I've started throwing a cup of cold water over my husband every time he keeps to his lazy bathroom habits - I've been called 'bitter' but I'm tired of his excuses
For 20 years, the unidentified woman has been asking her husband to switch the shower valve - the rod that sprays water from the shower head when up, and fills the bath from the tap when down.
Most mornings, she steps in expecting the water to come from the tap and heat up there but, as she told the popular Reddit forum Am I The A**hole, she is instead met with a spray of freezing cold water.
In an expletive-filled post, the woman wrote: 'For nearly twenty. f***ing. years. I have been asking him to push that down. Since I was literally a teenager, I have been asking him to push that f***ing thing down.
'At least twice a month I have a VERY unpleasant wakeup/cold shower, because I turn the water on, and I get a cold spray from the shower. And every f***ing time he's apologetic, and then a week or two later, it happens again.
'He will do better for a while, and then it slips in again. He is always telling me that he's working on it, and hasn't he been better about it lately. But somehow he's always working on it, always improving, but it never f***ing stops.
'Today I had just f***ing had it. I stepped into the shower, turned it on and had a very cold and rude awakening.
'I couldn't f***ing take it anymore. I grabbed the cup by the sink and filled it about 3 inches with cold water, and walked out to where he was standing naked. He had just taken off his pajamas and was going to take his shower after mine.
'Without warning, while he was looking down, I held that plastic cup firmly in my hand and I jerked that mother***er in a 45 degree angle to get that cold water all over his torso and face.'
The woman told her husband she was tired of listening to him 'congratulate himself for "getting better".'
She continued: 'I told him that from now on, every time I'm taking a cold shower, so is he.
'That I refuse to be a second class citizen in my own home any longer, and if he refuses to make changes to treat me better, I will instead make changes to treat him worse, because I will not tolerate this any more.
'I'm going to continue to surprise-throw a cold cup of water on him every time I get a surprise cold shower.
'I'm tired of f***ing begging for basic f***ing respect and not getting it, with the implication that I have to f***ing put up with this forever.
'So, I know I'm probably an a**hole... but am I a justified a**hole?'
Obviously at the end of her tether, the woman's post sparked furious debate and racked up over 10,000 comments.
Many were arguing that she was justified in refusing to tolerate insensitive behaviour any longer, while others felt she could easily fix the issue herself.
One person wrote: 'For nearly 20 years you could have learned to take two seconds to look at it yourself. This is a you problem, not him.'
An apparent majority of commenters shared this view, questioning why the woman steps into the shower immediately.
One comment read: 'I'm honestly scratching my head at getting into the shower before the water goes on.
'Even if it's coming out of the tub faucet hot, the initial shower water will be cold. Plus, who wants to stand there naked and cold waiting for the water to heat?'
But others were sympathetic, arguing that her behaviour is not pure hysteria, but the culmination of decades of harboured frustration.
A commenter said: 'Can we consider the possibility that, when someone has reached the level of throwing a cup of cold water in their spouse's face, that it's not about the one minor annoyance?
'The post is pretty clear here. This is not "my husband is a caring and supportive member of the household 99 per cent of the time, but has this one blind spot".
'This is "I have spent 20 years turning myself inside out to get this person to make baby steps in pulling his weight, and nothing ever gets better."
'She feels trapped and powerless, so she's behaving like a petty a**hole. She should have left long before she got to this point.'
Even responders who empathise with the woman's situation are aghast at her unusual bathroom habit of standing in the tub while the water heats up.
'You get in the shower or the tub and then turn the water on?' asked one incredulous commenter.
'You don't run the water for a few seconds to let it warm up? This makes zero sense to me.
'In my over 40 years on this planet, I have never gotten into a shower or the tub and then turned the water on because I know 100 per cent of the time, the water will be ice cold.
'So, either I am standing in ice cold water in the tub because the diverter is down, or I am jumping out of the way because the diverter is up.
