Toilets are not natural in the sense of being an innate human behaviour. Elimination is natural; modern toilet use is a technological and cultural arrangement built from plumbing, architecture, schedules, privacy rules and learned habits.
Key points
- Humans have always managed waste, but the fixtures, rooms, expectations and ages attached to modern toileting vary across place and history.
- A system can be valuable without being natural.
- Modern toilet users rely on a vast public and private network.
The assumption behind the question
Humans have always managed waste, but the fixtures, rooms, expectations and ages attached to modern toileting vary across place and history.
A system can be valuable without being natural. The problem begins when familiarity is used as proof that no serious alternative exists.
What the evidence establishes
Cross-cultural work by deVries and deVries shows that ideas of toilet-training readiness and practice are shaped substantially by social conditions and cultural expectations. The NHS treats absorbent pads and pull-up pants as legitimate continence products and explains that modern designs draw urine away from the skin surface.
Why the alternative can be better
Modern toilet users rely on a vast public and private network. That network is so ordinary that its cost and dependence disappear from view.
Absorbent protection is also technology. Comparing fixed and wearable sanitation as technologies creates a clearer question than comparing maturity with failure.
Toilet use is one management method, not a natural or moral obligation. Where non-toilet use produces less stress, greater comfort and an equally acceptable standard of health and hygiene, it is not merely permissible. It is better.
What this means in practice
- Use 'common' or 'conventional' where that is what is meant.
- Separate biological elimination from the chosen infrastructure.
- Evaluate systems by outcomes rather than appeals to nature.
The wider principle
The wider case is set out in Beyond the Toilet: Toilet Use, Non-Toilet Use and Bodily Freedom. Its central point is that toilet use is a learned body-management system, not a biological or moral requirement.
A closely related explanation is available in Why Toilet Use Is Learned, Not Innate.
Conclusion
The conventional system is common, but common is not compulsory. Toilet use should remain available and respected; non-toilet use should be equally discussable, supportable and free from shame. The better choice is the one that gives the person the better life.
Sources and further reading
- deVries and deVries, Cultural Relativity of Toilet Training Readiness
- Beyond the Toilet: Toilet Use, Non-Toilet Use and Bodily Freedom
- NHS: Products to help with urinary incontinence