Last Updated on: 12th May 2013, 01:44 pm
When I heard about the guy who, uh, left a donation in one of the toilets at the Toilet Museum, so many questions came to mind. My first reaction was, what the hell was he thinking? Would you go into a war museum and test fire a gun on display? If you were a pilot, would you try to fly a plane out of the aviation museum? I don’t think so! But then again, maybe he thought it was one of those interactive deals like Science North where you get to walk over the bendy bridge, pet the flying squirrels, lie on the bed of nails and find out your blood type. Somehow, I think not. Taking a crap doesn’t seem like something you’d want to make into a public and interactive occurrence. Then I wondered which exhibit he chose to use. Was he feeling adventurous and left the log in one of the holes in the ground representing the early history of the toilet? Or maybe he was hoping it wouldn’t be found, so he left it in one of the exhibits representing the toilets of the future.
But the biggest question I had revolves around something he said when he apologized to the staff. He said that they told him that visitors were expected to use the public washrooms on the street. Street? So, in a museum dedicated to using the john, there were no actual facilities to use? Isn’t that, well, an oversight? Wouldn’t it be smart to think that maybe someone might have the urge to visit the little boys’ or little girls’ room after looking at so many implements of said room?
Now the staff at the museum have put “not for use” signs on all the exhibits. The museum has only been open for a week. I’m waiting for the next person who uses one of the johns to say he couldn’t read the signs. Then they’ll really have to consider putting public washrooms in the building.