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
This would definitely increase the popularity of the sport.
Allowing women with no breasts and mastectomy scars to swim topless would make the sport more popular? Gee, not sure about that.
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.
At least hangup a figleaf.
Yeah, I've got to admit I can't really imagine allowing people to swim completely nude in a public session, but I don't see the big deal about women going topless. I doubt that many would, anyway.
If the tissue is still healing and tender to the point of requiring topless attire, perhaps she shouldn't be in the pool yet.
Scars from major surgery can be painful or sensitive for years. And depending on just what she had done, she could have a pretty big scar, or scars on her back as well. It seems perfectly plausible to me that a woman would find no form of swim top tolerable even after she had recovered fully in every other way from mastectomy surgery.
I don't understand. This woman originally raised the request because of her special situation. She got what she wanted and can swim the way she wants now. Glad? Nope. Now she's asking for more. What next? Advocating for the same on behalf of cancer survivors.
I fixed your post to help answer your question.
I don't understand. This woman originally raised the request because of her special situation. She got what she wanted and can swim the way she wants now.
Yes, she can, but what about others with similar issues? As things stand now they are out of luck, or--I guess I should say--they must follow the existing rules. To me the worst possible outcome is this woman gets her own special rule that only applies to her.
i understand the health issues you brought up, but, from a swimming point of view - why would you want to? a suit that would cover your upper body and make you more bouyant vs a jammer?
in college i had a wart removed on my inner leg. when i would kick, i could feel the wart rubbing against my other leg so i had it removed. The sports medicine people put a clear plastic sticky thing over that part of my leg after the wart was removed to keep the area dry and to prevent rubbing. 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).