'All of this, literally ALL OF THIS could have been avoided if you simply turned the water on before you got in. I can't be the only person who finds this bizarre.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Idaho bridge faces demolition after 92 years
Idaho's iconic Rainbow Bridge is facing demolition after 92 years. The crossing, which is also known as the North Fork Payette River Bridge, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It has allowed millions of travelers to pass over since it was built in 1933 but has been deemed unsafe by the Idaho Transportation Department. 'The current Rainbow Bridge no longer meets ITD [Idaho Transportation Department] standards for highway bridges,' the department wrote . 'Despite regular maintenance and major repairs, the structure is deteriorating to the point where ITD will no longer be able to maintain it for highway traffic.' The department also cited issues including narrow lane and shoulder widths, tight curves on both sides of the bridge, and limited sight distance for drivers. Costs to repair and maintain the long-standing bridge were said to range from $20 million to $50 million over the next 15 to 20 years, transportation officials told Idaho News 6 . 'Anything that we would put in place for an observation point or an overlook would have to be designed to current standards. And it would be quite large and technically challenging to find a place for that,' an official said. Current plans have asked for public input on the future of the bridge. There are hopes that construction on the bridge's replacement will begin by 2028, according to the ITD. Highway traffic will be redirected toward a newer bridge north of the current bridge, which will be both wider and have increased visibility for drivers. To honor the iconic bridge, designers are considering a 'rainbow-like' arch design in the new plans. While the bridge would not be safe for traffic or pedestrians again, the ITD has proposed scenarios in which the bridge could be preserved. In the first scenario, costing $20.3 million, all but the historic arches would be replaced with follow up repairs occurring in 2070. Scenario two involved retaining as much of the historic bridge as possible with repairs every 25 years, costing $50.4 million. The third scenario, costing $48.4 million, would require the repair of the elements in the worst condition and repairs occurring every 10 to 15 years. Perseveration Idaho, which has been working for 50 years to preserve the state's historic places, argued that the historic landmark's demolition would be costly and environmentally wasteful, the Idaho Statesman reported. 'Rainbow Bridge, the largest single-span concrete arch structure in Idaho, remains today as a major achievement. [It] not only reflects the leading edge of bridge engineering of its time, but also exemplifies a conscious effort to meld a modern structure with a picturesque natural setting,' the National Register of Historic Places said in 1999. Many locals are torn over whether to preserve the bridge when doing so comes with such a high price tag. 'Keeping the rainbow bridge as a pedestrian bridge would be ideal, similar to the 95 long bridge,' one commenter wrote. 'Unfortunately building a new bridge is a necessity ... I don't want to be stuck in an endless money pit with rainbow bridge.' Another simply said: 'Leave the old bridge in place.' The ITD has extended their reach for public comment on the new design and the future for Rainbow Bridge until August 10. The Daily Mail reached out to the ITD for comment.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Iconic Idaho bridge on National Register of Historic Places faces DEMOLITION
Idaho 's iconic Rainbow Bridge is facing demolition after 92 years. The crossing, which is also known as the North Fork Payette River Bridge, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It has allowed millions of travelers to pass over since it was built in 1933 but has been deemed unsafe by the Idaho Transportation Department. 'The current Rainbow Bridge no longer meets ITD [Idaho Transportation Department] standards for highway bridges,' the department wrote. 'Despite regular maintenance and major repairs, the structure is deteriorating to the point where ITD will no longer be able to maintain it for highway traffic.' The department also cited issues including narrow lane and shoulder widths, tight curves on both sides of the bridge, and limited sight distance for drivers. Costs to repair and maintain the long-standing bridge were said to range from $20 million to $50 million over the next 15 to 20 years, transportation officials told Idaho News 6. 'Anything that we would put in place for an observation point or an overlook would have to be designed to current standards. And it would be quite large and technically challenging to find a place for that,' an official said. Current plans have asked for public input on the future of the bridge. There are hopes that construction on the bridge's replacement will begin by 2028, according to the ITD. Highway traffic will be redirected toward a newer bridge north of the current bridge, which will be both wider and have increased visibility for drivers. To honor the iconic bridge, designers are considering a 'rainbow-like' arch design in the new plans. While the bridge would not be safe for traffic or pedestrians again, the ITD has proposed scenarios in which the bridge could be preserved. In the first scenario, costing $20.3 million, all but the historic arches would be replaced with follow up repairs occurring in 2070. Scenario two involved retaining as much of the historic bridge as possible with repairs every 25 years, costing $50.4 million. The third scenario, costing $48.4 million, would require the repair of the elements in the worst condition and repairs occurring every 10 to 15 years. Perseveration Idaho, which has been working for 50 years to preserve the state's historic places, argued that the historic landmark's demolition would be costly and environmentally wasteful, the Idaho Statesman reported. 