Proper Orientation (of TP)

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

There is exactly one correct way, and that is over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

(move this if it is the wrong sub-forum, etc…)

[KittenKaboodle]

While it is true that there is exactly one correct way, despite posting a link to relavant information, cjmcjmcjmcjm has somehow got it backwards. I don't mean that to sound critical, after all most surveys show that the majority of people have got it wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation#Survey_results

Under reduces the risk that a toddler or a house pet, such as a dog or cat, will completely unroll the toilet paper when batting at the roll.

EDIT: found a demonstration at the CheezburgerNetwork: http://www.viddler.com/explore/cheezburger/videos/1710/

[scarecrovv]

I prefer over, but my resolve is weak on this matter. Put forth your greatest arguments. Sway me to the one true virtuous side. 3, 2, 1, GO!

[EvanED]

Over, except in the presence of said undomesticated animals. Then under is acceptable.

[AvatarIII]

over, i just think it looks better, i guess it looks more like you are being passed the TP rather than under, in which the dispenser looks like it's holding it away from you.

[squareroot]

I have two cats, have always lived with at least one - never seen one batting the toilet paper roll. Yes, they've been kittens. They've never been declawed. So... Over.

[Samik]

Oh, you poor, misguided souls. I don't know what malevolent entity has been parading around and selling everyone on its bastard agenda, but please, allow me to set things right.


If your argument is one of aesthetics, underhand arrangement has an en enormous advantage in that, when rolled tightly, and separated crisply, the roll can give the appearance of an unblemished cylinder, with no dangling end immediately visible whatsoever.

If your argument is one of functionality and efficiency, then again underhand wins: when gripping the paper from behind and underneath the roll, and then pulling forward, upwards and to the side, considerably more friction is achieved between the loose end and the roll than when simply pulling forward from the overhand position. In the case of an unusually freely rotating bar, this can entirely spare you those annoying excessive unravelings, no matter how carelessly you tug.

[phlip]

If your argument is one of aesthetics, underhand arrangement has an en enormous advantage in that, when rolled tightly, and separated crisply, the roll can give the appearance of an unblemished cylinder, with no dangling end immediately visible whatsoever.

But this is a bug, not a feature... it means when you come to use it, you need to hunt around for the end, spinning the roll a bunch until you find it. With overhand, you don't have to, as 99% of the time the end will be in a plainly-visible location, ready for you to just grab. Arguing for this on the grounds of aesthetics is like arguing for Apple products - sure, 75% of the features are missing, but at least it looks shiny.

If your argument is one of functionality and efficiency, then again underhand wins: when gripping the paper from behind and underneath the roll, and then pulling forward, upwards and to the side, considerably more friction is achieved between the loose end and the roll than when simply pulling forward from the overhand position. In the case of an unusually freely rotating bar, this can entirely spare you those annoying excessive unravelings, no matter how carelessly you tug.

I've heard this claim before, but it doesn't make much sense. Firstly, the whole thing is rotationally symmetric, that's kind of the point. Aside from gravity, everything is going to be identical pulling from a different direction on a different orientation. And gravity itself isn't going to do much on something as light as TP. It doesn't matter what direction you pull it, it's going to behave about the same. Anyway, it's not friction that's relevant to this question... the whole "pull hard so that it breaks before the roll starts spinning, because if it does start spinning it won't stop for a while" thing is clearly a question not of friction, but of inertia. And the roll's moment of intertia is going to be identical regardless of what direction you pull on it, gravity being completely irrelevant, not just mostly irrelevant.

Besides, who actually tears their toilet paper in this way? It seems like it would be asking for trouble, especially as the roll shrinks and the moment of inertia goes down. The sane way is to realise that you have two hands, and to use one hand to hold the roll (just pressing down on the top is simple enough), and the other to pull on the end. And when done this way, the overhand orientation gives you easier control of where it tears... as there's less distance of paper between your two hands that way, whereas with the underhand orientation there's a whole half-loop behind the roll it could break on.

[Samik]

Regarding the first point, you're refuting my point about aesthetics with one about functionality. There's a reason I separated my consideration of the topic into two sections; I'm not an apple fan, but I do understand that, to some people, aesthetics are important. Even important enough to give up a tiny bit of functionality.

Thus, while your point has validity, it's not strictly speaking a response to mine.



I will get back to you about the functionality side of things. Not up for it just at the moment.

[FrancovS]

Well, it's not really about inertia. The idea is to hold the roll in place with your palm/wrist and pull it with your fingers. It's unwieldy to do when the paper is in the over position.

[bytbox]

Over.

(From w/p)

In a more traditional preliminary survey of 1,000 Americans, Cottonelle found that "overs" are more likely than "unders" to notice a roll's direction (74%), to be annoyed when the direction is incorrect (24%), and to have flipped the direction at a friend's home (27%).

