On a somewhat related note I personally love TSO ' s adaptation of this piece . <| sep |> Islam , around 600 s 660 s CE . <| sep |> Nice ! !! Does it come with that stand ? I haven ' t had a 3 DS for very long but that looks dope <| sep |> And you ' re failing to grasp what is being discussed there in the first place . The additional rule breakers wouldn ' t be here in the first place if they hadn ' t leaked over with a larger group . It ' s not guilt by association , but it damn well is a case of recognizing a partial cause of the problem . <| sep |> Package of plays growing and growing <| sep |> Vs . Mcafee <| sep |> So I ' ve put an unreasonable amount of thought into this . My thought process is this each time a person raises or lowers the toilet seat , it costs X amount of energy or effort let ' s say , 5 energy . Picture a twoperson household of one man and one woman who use the toilet at exactly the same rate . Each time the man uses the toilet he expends 5 energy to lift the seat , and leaves it up . If he uses the toilet again immediately , he effectively saves 10 energy by leaving the seat up once for putting it down after the first use and then needing to raise it again for the second pee . Sounds super efficient , right ? But if you introduce a woman , and the woman uses the restroom in between , she expends five energy putting it down , and then he needs to expend another 5 energy raising it again for his second pee , and then she has to put it down again , and back and forth and back and forth . It assumes an equal expenditure of energy five energy per bathroom visit per person , basically . BUT ! This equation assumes that the man only ever uses the toilet seat in a raised position . Which they do not . If he needs the toilet seat down to poop , suddenly the fact that the toilet seat remains lowered means that the next time the woman goes to the bathroom after him she doesn ' t need to lower the toilet seat as she would if he had peed . This effectively saves 5 whole energy ! And then the system reverts to the same 10 units per alternating peeing . Basically , provided a household of equal parts men and women , it ' s make more sense to leave the lid down women sit 100 % of the time , but men don ' t stand 100 % of the time . Assuming men only pee 80 % of any bathroom visit since people generally pee more frequently than pooping , that means that 60 % of the toilet uses will be in the ' seat down ' position in an evengendered household . As long as men ever sit down , an evengendered household will have over a 50 % downposition use average . With this in mind , it ' s more efficient to leave it in the down position because in any given bathroom visit , there is a greater than 50 % chance that the visiter will want the toilet seat in the down position . This , in turn , will save energy that would otherwise be expended in moving the seat to a raised position . Since the averageuse preference favors the down position , that should be the default . Households with more men than women should clearly mathematically calculate how often each person poops or pees in a given day to more accurately predict whether it would be necessary to leave the toilet seat up or down . So with a little simple Urination Quantification , I believe I have effectively and definitively solved the Toilet Seat Question . You ' re welcome , humanity .