'Rainbow Bridge, the largest single-span concrete arch structure in Idaho, remains today as a major achievement. [It] not only reflects the leading edge of bridge engineering of its time, but also exemplifies a conscious effort to meld a modern structure with a picturesque natural setting,' the National Register of Historic Places said in 1999. Many locals are torn over whether to preserve the bridge when doing so comes with such a high price tag. 'Keeping the rainbow bridge as a pedestrian bridge would be ideal, similar to the 95 long bridge,' one commenter wrote. 'Unfortunately building a new bridge is a necessity ... I don't want to be stuck in an endless money pit with rainbow bridge.' Another simply said: 'Leave the old bridge in place.' The ITD has extended their reach for public comment on the new design and the future for Rainbow Bridge until August 10. The Daily Mail reached out to the ITD for comment.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
US Coast Guard releases report calling Titan disaster a ‘preventable tragedy'
Inadequate safety practices, deliberate efforts to avoid oversight and a 'toxic workplace culture' were among the factors that led to the 2023 implosion of the Titan submersible, the US Coast Guard has said in a new, damning report that described the disaster as a 'preventable tragedy'. The submersible was on a commercial voyage to explore the wreck of the Titanic when it disappeared in the Atlantic, leading to the deaths of all five people on board. The ensuing search captured headlines around the world for days as it evolved from a potential rescue mission to a recovery operation. On Tuesday, US Coast Guard investigators released their final report, spanning more than 300 pages, after a two-year investigation. What emerged was a scathing portrait of the company operating the Titan, OceanGate, and its CEO, Stockton Rush, who was among those who died. Based on hearings involving more than two dozen people, including former employees, the report paints a picture of OceanGate as a company where employees were threatened with dismissal and belittled for raising concerns about safety. The result was a culture of downplaying, ignoring and even falsifying key safety information to improve its reputation and evade scrutiny from regulators. 'OceanGate's toxic safety culture, corporate structure, and operational practices were critically flawed and at the core of these failures were glaring disparities between their written safety protocols and their actual practices,' the report noted. 'For several years preceding the incident, OceanGate leveraged intimidation tactics, allowances for scientific operations, and the company's favourable reputation to evade regulatory scrutiny.' Investigators found the Titan's design, certification, maintenance and inspection process were all inadequate. 'This marine casualty and the loss of five lives was preventable,' said Jason Neubauer, the chairman of the Coast Guard's Marine Board of Investigation, in a statement. Employees told investigators Rush would often bypass established protocols and ignore the concerns of experienced employees and contractors. 'The cumulative effect was an authoritarian and toxic culture where safety was not only deprioritised but actively suppressed,' the report noted. 'This toxic environment, characterised by retaliation and belittling against those who expressed safety concerns combined with a lack of external oversight, set the stage for the Titan's ultimate demise.' The report cited mounting financial pressures in 2023 as being behind a decision made by OceanGate to store the Titan submersible outdoors over the Canadian winter. 'During this time, the submersible was not covered or protected from the environmental elements, subjecting it to precipitation and repeated freeze-thaw cycles,' it said, likely leading to further degradation of the hull's structural integrity. Investigators concluded Rush had 'exhibited negligence' that contributed to the deaths of four people. Had Rush survived, the case would have likely ended up at the US Department of Justice and he might have been subjected to criminal charges, the report noted. In addition to Rush, the implosion killed the French explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, the British adventurer Hamish Harding and British-Pakistani businessman Shahzada Dawood and his 19-year-old son, Suleman. OceanGate then wound down operations and focused its resources on cooperating with investigators, a company spokesperson said on Tuesday. In a statement, he added: 'We again offer our deepest condolences to the families of those who died on 18 June 2023, and to all those impacted by the tragedy.' OceanGate began ferrying dozens of paying customers and researchers to the site scattered with debris from the Titanic in 2021, characterising the voyages as part of an ambitious push to foster deep-sea tourism. Last year, the family of Nargeolet filed a wrongful death lawsuit seeking more than $50m amid accusations that the 'doomed submersible' had a 'troubled history', and that OceanGate had failed to disclose crucial facts about the vessel and its durability. Neubauer expressed optimism that the investigation would help to prevent future tragedies. 'There is a need for stronger oversight and clear options for operators who are exploring new concepts outside of the existing regulatory framework,' he said. That view was echoed by the Dawood family. 'No report can alter the heartbreaking outcome, nor fill the immeasurable void left by two cherished members of our family,' they said in a statement. 'We believe that accountability and regulatory change must follow such a catastrophic failure.' The hope was that the tragedy would mark a turning point for the submersible industry, the family added. 'If Shahzada and Suleman's legacy can be a catalyst for regulatory change that helps prevent such a loss from ever happening again, it will bring us some measure of peace.'