Annoying: no basis for comparison is given. More annoying: there's no logical reason for a difference, and the reason cited by the cited article (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/america-sides-with-tori-spelling-rolls-over-86810867.html):

According to Dr. Gilda, "People who roll over like taking charge, crave organization and are likely to overachieve. It seems to me that Americans are passionate about rolling over due to the sense of control that it gives them."

Yeah. Right. But y'know, the toilet paper really goes "over" either way - let's call them "forward" and "backward". Then we get: "People who roll forward are aggressive, crave a good fight and are likely to get killed on the streets. It seems to me that Americans are passionate about rolling forward due to their desire for aggressive conflict."

Also, tiny dust from tearing the TP tends to collect on the wall - so it looks dusty, therefore I don't really want the TP rubbing it. (Despite the fact that I'm aware that the dust is just TP.)

[Queen Serenity]

I like having the roll over because it doesn't accidentally rip on me.

[troyp]

...when did "TP" become a recognized acronym for "toilet paper" and who forgot to tell me?
Wait, is this some American thing? Do Americans not like to say the word "toilet"?
</off-topic>

over - especially in a public toilet where you don't want your hand brushing the grubby wall.

[AvatarIII]

...when did "TP" become a recognized acronym for "toilet paper" and who forgot to tell me?
Wait, is this some American thing? Do Americans not like to say the word "toilet"?
</off-topic>

over - especially in a public toilet where you don't want your hand brushing the grubby wall.

yeah i think it's american, took me years to work out that "Teepeeing a house" meant throwing bogroll over it

[hotaru]

Do Americans not like to say the word "toilet"?

no, it's just shorter (two syllables instead of four).

over - especially in a public toilet where you don't want your hand brushing the grubby wall.

is this some british thing? do britishes not clean their toilets?

[troyp]

over - especially in a public toilet where you don't want your hand brushing the grubby wall.

is this some british thing? do britishes not clean their toilets? :P

lol, I'm not British. Could be an Australian thing, I guess, but I figured it was just a government thing where councils don't clean their toilets (well, that's an exaggeration, but they can be pretty awful sometimes).

edit:

Do Americans not like to say the word "toilet"?

no, it's just shorter (two syllables instead of four).

It's just that it occurred to me that Americans *don't* seem to say "toilet". They say stuff like "little girl's room (which is ridiculous - why would a toilet be more associated with a little girl than a grown women?) or "bathroom" (which is fine if you happen to know that "the bathroom" and "the toilet" are coreferential terms, but that's not true in general). It seems to be one of their bizarre euphemisms :-).

[hotaru]

It's just that it occurred to me that Americans *don't* seem to say "toilet". They say stuff like "little girl's room (which is ridiculous - why would a toilet be more associated with a little girl than a grown women?) or "bathroom" (which is fine if you happen to know that "the bathroom" and "the toilet" are coreferential terms, but that's not true in general). It seems to be one of their bizarre euphemisms .

in american english, "toilet" is the thing you sit on, not the room that it's in.

[EvanED]

It's just that it occurred to me that Americans *don't* seem to say "toilet". They say stuff like "little girl's room (which is ridiculous - why would a toilet be more associated with a little girl than a grown women?) or "bathroom" (which is fine if you happen to know that "the bathroom" and "the toilet" are coreferential terms, but that's not true in general). It seems to be one of their bizarre euphemisms .

in american english, "toilet" is the thing you sit on, not the room that it's in.

Exactly. You're just as unlikely to hear "I'll be at the oven" (instead of "I'll be in the kitchen") as "I'll be on the toilet" (instead of "I'll be in the bathroom"). It's not that we have any weird aversion to "oven" either.

[troyp]

Really? Huh. Well that explains why you don't say it, but then what *is* the name of the room over there? Is it just a bathroom, even if there's no bath?
edit: actually, the room does have its own name everywhere, doesn't it? it's a "lavatory"...but no-one really says "can I use your lavatory?".

[phlip]

It's not like "toilet" is any less of a euphemism... it's just further down the treadmill. And from a different language, that helps to hide it.

[AvatarIII]

Really? Huh. Well that explains why you don't say it, but then what *is* the name of the room over there? Is it just a bathroom, even if there's no bath?
edit: actually, the room does have its own name everywhere, doesn't it? it's a "lavatory"...but no-one really says "can I use your lavatory?".

or a Water Closet (WC) but that's even less used than lavatory (although you do occasionally see WC signs on Toilet doors in old buildings)

In UK English, I'd say the word "toilet" isn't really the name for the room either, when you say you are going to the toilet, you mean it as you are going to the item called the toilet, not the room called the toilet, it's essentially a euphamism for urinating/defacating. The room is sometimes called "the toilets" when it is in a public place, simply because there is nothing else to call it, (you could call it the sinks or tha basins i guess )

if anything the only Americanism for "toilet room" i can get behind is "restroom"

[EvanED]

Might I suggest a new term: the pooproom.

