Liberals in Sweden say men must sit to pee

woman4When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg moved to limit the size of the beverage you drink, it’s only fair to ask at what point do the moral busybodies on the left draw the line?

Well, according to reports out of Sweden, that line begins somewhere after your body has disposed of that beverage, if you are a man.

A motion was filed by the Left Party, known as a socialist and feminist organization, stating that male representatives on the Sormland County Council in Sweden should sit rather than stand when urinating in office restrooms, according to Huffington Post.

The party claims that urinating while seated is more hygienic for men because it eliminates the likelihood of puddles and other unwanted residue, in addition to being better for a man’s health by more effectively emptying one’s bladder.

There is some dissension in this opinion, as noted by John Gamel, a professor at the University of Louisville. Apparently, Gamel has done an in-depth study here and states that “men scatter urine not so much during the actual urination as during the ‘shaking off’ that follows.”

“As a result, forcing men to sit while emptying their bladders will serve little purpose, since no man wants to shake himself off while remaining seated on the toilet,” he wrote.

Your tax dollars at work.

Others equate this idea to the gradual emasculation of the male species that has been under way for some time now. A process that is evident if you tune in to any prime time family sitcom, where the man of the family, assuming he is not gay, is portrayed as a bumbling idiot at the mercy of the wiser, more competent woman of the house.

And before men in the United States scoff at the suggestion, how many times have we heard women, who slightly outnumber men here, complain about the seat being left up?

As for me, it all reminds me of a quote by C.S. Lewis, one of the world’s most influential Christian thinkers and beloved authors:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed
About Tom Tillison

Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review. He can be reached at tom@bizpacreview.com

  • CJR

    Are you aware that Liberals are in no way the same as Socialists? Look it up – seriously, take out a political science book and look up Liberalism, then look up Socialism. They're not the same, they're not even similar, and US Conservatives need to stop conflating the two in the hopes of whipping up a red scare against US Liberals, because it's dumbing down politics. I say this as a Socialist – I have no interest in Liberalism as a doctrine. None. Zilch.

    As for this? I as a Socialist also have no interest in what way people decide to relieve themselves. I'm more interested in fighting the root causes of poverty and civil inequality to be quite honest.