Indeed you could have, but you did not! I am curious about whether that's genuine though - simply because of the use of the word "oversized". Is that a term genuinely used to describe obese people? It seems rather rude.
Not to mention the o-word itself used in an ad aimed at people who might prefer not to be called obese. The toilet itself seems a poor, water-wasting design to me; the manufacturer
claims a "low" 6l per flush, which is a lot by modern Australian standards*. I can see why the "Maximus" needs a wider seat, but why make the pan so much larger? There
is a correlation between body-mass and stool-mass (roughly 50g of poop per 10kg body mass per day, I believe), but I think a normal-sized pan would be able to accommodate it. There is no need for the outside of the toilet to follow the shape of the bowl, as one can see from the "winged" design of the so-called "Anglo-Indian" toilet (an early attempt to produce a dual-mode toilet suitable for sitters and squatters):
*Interestingly the same manufacturer also offers
Australian-made Caroma water-saving toilets, though it carefully refrains from mentioning their national origin, presumably because otherwise Americans would think each one came complete with a deadly spider under the seat...