[AvatarIII]

Might I suggest a new term: the pooproom.

what about in the presence of urinals?

[EvanED]

I don't think I've ever seen a room with urinals but no stalls. But feel free to substitute "peeroom" if that's what you need at that particular point in time.

[AvatarIII]

I don't think I've ever seen a room with urinals but no stalls. But feel free to substitute "peeroom" if that's what you need at that particular point in time.

this is a good point i suppose, it's just that saying "i'm going to the pooproom" sounds like "i'm going to poop" but if you are not going to poop, when you are back in less than 2 minutes people may begin to suspect you do not wipe at all!

[troyp]

In UK English, I'd say the word "toilet" isn't really the name for the room either, when you say you are going to the toilet, you mean it as you are going to the item called the toilet, not the room called the toilet, it's essentially a euphamism for urinating/defacating. The room is sometimes called "the toilets" when it is in a public place, simply because there is nothing else to call it, (you could call it the sinks or tha basins i guess :lol: )

I'm pretty sure the room is called "the toilet" here, although I guess you don't hear it very often. But my family and my partner and other people I've heard say it all use the term, eg "in the cupboard under the sink in the toilet". Of course, I've no doubt it originated with the usage you described.

Might I suggest a new term: the pooproom.

Well, we kind of say that here, except we say "shithouse" (well, I don't, but people slightly coarser than I do).

( I apologize for derailing this thread from toilet-paper-orientation-warring. )

edit: having disabled smilies in my posting prefs, I notice phpBB doesn't respect a quoted user's preferences: they just get overridden by the quoters'

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

It's just that it occurred to me that Americans *don't* seem to say "toilet". They say stuff like "little girl's room (which is ridiculous - why would a toilet be more associated with a little girl than a grown women?) or "bathroom" (which is fine if you happen to know that "the bathroom" and "the toilet" are coreferential terms, but that's not true in general). It seems to be one of their bizarre euphemisms .

in american english, "toilet" is the thing you sit on, not the room that it's in.

Exactly. You're just as unlikely to hear "I'll be at the oven" (instead of "I'll be in the kitchen") as "I'll be on the toilet" (instead of "I'll be in the bathroom"). It's not that we have any weird aversion to "oven" either.

I skipped the rest of the thread after I saw this, so it may already have been answered. The term "bathroom" doesn't make sense when there is no bath (or even a shower!). I use the term "restroom," or "W.C.," depending on which side of the pond I'm on.

[EvanED]

I skipped the rest of the thread after I saw this, so it may already have been answered. The term "bathroom" doesn't make sense when there is no bath (or even a shower!). I use the term "restroom," or "W.C.," depending on which side of the pond I'm on.

Eh, while true, I'm not sure there's a substantially better term in common use. "Restroom" is only a little better -- I'm not really going there to rest. And "WC" is just a bit weird on a couple counts. Hence my suggestion for "pooproom" (or perhaps "toilet room"). One exception is the informal "loo" -- you can't really deconstruct it like you can "bathroom" or "restroom" or "WC" (or at least it's harder), so it can't be wrong. And of course there's the formal "lavatory."

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

I can't believe I forgot the term "loo." I must've not hung around people of high enough class during my semester in the UK for long enough to pick up on that one.

[KestrelLowing]

So, another derailing question: In not-america, what do you say when you're selling your house/whatever and you're trying to say how many bathrooms their are? It's pretty common to have "1-and-a-half baths" listed. (Meaning one full bathroom - shower/tub and toilet and one with just a toilet and sink)

[phlip]

That notation confused me for ages, until I figured out that a toilet is sorta like a very small bath. I guess you could call it a "half-bath" if you were prone to exaggeration. I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to bathe in one, but I guess some American customs are unknowable.

[GenericAnimeBoy]

I hang my TP roll whichever way I happen to grab it out of the package. I just don't care that much, I guess...

I try to avoid public toilets whenever possible, but most of the ones I've seen have enclosed TP holders that only work properly in the "over" configuration.

[Anonymously Famous]

I used to care - I was an "under'' guy. Now I don't, though. It serves the same function no matter what orientation on the roll it might have.

[Jplus]

I find 'over' a bit more intuitive and I think that when I'm 'in charge' I'll generally hang it such (though I'm not sure whether I always do that). Apart from that, I really don't care and most of the time I'm even unaware of a roll's orientation. So I voted undecided.

[Zizoo]

Only matters if the TP is against a wall or irritatingly-built rack or the like that would make under-oriented TP harder to grab. Then over. That being said, I voted over, because voting undecided seemed too wishy-washy.

Though, I suppose could see doing under if it's kept in a rack with a perforated (or at least lifted) base, for the sake of easier tearing.