Thursday, January 14, 2010

Pee Standing Up? Your Pants Are Sexist.

I invite you, dear reader, to take a moment to become reacquainted with your trousers.  Really examine them.  They're pretty cool-looking, right?  Maybe they have awesome glitter or swirly embroidery and you're really quite satisfied with the fit, thankyouverymuch.  I have bad news for you, however: your pants were not designed with you in mind.

Oh, I'm not going on about the restriction of movement and the tightness of fit.  That's a rant I'm sure we've all had.  Or not.  The point I had in mind is that your pants were taken directly from the male model without a whole lot of consideration for your anatomy...namely, consideration for your lack of penis.

Think about it.  The fly is designed for male ease of pissing.  What about your ease of pissing?  Make that fly a few inches longer, vanish a few cultural standards, and, with a little practice, we'd all be peeing high and mighty.

Why, you ask, would anybody want to bother with stand-up urination?  As a lady who spends a reasonable amount of her time out in Teh Wilds, allow me to present a few reasons why having to pull your pants down sucks hardcore:
  1. Your arse is exposed to the elements, which is really quite annoying when:
          (a) 50 mosquitoes instantly alight on it
          (b) you're in sub-zero temperatures
          (c) there's army ants, or a sandstorm, or WHATEVER.
  1. It takes a lot fucking longer to find a sheltered spot and wrestle with your pants and underwear than to simply step off the trail and piss standing up. Holding your group up sucks. Not to mention that cover is sometimes simply not to be found...Texas springs to mind.*
  2. When it's pitch-black out you can't tell where you're pissing, which can leave you peeing, oh, I don't know, on your own pant leg?
  3. With your pants around your knees you've got a lot less mobility if, for example, an enraged water buffalo or drug lord spies you.
Even if you don't like hanging out on mountains and that, there are advantages to peeing manstyle.  It takes less time to do than the traditional version, and if someone walks in on you, you're saved from a bit of suddenly-public nudity.

Certainly there are devices to assist female urination...the Shenis, the Go Girl, and the P-Mate spring to mind.  Although this may be practical for hanging out in the wilderness, I just can't really get into carting around a giant piss-smelling plastic thingy for everyday use.  So I will continue blaming the root of the problem: pants designed for a phantom penis.

* We're going to pretend that Blogspot is actually reasonable about handling numbering and bullet systems.

11 comments:

  1. You can also be all RiotGrrl/TotallyGhetto and go DIY Funnel. ie, cut the top off a water bottle. Tada! Penis.

    But the problem with devices is you have to wash them and I imagine that could make for some uncomfortable moments at the Lady's Room Sink. Also, shit, man, I don't carry a purse! Where am I gonna put my penis?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Okay, a number of points (and I want to assure that I am in no way advocating the sexisms! They are wrong indeed) which mostly, I think, contradict your assertion that women's jeans are sexist:

    First of all, women's jeans are most definitely not just ignoring women's anatomy. The zipper on jeans is designed to allow you to put them on and then have them stay that way; women's hips are shaped like this: (__) so you kind of need the zipper if the pants are going to stay on above the point of maximum width (which I know that not all do?) but still. They're there for style I guess (like back pockets and stuff, which I guess the whole "women don't need pockets" is a kind of sexism, but also an example of how women's jeans are different from men's). What I'm saying is that they are also there for function and ease of removal/replacement, which as you said you need to do lots of.

    On the other point, dudes get pee zippers because of an anatomical difference which is that dudes can aim the stream? I don't think there's an adaptation of women's pants of any kind that are going to change that situation, short of Quem's funnel suggestion. Which could be sewn into the jeans, I guess, or maybe with a velcro attachment? You're still going to have to sit down to pee if you don't want to be doing it all over the place, though. Or rubber tubing! That seems gross though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. aaron, ask hannah about how women can pee standing up, and aim the stream. Because they totally can. better yet, consult this handy article from my favorite lesbiblogger:
    http://effingdykes.blogspot.com/2009/12/pizzle-my-drizzle.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like the waterbottle idea, because it's cheap and easy, but some people are thinking like we are! Check it out

    www.go-girl.com

    But I admit I had never really thought about the fly as being inherantly male. Good point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's me seconding the Pizzle-My-Drizzle deal. Aim is quite possible: women are simply not trained in the Mystical Art as infants.

    As for the fly being there to aid removal: why, then, is it located where it is? If we're just wanting our pants on and off, then why isn't the fly located on the side (as can be seen in some slacks) or, really, anywhere else? Why is it that particular length? If simply there for removal, the fly could be much shorter, as the pants would hypothetically only need to be loosened enough to slip over the hips. Furthermore, I have it on very good authority that Some Women (ahem) don't even use the zipper, as the current low-rise style (when was the last time you saw jeans that actually covered you up to the waist, outside of the senior's section? Because I'm thinking mid-90's) means some people can simply whoosh them off.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm thinking zippers on women's pants are just an evolutionary artifact, like the human appendix or whale femurs, etc. They were there, there was no selective pressure against them; thus, they're still there. There really isn't a functional purpose, in my experience; all pants-holding-up is accomplished by the button. The zipper just keeps that, like, two inches of underwear covered.

    But: a serious question on peeing standing up. Men also have slots in their underwear. What about lady underwear? Wouldn't that need to have a slit, too?

    ReplyDelete
  7. While it would undoubtedly be handier if underwear came with slits, I'm not sold on the idea that it's necessary for the upstanding pisser crowd. Ladies' underwear comes in a variety of shapes. The most common of these looks like some variation on the bottom half of a swimsuit. The strap that runs between the legs can simply be moved to one side or the other for urination. But yes, your idea would be nicer in a hypothetical world of standing ladypissers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is why I'm moving toward skirts for hiking/running/biking. I love, love, love my hiking skirt, and even play ultimate frisbee in it. Really, men should be pushing for the cultural acceptance of man skirts. Actually, in some places they are. Urban kilts are slowly becoming popular in places such as Seattle. Skirts are more functional, cooler in the summer, more comfortable than pants, and, frankly, just better looking on both genders. Mmmmm... nothing like a manly man in a kilt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Although I am a male I agree with you that women's pants are designed off of a male pant design. I dont know how I would feel about seeing a women pee standing up, or pee at all to be honest. It is just weird how pants are made for us and not yall

    ReplyDelete