These toilets are an example of high tech hostile architecture. The waterjet spraying and weight sensitive floor "anti-sex features" do not seem to be primarily aimed at sex but prevent the homeless from staying inside:

> "The planning documents detail a range of security features to deter rough sleeping, including an audible warning, combined with the lights and heating being switched off."

> "Each night the toilets would close for 10 minutes while the unit undertakes a deep clean process."

I think these feature are really about preventing the homeless resting in the toilets and automated cleaning primarily. The so-called "anti-sex functionality" is accidental and for marketing purposes. Especially since hostile architecture has received a lot negative public attention lately.

> Especially since hostile architecture has received a lot negative public attention lately.

As it should. Brushing the problem aside rather than addressing it like a human being is just sickening. If the homeless aren't even allowed to sleep in public toilets..? Seriously, what's the worst that can happen?

Public toilets are a limited, expensive resource. "The worst that happens" is that they stop being public toilets.

Go ahead and make an argument that we should build hotels for the homeless. Public toilets are not that. Sleeping in them is not even fair to other homeless people who need to use the toilet!

My point was more about hostile architecture in general. I was trying to point out that the homeless have very few places to go - can't even shelter in a filthy public toilet. Anyone desperate enough to try has been stomped on enough without adding salt to the wound.

The better solution is to try and fix the underlying cause rather than hiding the symptoms.

Are you defining the problem as “some people don’t have homes” or “some people are unable to use public toilets because they are occupied by people sleeping and having sex in them”?

Seems like starting there is a good way to begin this topic.

No, that person and the person they replied to are the all to typical example of posters here who are incredibly generous with the property and monies of other people. Quick to demand that others surrender rights to and usage of because of their assumed authority to decide what is right and wrong.

homelessness and such is not solved by taking from others or depriving others the use of goods and services. it is solved by getting off fucking internet and working at shelters, donation centers, and such. Many donation centers love weekend help because people are quick to give stuff but not time. Time is of value, donate yours

No not really, I'm totally in favour of people having the right to say what goes on in their property, I'm just concerned that so bloody much of our public property is now just pseudo-public privately owned, and the homeless have absolutely nowhere to go anymore. I can sympathize with both parties here, but I have more sympathy for the homeless.

> These toilets are an example of high tech hostile architecture

There's a good article on Wikipedia about hostile architecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture

They could have solved the we don't want homeless persons sleeping-issue by paying for the time used or have the user pay 5 min increments up front and have the doors auto-unlock when the "rental" expires.. Just a thought.

I have a friend who has a disabled 18 year old son. Sometimes when the disabled bathroom is busy, he or his wife will go into a cubicle with the son to help - would that activate the no sex alarm?

When having violent diarrhea I sometimes trash my arms around, or move my torso a lot. Would I get sprayed with water and subjected to public humiliation, mora than it already is having to shit in a public toilet?

It's an Equality Act or Human Rights Act case waiting to happen.

No it won't because by entering the facilities you agree to the EULA in which you give up those rights.

It's not even just disabled people. I frequently take both of my kids to the bathroom at the same time. This is super common for families with small kids.

> Violent movement sensors will automatically open the doors

Is this even legal? This would expose users' nudity without their consent.

I imagine they'll have a disclaimer printed for this exact reason.

Oh, say you are a flasher, that'd be a great technological solution to satisfy your thing without anyone being able to do something about it.

Besides the risk of malfunction, there's also the risk of attracting people who get a kick out of being sprayed with water jets and "accidentally" exposed during sex.

I don't know that I personally would be into that, but neither fetish seems to be particularly uncommon.

For 50p extra you can choose from a variety of flavours added to the water.

I read about these toilets the other day, though they do concern me in a few area's:

Some people sneeze and it causes sudden physical movement - boosh - soaked in water from a jet. Over-normalised by weight person uses the toilet - door won't close as thinks two people. People with IBS, constipation, ..... - door opens as taking too long.

Whilst I think these are good - we did have the perfect solution decades ago - a toilet attendant. Simple, effective, caters for all the edge cases and above all - utilises the over abundant resource of humans that just keeps on growing in numbers. Not many resources do that on this planet - apart from Co2.

So whilst the sentiments and efforts are great, not all solutions are IMHO suited for automation and unless we are striving to create as many unemployed humans as possible, I see not need to move in that direction upon this. Bring back toilet attendants, they just worked.

As for myself, fear of a long bowel movement and violent sneeze would see me soaking wet with the door open and unable to do anything about it.

