Fake Hand Washers

Today, I heard someone in the restroom who was a fake hand washer. I was inside a stall so I didn’t witness everything with my eyes… just heard the goings-on outside the stall. This woman rushed out the stall, placed her hands under the automatic faucet just enough to activate a splash of water, noisily grabbed some paper and rushed out. I have heard plenty of hand washings so I knew that that was just a noisy charade on the part of the woman to make it seem like she was not the dirty creature that she was. I had to resist the urge to shout out as she left, “I know you didn’t wash your hands!”

The other time I experienced that, I told my coworkers about it. One pointed out that fake hand washers are worse than the people who did not wash their hands. That latter group might just be clueless about hygiene and do not know better. The fakers know that they are supposed to wash their hands, pretend to do it, and waste paper and water in the process.

If people want to be non-hygienic in private, that’s none of my business. However, if they’re going to touch public items like door handles, serving utensils, etc., they better keep themselves clean for everybody’s sake.

6 thoughts on “Fake Hand Washers”

  1. Thanks! It’s great to be blogging again, especially knowing that people are reading. I guess it’s like working out… once I stop, it’s hard to start it up again but when I just do it, I get all this energy that reinforces me to work out.

    I came across this relevant study. They pointed out some confounds, but in general, women in the study were more likely to wash their hands due to social pressure than because of concern for sanitation and hygiene.

  2. Fake washers are bad, but no washers are still worse. Nightmare scenario:

    A guy comes into the bathroom, does his business and doesn’t flush. I don’t mind, because I assume he peed on his hand. Yep, peed on his hand. I’m not too worried at this point, I’d rather he didn’t flush in this case and touch the facilities.

    That doesn’t change the fact that he peed on his hands (I assume) so he BETTER wash. If he runs out of the bathroom now I will avoid him at all costs if I know who he is.

    Now some will say “I don’t wash because I didn’t touch anything and don’t want to touch anything.” but it doesn’t work that way. You didn’t flush so I make an assumption of uncleanliness. Now, if I do see anyone not washing I’ll avoid shaking their hands on principle too, but add in no-flushing and that just compounds the issue.

  3. Haha! It took me a few readings to comprehend why it was okay to pee in the hands and not to flush. I guess there are different types of toilets and flush mechanisms. I usually use my foot on the ones with a long handle. For the ones where I can’t use my foot, I use toilet paper to buffer. In any of those scenarios, it didn’t matter if that pee-in-hand person touched it, because I interacted with the toilet with the assumption that there was pee on the handle. That’s why I had a hard time following the nightmare scenario… to me, that is the default scenario. Thus, not flushing is worse; I don’t want to see someone else’s bodily wastes.

    In the case of the fake washer in the women’s restroom, she couldn’t say she didn’t touch anything because she had to open the door, which could have any number of bodily fluids on it. She could have used a toilet paper buffer but I doubt someone who didn’t wash her hands would be that careful. Also, with automatic faucets, there is no need to touch anything after leaving the stall.

    If fake washers don’t wash their hands, how are they less worse than non-washers? They’re technically the same except they waste paper and water.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>