Man Court: The Case of The Over-Occupied Urinals

Order, Order, Order, Man Court is now in session, with Judge Jim presiding.  Today, we will hear arguments pertaining to the long-standing rule of Man Law that states "no two dudes shall share urinals in close proximity to one another, without at least one 'spacer' urinal between them." 

The Prosecution may start.

Prosecution:  Your honor, according to Twitter records, on March 24 of this year, it was reported that due to an over-occupied men's room, two men were forced to pee standing within close, dare I say, uncomfortable proximity to each other.  So close in fact, that two sneakers rubbed against one another. 

As men everywhere know, this is highly unacceptable behavior regarding men's room etiquette.  The long standing "Rule of Thirds" has been in existence longer than Hammurabi Code.  The rule, stating that if there are only three urinals, only two men can use them at a time, was clearly breached here on this day. 

This rule is not new, your honor, it's practically ingrained in men's brains from child birth, or at least from when they're potty trained.  You never stand so close to a man while holding your god-given junk, lest alone, to touch feet with him.  Accident or not, this type of behavior will not be tolerated in civilized environments. 

What the violator SHOULD have done was either wait for a properly spaced urinal to become available, or use one of the stalls if one were available.  Even if it was the ultra luxurious and spacious handicap stall, with it's implied guilt.  I don't care if the violator was about to piss himself, he should wait.  If he can't hold it, I think it would be far better to face the shame of pissy-pants than to actually touch another man while holding one's privates in a public bathroom.

This selfish act, your honor, caused great mental stress to my client, and he is seeking compensation for what is likely irrevocable damage to his well being.  The prosecution rests, your honor.



Defense:  Your honor, please.  I think we're all adults here, and the time to act like immature children in public settings has come and gone.  I think the so-called "victim" in this case needs to get over himself.  There's four urinals for a reason, and that reason is so that four gentleman can relieve themselves at a time, no fuss, no waiting.

Court room artist depiction of the alleged events

My client is ashamed for the contact he committed on the day in question, with his shoe, only the tip of his shoe, which was clearly a sign of his own distress.  I ask the court, do you think my client would be so bold, so uncoordinated on any regular day, at any given time?  No, his lack of so-called "etiquette" is a direct result of the urgency of the situation.

My client had drank two 20 oz bottles of the soda brand Mountain Dew, which we all know to be used as a diuretic in some parts of the world.  I'd also like to point out to the court, that my client only had ten minutes to get across campus to his next class, and had to decide between relieving his bladder and getting in a cigarette.  He was in such need physically, that it usurped his psychological need for nicotine.    

Your honor, I'd also like to cite the 2002 case of Banner v. Fryeburg Fair, in which the plaintiff's complaint centered around the use of a "trough-style" urinal on the fair grounds.  There was no barriers then, and there should not be barrier consideration here.  Your honor, I reiterate my earlier point, that there are a specific number of urinals for a reason, and that reason is plain and simple: that the urinals are used for their intended purpose, for men to relieve themselves of a full bladder, not to act as "buffers" between other insecure men.

My client is guilty of one thing, and one thing only, and that is unwanted man-on-man touching, which he is very remorseful.  I feel that his shame in this matter serves punishment enough.  The defense rests.

Judgment:  After hearing both sides of the case, and taking into consideration the aggravating and mitigating factors, I find that the defendant is guilty as charged, of the crime against Man Law pertaining to proper urinal spacing.

The facts of the case are clear, that on the given day of March 24th, 2011, the defendant entered a crowded public men's room where other men were waiting for use of the urinals.  I, as a human male, am occasionally familiar with the excessive urgency in which one needs to vacate their bladder, however, the court feels that the defendant acted in excessively reckless haste.  He also violated the long standing rule of public restroom etiquette pertaining to line cutting.  I can't even begin to imagine what would have happened if he had pulled this sort of stunt at a public professional sporting event.

The defendant's reckless endangerment of other men's well-known fragile psyches further aggravates the circumstances, since no apology was uttered, even under one's breath, for the unrequested touching of feet at the urinal.  While I heed to to the defense's argument that the number of urinals is relative to the number of people allowed to use them at one time, even with the little blinders in place, I fail to recognize the lack in common sense and situational awareness exhibited by the defendant on the day of the crime.

Again, I find the defendant guilty of the crimes charged, and impose a strict sentencing of consuming two whole urinal cakes before being allowed into another public restroom again.