Which one would you choose?

[Pee Sensei 288]

Here's a very theoretical scenario: imagine a crowded place, no matter if its out- or indoors, but it only has one toilet. Queue is long but you manage to wait through it. The toilet lady tells you that there are two stalls:

• the first one costs lets say $1000 to use
• the second one is free but there are multiple cameras planted

Which one would you use? What is the financial limit that would make you choose the camera toilet? Does it matter if you knew the image of the camera is closed circuited back to the others also at same place or if it's streaming straight to public internet?

[Eliminature 5,107]

I'd have to choose the free one with the cameras. I simply don't have that kind of money. Purely a financial situation for me.

I'd have to suck up any voyeurs who would post my footage to the internet and trolls who would shame me for it. 

[Alfresco 10,989]

I wouldn't pay any amount to avoid the cameras.   I very very rarely pay to use a toilet at all - if there is a charge to use a public toilet then I would find somewhere outside instead.

So in this case, my question would be whether I would enjoy peeing for others to view (which the exhibitionist in me would quite like) or would I go outside to be more discrete.   However, (and I know you said it was hypothetical), I would never bother joining the queue in the first place.  

 

 

[Peewee123 1,111]

I would leave and pee somewhere else. 

[Eliminature 5,107]

4 minutes ago, Peewee123 said:

I would leave and pee somewhere else. 

Yes. Probably the best idea. 

[Bacardi 9,030]

I dont have the money and refuse to pee on camera for anyone so I guess I'm leaving the venue and finding a more private place anywhere else lol.

[oliver2 3,896]

1 hour ago, Alfresco said:

I wouldn't pay any amount to avoid the cameras.   I very very rarely pay to use a toilet at all - if there is a charge to use a public toilet then I would find somewhere outside instead.

So in this case, my question would be whether I would enjoy peeing for others to view (which the exhibitionist in me would quite like) or would I go outside to be more discrete.   However, (and I know you said it was hypothetical), I would never bother joining the queue in the first place.  

Remove some of the cameras from the voyeur-loo and make a voyeur-wall-and-shrubs, and anyone who wants not to be voyeurised can use the other walls and shrubs 🙃

[MonsterKane46 879]

to be honest I'd probably just piss outside somewhere

[bungholio69 273]

9 hours ago, Pee Sensei said:

Here's a very theoretical scenario: imagine a crowded place, no matter if its out- or indoors, but it only has one toilet. Queue is long but you manage to wait through it. The toilet lady tells you that there are two stalls:

• the first one costs lets say $1000 to use
• the second one is free but there are multiple cameras planted

Which one would you use? What is the financial limit that would make you choose the camera toilet? Does it matter if you knew the image of the camera is closed circuited back to the others also at same place or if it's streaming straight to public internet?

Alternative option: Reject humanity and just pee in the middle of the crowd. 

[Ms. Tito 2,028]

5 hours ago, bungholio69 said:

Alternative option: Reject humanity and just pee in the middle of the crowd. 

Based