Seems like a bad idea, is sex in the bathroom this big of a problem ? Does it happen this often ? Except for the dance clubs I have never witnessed this.

I believe the anti-sex features are actually anti-homeless features because toilet-sex probably is not that common + it does not cause many issues when it does happen.

What is the detection of violent movements for of not the sex detection? I assumed the homeless would try to sleep resulting in closer to no movement. She goes for the weight detector that's supposedly there to see if two people are in there. The homeless issue could really be solved by a generous time limit.

The UK still arrests people for “cottaging” (i.e. men suspected of having clandestine gay sex). For example: https://www.diversitytrust.org.uk/2019/02/arrested-for-cotta...

In clubs it's less about sex and more about catching people using drugs. Some places will take the doors off bathroom stalls so they can catch people.

some smear vasilene over all the horizontal surfaces so no drugs can happen easily.

This is tricky. There is IMO no good technical way to implement the requested features without breaking core human respect of the users.

What would be a better approach to the problem? What about an approach like the one regarding smoking in hotels: make it forbidden, but accommodate it so that it wouldn't be as much of a bother?

For hotels it means providing an ashtray. For toilet sex it could be an interesting experiment!

For a city where violence against sex workers was an issue, they implemented designated, lit but private parking bays where sex work is legal. They also had non-vehicle booths for the same thing. I don't know how well it went, but it is certainly in line with what you were thinking.

Known in German speaking countries under the rather unappealing name of "Verrichtungsbox": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrichtungsbox

> no good technical way to implement the requested features without breaking core human respect of the users

A certain quote from Jurassic Park about scientists being preoccupied comes into mind...

What's the problem we try to solve regarding toilet sex? Is it the existence of it or are there side effects we want to mitigate?

Provide a condom dispenser and a black leather sofa?

The hotels that I use deal with smoking by providing a smoke detector not an ashtray.

The issue with the toilet is that a parent might need to go into it with a child so making an accurate detector system is hard.

You can cover the smoke detector.

I've always wondered why so many toilets in the US seem to have see-through holes: you can be seen below the knees, between the hinges and if you're tall enough, above your neck. I've been told that this anti-privacy design was on purpose and made to avoid people doing drugs or having sex in toilets. Is it true?

The answer is the same for why US houses are built with wood and appear "flimsy" compared to other countries'; cost.

Other reasons too, depending on location: https://csengineermag.com/article/wood-frame-construction-ad...

I don't buy that for the bathroom doors. All you need is a tiny section that overlaps. You can even buy cheap plastic flaps to retro fit.

Do wood houses just appear flimsy ? Or do they last significantly shorten than concrete ?

As a German owning a house in the Pacific Northwest: it's true, American homes are flimsier. At least in rainy climate the outside needs constant upkeep. You need to paint and caulk every few years. I frequently hear from people discovering dry rot in their homes. Stuff like this never happens to my parents concrete home build in the 80s in comparable climate in Germany and hasn't happened (yet) to the 300 year old timbered home we remodeled in the early 00s mostly following traditional building methods. Even oak beams, clay brigs and lime paint seem to hold up better than US homes.

It may not be entirely the case, but wooden homes are generally build in high risk earthquake area. Other regions of the US use different building materials ( e.g. adobe in New Mexico, bricks in the south).

Depends on upkeep and environment. Some wood structures in very dry locales can and do last ages without any real upkeep. There's some very, very old wood houses at the Romanian house museum, which is a great place to visit.

That’s why one person stands in a paper grocery bag.

I can’t wait until they get sued when it goes wrong which it almost certainly will.

What happens when I go in with my 2 kids? As a larger that average man plus 2 kids am I going to be squirted? I really hope there is more to this than a weight sensor.

I’m guessing this would run afoul of anti-springtrap laws in the US.

If the custodian of the restroom starting spraying undesirables with water, there’d be a lawsuit or maybe even assault charges.

I’m not a lawyer, but automating that should be even more illegal:

First, it implies premeditation. Also, it could endanger people in corner cases. What if someone is forced out with their pants down, wheelchair users, etc?

“Weight sensitive floors”

Unless these floors are also able to sense the distribution of this weight to the specific spot, this will be triggered by a large enough person.

Can’t wait for the false positives

So, are the Welsh having too many children or why does the government want to stop them having sex?

...in toilets.

Kinky.

edit - to make the point with less brevity, some people will have sex in them for the water jets.

If you're having sex in a toilet, you're doing something wrong.

Better have screens inside that, when the sensors are triggered, show pictures of the Queen of England.

Maggie Thatcher, Maggie Thatcher, Maggie Thatcher.