Motionless in the Dark

Motionless in the Dark: A Lavatorial Mystery

It began, as all tragedies do, with optimism.

Colin from Accounts had just eaten an uninspiring Pret wrap and wandered to the office loo—armed with his phone, a sense of entitlement, and the noble dream of five undisturbed minutes. The world outside could wait. Emails could rot. He had entered that sacred temple of beige tiles and uncomfortable echoes to answer nature’s call, ideally at his own pace.

And then, precisely 2 minutes and 57 seconds into his porcelain pilgrimage, the lights went out.

Total darkness. No warning. No flicker. No “Just so you know I’m turning off” blink of courtesy. Just the swift extinguishing of hope, hygiene, and visual orientation.

Colin paused, pants around ankles, heart pounding faintly to the beat of the motion sensor’s betrayal.

A Brief History of Sensor-Based Injustice

At some point in the last decade, a facilities manager—possibly drunk on power and Dairylea Lunchables—decided that switches were too pedestrian. Instead, we now trust our most vulnerable moments to motion-activated lighting systems, those fickle electric sentinels whose job it is to determine whether or not we still exist.

And they have standards.

According to the anonymous engineer James threatened politely emailed, the standard toilet light timeout is “180 seconds of inactivity.” Inactivity, in this case, being defined as not flailing like you’re attempting semaphore through a locked cubicle door.

So if you’re quietly sitting—reading, reflecting, gently questioning your life choices—you’re invisible.

You are nothing to the sensor.

Colin’s Hour of Darkness

Trapped mid-process, Colin had three options:

  1. Call for help – unlikely, given the office’s culture of stoic emotional repression.
  2. Wipe, stand, and re-activate the sensor – a logistical ballet requiring balance, precision, and a bravery not seen since the zipline incident at last year’s team-building retreat.
  3. Wave hand wildly under stall door – easily misinterpreted by passers-by as either flirtation or distress.

He chose all three. In sequence. In silence.

No one came.

The Existential Implications

Why is the timeout so short? Who decided three minutes was the natural limit for bowel-based contemplation?

Is it a subtle productivity push? A quiet HR nudge to ensure no employee feels comfortable for longer than 180 seconds?

Or worse: a Facilities Department vendetta against “long-sitters”?

One theory (unconfirmed) suggests the sensors were calibrated by someone who’s never eaten fibre. Another posits that it’s a deliberate psychological tactic, designed to reinforce a culture of urgency, movement, and clenched restraint.

Proposed Solutions from Staff

  • Installing a small disco ball to reflect movement inside each cubicle. (Denied due to “vibe risk.”)
  • Rotating seats that keep the sensor happy while inducing nausea. (Shelved indefinitely.)
  • Encouraging staff to practice “express evacuations”. (HR was reportedly very interested in this until they realised what it meant.)

One intern allegedly brought in a desk fan on a timer. We are watching him carefully.

Final Thoughts (In the Dark)

Colin eventually emerged, blinking into the light like a mole in Dockers chinos. His dignity may never fully recover.

So to whoever set the timer, wherever you are, we say this:

Extend the minutes. Be kind. A bowel is not a stopwatch.

And to our fellow stall-sitters, torch users, and mid-dump dancers in the dark—we see you. Even if the sensor doesn’t.

Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %

Discover more from untypicable

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Back To Top
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x