Disclaimer: I am not addressing this at you but rather making general comments.
What is wrong with society? Maybe we (USA) are just too uptight? I've been to beaches in the Caribbean and Europe where women go topless and men wear dental-floss speedos. I've been to nude beaches in places such as St. Marteen island.
My point of view? So what? It's the human body. It comes in all shapes and sizes. Some types might be appealing to you and others not. I, personally, don't have any problems with any of it, from nudity to speedos so long as nothing inappropriate is going on.
That's not to say that I don't exercise judgement myself. I wouldn't wear a speedo, simply because I am not in shape and I would be too self-conscious while wearing one. I decided to switch to jammers for my workouts because the conventional swimming shorts I had were an absolute pain (getting loose, having to re-tie the laces, ballooning, etc.). I don't look great in jammers (yet) but I am not at the pool to win a Mr. Universe contest. They are functional, work well and don't make me self-conscious.
As for lifeguards...well, as someone said, they are saving lives. Surely there's a way to have them comply with some kind of a uniform, color pattern or design that might allow them to choose from a reasonable variety of styles in order to satisfy their needs for either modesty, function or comfort. Do the people being rescued really care?
(I know you weren't directing this at me, but...) Actually, I don't have a problem with nudity on beaches where nudity is the norm. It's the too-tight/too-small/seethrough suit that I have a problem with. It's not the human body I have a problem with , it's the suit and what it says. But I agree, if someone is saving my life, I don't give a crap what they're wearing. I'd hope it would be something they were comfortable with and that they thought was functional.
I do know that if an agency required me to wear a bikini or expose my belly, I would refuse. I think an appropriate assortment of lifeguard attire should be allowed.
I am continually frustrated by lifeguard suits that totally disregard a mature woman's physique.
I do not dictate what people wear to swim. but I'd like more choices that conform to my tastes.
(I know you weren't directing this at me, but...) Actually, I don't have a problem with nudity on beaches where nudity is the norm. It's the too-tight/too-small/seethrough suit that I have a problem with. It's not the human body I have a problem with , it's the suit and what it says. But I agree, if someone is saving my life, I don't give a crap what they're wearing. I'd hope it would be something they were comfortable with and that they thought was functional.
Maybe what I neglected to say is that being OK with some of this stuff doesn't mean that one is OK with vulgarity and bad taste, which is probably your point. I can only agree.
I've definitely seen guys wearing Speedo-type suits on the beach that made me want to throw up
Disclaimer: I am not addressing this at you but rather making general comments.
What is wrong with society? Maybe we (USA) are just too uptight? I've been to beaches in the Caribbean and Europe where women go topless and men wear dental-floss speedos. I've been to nude beaches in places such as St. Marteen island.
My point of view? So what? It's the human body. It comes in all shapes and sizes. Some types might be appealing to you and others not. I, personally, don't have any problems with any of it, from nudity to speedos so long as nothing inappropriate is going on.
That's not to say that I don't exercise judgement myself. I wouldn't wear a speedo, simply because I am not in shape and I would be too self-conscious while wearing one. I decided to switch to jammers for my workouts because the conventional swimming shorts I had were an absolute pain (getting loose, having to re-tie the laces, ballooning, etc.). I don't look great in jammers (yet) but I am not at the pool to win a Mr. Universe contest. They are functional, work well and don't make me self-conscious.
As for lifeguards...well, as someone said, they are saving lives. Surely there's a way to have them comply with some kind of a uniform, color pattern or design that might allow them to choose from a reasonable variety of styles in order to satisfy their needs for either modesty, function or comfort. Do the people being rescued really care?
I was a lifeguard at a water park during a summer in college. The uniform for guys was a pair of short blue shorts (very short) with an optional shirt. On cooler days, any blue sweatshirt was permitted, so long as it didn't have any large logos, team names, etc. The employer didn't pay us for any of it; it was a condition of working every day. Normal wear/tear was ok, but later in summer when shorts would bleach, some guys were asked to put on a new pair. I bought 2 at the beginning, they lasted me through the season, but were very close to bleached by the end.
I think a few times someone would show up without a uniform; they'd either buy a new one, borrow, or get sent home. You couldn't wear red guard shorts, had to be specific blue, with company logo. If you were cold and had only a red sweatshirt, you couldn't wear it. If you had any tattoos, they had to be covered, either by clothing or bandages. Quite specific, but our customers knew who the guards were and mostly listened to us.
I really don't see this as any different than someone showing up to work at McDonald's without their uniform (something I did in high school), or showing up to the office in inappropriate attire.
