the stalls.

I would add that urinals are a much more sanitary option than toilets, as well.

These particular urinals, of course, are gross.

ProFeministMale wrote:
I have this question, though: I am not understand the idea of disememberment. Perhaps someone can explain this one to me.

To me, whether the woman had a head and all the body parts or not, misogyny is misogyny no matter what. What difference would this make if these statues had heads - they'd still be serving as objects for these men, and more importantly, it'd still be creepy.

Explanations would be much appreciated.
___________________________

To me, it's just a little bit worse when the "women" are headless or faceless because it is a literal reinforcement of the notion that a woman is just a body/object/sperm receptacle.

Maybe this is because I'm a lady, but I never understood urinals. I guess it might be easier, but what's with peeing in front of other dudes? Whipping out your wang in front of other guys is kind of gay, isn't it?

I would say that at least 50% of bathrooms with urinals have dividers between them for this reason. It's not the "gay" connotation you've implied that bothers guys at urinals with no dividers, it's the fact that you're peeing a foot away from a complete stranger. Plus there's a whole set of informal "man-laws" associated with urinal use. For one, you aren't supposed to start a conversation with some random guy peeing next to you, unless of course it's your buddy. Also, if there are, say, three open urinals right next to each other, you pick one of the side urinals--never the center one, lest you look odd--thus if another guy comes up you'll have a buffer zone between you. It may sound bizzare, but it minimizes discomfort (or perhaps latent homophobia for some guys).

"From the way the guy in the photo is standing it looks like you can pee with one of those without having to resort to making it look like you're going at it doggy style with the mannequin. "

Yeah, but just take a look at the way he's touching her hip *shudder*

From the looks of it, the man is holding her ass to steady himself while he pees. It looks like there is a hole underneath her panties, used to fuck(?), piss into(?)or oggle(?), I dont know? I'm sure men use (aside from the urinal)the hole to pee into as an alternative form of entertainment. Her face is also pressed into the wall almost to make it seem like her head area is muffled.

I think it should be paint bombed.

No need to go bashing on atypical women's body shapes. I think the boobs are just supposed to be natural and large, and therefore saggy.

I'm not bashing anyone's body shape. My own breasts are large, natural and somewhat saggy--they still don't start below my armpits!

Hypersensitivity aside, it appears to me that those breasts are intended to look like your classic silicone/porn "ideal" breast--very round and firm--but in that position, at that angle, it's essentially impossible for the woman's face to be hidden in the wall without concealing most or all of her breasts in the wall also. So in order to have their cake and eat it too, they had to move the breasts about 6 inches lower.

My point is, they've actually taken their objectification of women so far as to rearrange women's anatomy just to ensure that all their sexual characteristics are idealized and visible while excluding any identifying or humanizing characteristics, like a head or face.
That makes it even worse, IMO.

I want to know where these various toilets are. In part it's because I'd like to vandalize them, sure, but part of it is just to get a sense as to what type of establishment would choose to spend its decorating budget on this shite. I'd wager they're not strip clubs, because at the strip clubs the men would be encouraged to fixate on the women for arousal performers and not get off (for free) in the bathroom. So where? What kind of place does this?

ekf - I doubt the intent of these urinals is to get men off.

One can only hope.

So this man in England urinated on a DYING woman while shouting "this is YouTube material." Think about that and then let people ask why these might be a bad idea.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7063366.stm

"I'm not bashing anyone's body shape. My own breasts are large, natural and somewhat saggy--they still don't start below my armpits!"

Uhm...mine start right below my arm pit.

It's not that the breasts start below the armpits for these urinal bodies...It's that they start at the elbow.

OMG bunny, that was a revolting story! What an ass to do that to a dying woman! Reminds me of the video featured on feministing a while back that showed tenants watch a rape that was happening and doing nothing about it.