Should married couples bathe together as a way to save precious natural resources?

Question

My new husband and I have started to do this in order to minimize our use of water and natural gas to heat the water. What we do is take a 5 minute all business soapy shower to get the grime off so that the bath water doesn't become gray from soaking and washing (lol ) than we proceed to the bathtub where we leisurely soak in a nicly scented bubble bath. Besides saving natural resources it seems good for health because afterward, we both feel happy and relaxed. I believe if that became the norm than enough water and natural gas would be saved to power a city for at least a year.

Answer 1

You're sort of on the right track, but not quite.

They actually used to encourage this in Australia where they often have water shortages.  They called them "shower buddies", as I recall.

But the bath part is not a good use of water, as has been mentioned.  If you just stick to taking a quick shower together (which is actually what my wife and I usually do), then you'll be conserving water.  But if you take both a 5 minute shower and fill up the bathtub, you're using a lot of water, and thus not conserving.

Answer 2

I feel that filling the bath tub is wasting water already. the shower is enough to keep you clean. Besides that you can save water by rinsing your hair and body at the same time! Don't do it separately! because when you wash yr hair, the water will also rinse the soap from yr body at the same time!  So you will use less water to rinse your body!Brilliant isn't it?

Answer 3

Other ideas what couples can do to save energy...

-drive together

-have only one car

-get rid of suv

-shop together

-be always together in the same room of the house

http://www.gaspumptips.com

Answer 4

absolutely not.......I like my alone time and the bathroom is about the only time that I get this.

Answer 5

Sounds like a great way to build togetherness too.  Good for you.

Answer 6

sound's interesting, let me tell my wife about this and thanks for asking.

Answer 7

Well, it is better than taking separate baths, but skipping the baths altogether would be the most environmentally friendly.

Answer 8

Not just married couples

but all people who live together .

In Japan is is customary to bathe with the whole family.

Answer 9

I see more advantages to this idea than mere conservation.

Answer 10

If you both take showers that are quick it'll probably save the most while still getting you clean.

Answer 11

grimy - take a shower

or, use the bucket and mug method off showering if you are really into water conservation

Answer 12

Sounds nice :-)

Answer 13

I think this is a fine idea.  In fact, before I met my girlfriend, there was a cute brunette down the street I willing would have volunteered to do this with.

I admire the idea and think it has some merits, but I'm not sure this is the best approach overall in promoting water conservation at home.

Couple of interesting statistics: toilets account for 26% of a households annual water usage; leaks consume nearly 14% of a homes yearly water usage!

The first thing you can do to reduce your water consumption is to make sure your system is leak free. This is fairly easy to do and often doesn't cost a great deal.

Another trick (many homes in Canada have done this) is to fill a two liter plastic bottle with gravel and water. Then put this in your toilet tank -- this basically (via displacement) reduces the volume of water used with each flush.

We have two rain water gathering systems in our yard.  I've check the volume gathered over the summer (we've had a moderately dry summer here) and we still managed to save 102 gallons to use in watering the yard and garden!

The second link below offers 49 tips on how to best save water at home. There are some really cool ideas!

Combine some of those with your "duel" shower idea and you might have one of the most water wise homes in your neighborhood!

Answer 14

Good grief.  

"Don't trick yourself into thinking you're conserving..."

"Bathtubs are too much water..."

Don't listen to this.  You and your new husband should take as many showers and sit in the scented bathtub as many times as you want.  There are a lot of things more important than making sure every drop of water is saved, and marriage is one of them.  

Reading some of these condesending posts almost requires a big fat full bathtub of water to try and relax.

I personally encourage you to, instead of taking a 5 minute "all business" shower,  take a 30 minute "All play" shower and then afterwards, glow in a full bathtub together.  

It's a fantastic idea.  Enjoy yourselves.

Edited to add:  You're married in the 12th grade?

Wow!

Answer 15

Okay.... I'm going to go with this answer.  If you'd *both* be soaking in a hot tub, as often and as long, then, yes, soaking together is a good idea.

