Here is a question for the lawyers out there.
Do FINA regulations supersede US federal anti-sex discrimination laws?
Granted, I am not sure I know what the latter are. However, if I were to show up at a USMS swimming meet, wearing a perfectly legal women's swimming suit, one of the zipper-free kneeskin type models that also covered my ample boobage, and the officials rightly disqualified me for wearing this get-up because it is against the FINA/USMS agreed upon New Order, could I then turn around and sue under some federal statute prohibiting discrimination because gender?
In my mind, the new FINA rules are going to end up making swimming even more of a dying sport for boys in the US than the unintended consequences of Title IX, etc. Girls, especially in the younger age groups, can often beat boys in swimming, and in fact our own Mr. Qbrain got a top 10 time in the men's 30-34 LCM 1500 this summer. His wife, if I am remembering correctly, beat his time but failed to make the top 10 in the women's category.
If anything, it is we men who are now at a disadvantage. I say make the dystaff gender wear thongs and let us wear body suits fashioned to look like very streamlined tuxedos.
Suits for women now remain pretty much unchanged by the new FINA ruling, with the exception, that is, of getting rid of zippers and getting rid of non textiles. But that means women can continue to swim in what are still arguably very fast suits--FS1's, for example, that are very close to the short john types that helped loads of people get their best times. Men are prohibited from wearing anything but jammers.
Chicks, in other words, get 2004 technology; guys are back to the 60s. Why not let us go back to the 20s instead, when Johnny Weismuller wore a full body suit, albeit of wool?
So, in the spirit of Larry David, who recently concluded an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm with the line, "I'm Larry David, and I am comfortable in women's underwear"--I propose that any men who want to join me in the latest civil rights battle of our time show up at nationals this summer in women's suits and accompanied by our class action lawyer, and join me in echoing in a collective voice that rings out in natatoriums all across the fruited plain:
"I am a male USMS swimmer, and I am comfortable wearing women's suits."
Provided I can find an esquire who will agree to take the case on a contingency basis, I say this to the USMS sexist powers that be:
See you in court! Suckers!
Suits for women now remain pretty much unchanged by the new FINA ruling, with the exception, that is, of getting rid of zippers and getting rid of non textiles.
What? They will not be even remotely the same. I have never worn a knee skin in my life, absolutely abhor them ... We will likely be sent back to another decade, not 2004. (Women wore full body suits at the Olympics in 2000.) Some women, including myself, on occcasion, have opted for non-zipper suits for years. Women have to wear tops for public decency standards; men do not. Indeed, some men whine about how constricting it is to wear full body suits as they shimmy into their B70 leggings. I know shaving is a pain, but I'm sure you can manage it a couple times a year. Whiner! :)
Core work!
It would be clearer if you didn't muddle the two yourelf, btw.
But no, there would seem to be no legal basis for a claim of discrimination.
First of all, Mr. Sharpsburger, thank you for your very erudite legal explication. I mean this in all sincerity even as I must now ask the court's permission to treat you as a hostile witness.
My god, man! Has the stench of ivy from your former legal institution of higher learning so compacted your sinuses and bamboozled your nostrils and brochial tubes that you can't quite breathe right? What a stodgy, stodgy interpretation of "settled precedent"--of "conventional legal wisdom"--as if the latter phrase weren't rollickingly oxymoronic!
I see clearly now that my case shall depend upon a different breed of lawyer from the Harvard-Yale paper chase pointy heads!
I shall need someone hungrier, perhaps even on the verge of starvation, someone with rich hardwon experience enriching both himself and his dubious clients in settlements from nuisance lawsuits of the type he has filed countless numbers, in the process clogging our dysfunctional courts with the very impragmatism that finer legal minds disdain but secretly envy!
I will need, in short, the legal theories of a graduate from the New Jersey School of Traffic Law and Ambulance Chasing, or similar institution, one that trains real, in the trenches style lawyers, or at the very least, allows them to purchase certificates of training on the Internet at reasonable cost, certificates embossed on fairly real sheep skin!
I have never worn a knee skin in my life, absolutely abhor them ...
How can you absolutely abhor something you have never tried? Sorry, Leslie, but this seems to me the very worst kind of stereotyping imaginable. Expect a letter from my lawyer, a graduate of the NJSTLAC.
Women have to wear tops for public decency standards; men do not.
Lordy! Open your eyes, woman! Granted, sagging boobage may be offensive to some. But sagging hairy boobage is offensive to all. I know. I have these, and they offend even me!
Whiner! :)Core work!
Touche, dear woman. And touche redux!
Mr. Thornton, just out of curiosity, is it your habit to insult everyone and anyone you can, even total strangers?
No, Jim is pretty darn good fella. Now, geek and I on the other hand have no problem insulting each other or anyone else(strangers or not) We proudly don't discriminate.
I've tried them on. :afraid::afraid: They are horrible -- horrible looking and horribly restrictive on my SDK kicking thighs.
I am also now the owner of one, given the new USA-S rules.
I'm not saying your saggy man boobs aren't offensive, I'm just noting society's indecency standards, which require female saggy boobs to be covered up.
What? They will not be even remotely the same. I have never worn a knee skin in my life, absolutely abhor them ... We will likely be sent back to another decade, not 2004.
...
Indeed, some men whine about how constricting it is to wear full body suits as they shimmy into their B70 leggings. I know shaving is a pain, but I'm sure you can manage it a couple times a year. Whiner!
Well, I will agree that there is a lot of whining going on but I don't think Jim should shoulder the blame for all of it... :)
If I am understanding Jim's argument correctly: because women can get arrested in many instances for indecent exposure by baring their upper torso, men should be able to claim legal discimination against themselves? I can see Fort's point: that is indeed a whole new level of whininess.
I don't/haven't understood this argument against coverage. Regardless of the material of the suit, textile/non-textile(whatever that turns out to be) Why shouldn't suits that cover the upper body be allowed?
My guess is that the reasoning here is that it will be difficult to effectively govern materials. FINA doesn't want to always be in reactionary mode whenever some new, faster material comes out. By limiting the amount of coverage they lessen the effects something like this would have (for men, at least).
Jim, I don't think you should be wearing a ladies suit down in Georgia.
"He got a real pretty mouth, ain't he?"
Boy, you even got the quote right!:applaud:
We plan to show ya'll a REAL good tyme in May! :D
Mr. Thornton, just out of curiosity, is it your habit to insult everyone and anyone you can, even total strangers?
It's more fun to insult total strangers!! If I gave a toss about what swimsuits people wear I could probably summon up a few good ones, but the interest really isn't there......
Come to think of it, I grew up in a culture where insult=love. Hmmm
Now Jim, If you want to start a poll on if women should be allowed to wear men's suits, I bet we would agree, but not on your chosen poll.
Men and women are not competing against each other, so there is no reason that they cannot have completely different rule systems. Since men and women are not competing, sexual discrimination laws do not come into play with regards to suits. It would even be perfectly legit for FINA to create a committee made up entirely of women to write the rules regarding women's suits, guaranteeing that we men would never understand how/why/what the rules really were.
And for the record my wife did beat me in the 1500 LCM, but we were both wearing practice suits, not tech suits, so I probably had the advantage. I also had the height advantage, strength advantage, raw speed advantage and lane advantage. Her only advantage, notsuckingatdistance, apparently trumped all my advantages. Oh, and she stopped the first 100 to fix her goggles which filled with water on the start, so I also had the Iknowhowtoadjustmygoggles advantage too.
