OK, I figured that title would get peoples' attention! I think this is an interesting topic and I debated posting it to the non-swimming related forum, but it is swimming related.
Anyway, here's the story. A woman in Seattle has been fighting the rule that women need to wear tops while swimming in Seattle pools. She had a double mastectomy and her contention is that the suit rubbing against her scars is very uncomfortable. The city Parks & Rec department finally decided she can swim topless--but only her:
seattletimes.nwsource.com/.../2018485244_swimmer.html
the reason i am bringing this up is because i would find a way around an uncomfortable suit that would provide more speed (like preventing the rubbing with that plastic sticky stuff i had) vs wearing a slower suit designed for men (good luck finding one that fits with womens hips).
Hold the phone. Ever hear of a bikini? They make training bikinis for women, you know.
If the tissue is still healing and tender to the point of requiring topless attire, perhaps she shouldn't be in the pool yet.
As many have pointed out in the comments section for that article, aren't there other alternatives, such as swim shirts, etc.? From the story it's difficult to know if she explored other options, but there does seem to be an undercurrent that she was just looking for a fight. OTOH we haven't been in her shoes.
So presumably a rule requiring women must wear tops in the pool is due to our societal mores that women's breasts should be covered. This woman has no breasts, so why does she still need to cover her chest? Simply because she's a woman? In the big picture if we didn't have these puritanical hangups about nudity this would never have been a story.
the reason i am bringing this up is because i would find a way around an uncomfortable suit that would provide more speed (like preventing the rubbing with that plastic sticky stuff i had) vs wearing a slower suit designed for men (good luck finding one that fits with womens hips).
Hold the phone. Ever hear of a bikini? They make training bikinis for women, you know.
If the tissue is still healing and tender to the point of requiring topless attire, perhaps she shouldn't be in the pool yet.
As many have pointed out in the comments section for that article, aren't there other alternatives, such as swim shirts, etc.? From the story it's difficult to know if she explored other options, but there does seem to be an undercurrent that she was just looking for a fight. OTOH we haven't been in her shoes.
So presumably a rule requiring women must wear tops in the pool is due to our societal mores that women's breasts should be covered. This woman has no breasts, so why does she still need to cover her chest? Simply because she's a woman? In the big picture if we didn't have these puritanical hangups about nudity this would never have been a story.