And if you're soaking in a tub as opposed to getting a brand new all-weather spa popped onto your shiny brand new deck, still a good idea.

But still - since the general idea is to get kinda dirty together - do you *really* have to be *that* clean at the same time?  There used to be all kinds of rules about bathing in government run brothels - but that makes sense.  If you're sexing someone you don't love, the way they smell won't do anything for you.  If you're making love with someone you *do* love - you *do* love each other, right? You didn't marry for the tax benefits? - they smell fabulous, take it from me.  Straight from work, straight from four solid hours shovelling gravel from front garden to back garden - fabulous.

So are you just doing the Western body-fascist thing?  Don't smell, don't have body hair, don't have love-handles - because anorexic-Barbie has no love-handles, and - know what?  - fertility-symbol-Barbie doesn't either.  Love-handles happen in the happy medium between absolutely cylindrical and  totally globular.

The basic idea is to reduce your footprint.  'Step lightly on the world'.  But accept that your footprint - carbon and environmental together - will *never* be as small as those guys in Africa who carry round a knife, wear a small piece of cloth, and pierce handy chunks of flesh with whittled chunks of wildebeest rib.  Never gonna happen.

Which means that we should accept that

a) They have more population than us - and

b) We're still the big problem.  

It's not how many there are of us.  It's not how happy we are, either - it's how much landfill we generate, how much clean, drinking-quality water we choose to slosh around our bodies, our cars, our gardens, how many chemicals we treat the water with thereafter to get *every darn bit of it* back to drinking quality- which is a lot like bathing in asses' milk if you think about it - my mother's mother bathed in rain water.  When we visited her, we did that, too.  

And it wasn't called eco-anything.  It was called 'not having indoor plumbing yet'.

And only one TV, and only two TV stations, and for much of the day, if you switched on, you got the test card.

So we made our own entertainment - which, right enough, often ended 'She started it!'

'No - *SHE* started it!'

'No - *SHEEEE* started it!'

And then one or other parent - or both in two part harmony - would chime in

"Don't matter who started it - we're finishing it!"

There's something to be said for a Saturday afternoon film.

So, yep - I've *seen* the test card, and not just being all spooky on 'Life on Mars'.

That's how old I am...

And I've read 'What is to be done', and thought 'Communism- you know, we should try that some time!'  

The original communism, as defined by Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky.  Don't mess with what his half-baked, wannabe-rich&famous students dreamed up, sipping coffee in Europe while he gnawed bread and smuggled chapters out from Siberia.  He died in 1863, 100 years before I was born - but, boy, he could write a good science fiction novel!  With L*****n love scenes, yet... 's**y *and* funny'.  Which is a quote from a 2005 SF film, but still apt.

And - coincidentally I'm sure - Lenin, bless his little no-brain heart, defined socialism as 'that thing that started in 1864, when my noble mentor was safely dead'.

Bless.

Read Gaviotas, too.  I remember when Gaviotas was science fiction - now it's ancient history.  So sad...

Helen

Answer 16

Not necessarily to conserve resources...

Answer 17

Are you sure that you will not create  some unwanted natural resources in the bargain? Tubs use too much water. Showers are much better in water use.

Answer 18

While this is indeed a fun way to spend some time... don't trick yourself into thinking that you're doing something for the environment. If you really want to make an impact, stick to the 5 minute no nonsense shower. By filling the tub, you use alot of water. Water that is not "needed" to get clean.

But, my motto is everything in moderation. Just don't take baths every day, and when you do, think about the lovin and not about the earth.

Answer 19

If you enjoy it go ahead. But if you are doing it because of some misguided notion that you are somehow saving the earth it is totally nonsense. If you care about people you will write your gov't official to end all spending for or against global warming. All educated people realize global warming as a hoax. Spending money on this hoax may seem harmless but if it continues the world will soon see an increase in hunger and poverty. This may not concern you but in 15-20 years it may be your children or grandchildren going hungry. Think about it. Would you like to see your children benefiting from the money of your labor or the pockets of the greedy politicans who are using this hoax to line their pocketbooks for their next run for the White House, or to use this hoax to scam the American consumer.