I was a lifeguard at a water park during a summer in college. The uniform for guys was a pair of short blue shorts (very short) with an optional shirt. On cooler days, any blue sweatshirt was permitted, so long as it didn't have any large logos, team names, etc. The employer didn't pay us for any of it; it was a condition of working every day. Normal wear/tear was ok, but later in summer when shorts would bleach, some guys were asked to put on a new pair. I bought 2 at the beginning, they lasted me through the season, but were very close to bleached by the end.
I think a few times someone would show up without a uniform; they'd either buy a new one, borrow, or get sent home. You couldn't wear red guard shorts, had to be specific blue, with company logo. If you were cold and had only a red sweatshirt, you couldn't wear it. If you had any tattoos, they had to be covered, either by clothing or bandages. Quite specific, but our customers knew who the guards were and mostly listened to us.
I really don't see this as any different than someone showing up to work at McDonald's without their uniform (something I did in high school), or showing up to the office in inappropriate attire.
If the uniform is reasonable, then it is reasonable to expect everyone to wear a uniform. If the uniform is not reasonable, then the story is different. I already mentioned the example of women being expected to wear bikinis, and my claim is that there needs to be a one-piece option. It can be the same suit, same color, but in a one piece version, and it will still look like a uniform.
Here is my story. When I was a beach lifeguard back in the 80s, they had us wearing the old nylon suits even though lycra had been around for awhile. ("We've had the suits for decades -- why change?") The men's suits were red and were a reasonable cut. The women's, however, were those old dowdy suits with the flap and the shoulder straps that fell off (I trust some of you remember those). Still, I gamely wore mine. Then a friend of mine told me that the suit was see-through when it was wet. Gee, none of the men I was lifeguarding with mentioned that... hunh. Shortly afterward, I finally met one of the (very few) other women guards. I mentioned the suit, and she laughed and said, "Yeah, they tried to get me to wear that -- but there was no way! I went out and bought my own red suit!" Needless to say, I did the same thing, and no one said a word.
Again, my point is that the suit has to be reasonable, or if not, options need to be offered.
If the uniform is reasonable, then it is reasonable to expect everyone to wear a uniform. If the uniform is not reasonable, then the story is different. I already mentioned the example of women being expected to wear bikinis, and my claim is that there needs to be a one-piece option. It can be the same suit, same color, but in a one piece version, and it will still look like a uniform.
Here is my story. When I was a beach lifeguard back in the 80s, they had us wearing the old nylon suits even though lycra had been around for awhile. ("We've had the suits for decades -- why change?") The men's suits were red and were a reasonable cut. The women's, however, were those old dowdy suits with the flap and the shoulder straps that fell off (I trust some of you remember those). Still, I gamely wore mine. Then a friend of mine told me that the suit was see-through when it was wet. Gee, none of the men I was lifeguarding with mentioned that... hunh. Shortly afterward, I finally met one of the (very few) other women guards. I mentioned the suit, and she laughed and said, "Yeah, they tried to get me to wear that -- but there was no way! I went out and bought my own red suit!" Needless to say, I did the same thing, and no one said a word.
Again, my point is that the suit has to be reasonable, or if not, options need to be offered.
This makes sense to me too. For instance, in the Track and Field Worlds, runners wear different variations of their country's uniform--some women wear briefs, some shorts, etc. I don't have a problem with people any age wearing whatever "suits" them (pardon the pun), but I do think there should be some flexibility in uniform choice.
So ... the lifeguard is a lawyer and he doesn't want to wear a speedo for the state required annual recertification test that takes a day.
I see ??'s all around. A possible opportunist; arguments of fashion over function; and some rules that are not enforced as written.
There is nothing that says he has to wear a 1" speedo that is a size too tight and in a see-through color. I doubt that he would have difficulties purchasing a speedo that fits.
The courts shouldn't be involved in this issue; the folks administering the test should be informed of the current rules through a few phonecalls to advise that he may cert in jammers or board shorts.
For all we know, the rules for the state recert swim test (brief, jammers, board shorts) may be originally intended to make sure that the candidate is wearing a swimsuit rather than street clothes, underwear, or nothing at all.
If somebody is saving my life, I really don't care how they are dressed. I hope they are focused on saving a life, not on what other people might think about their swimsuit. Otherwise, I would like that the guards project an image that they are competent and attentive.
Again, my point is that the suit has to be reasonable, or if not, options need to be offered.
Based on the photo linked by quicksilver on the first page I'd say the suit is definitely reasonable.
