Modesty Vent ahead

[DawnM]

Did the talk extend to the boys' suits?  Those clingy swim trunks pretty much outline everything there is!  It could tempt all sorts of people!    I hope they got the exact same talk with the exact same wording.

[Bluegoat]

17 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Swimmers aren't running around the training room trying to look sexy. The "training room" is where student athletes go to receive medical attention/treatment (sometimes preventive, sometimes emergent) from the team's trainers, doctors or physical therapists. It's not a 'gym' with treadmills and such. They go there before, during or after practice to receive evaluation of/treatment for their injuries.

 

So there aren't going to be other kids there?  In which case, it was a weird comment from the trainer.  I'd still say the rule about no bathing suits is as much about social convention as it is about not getting stuff wet though.

 

 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

So there aren't going to be other kids there?  In which case, it was a weird comment from the trainer.  I'd still say the rule about no bathing suits is as much about social convention as it is about not getting stuff wet though.

 

 

 

When I was a student athlete and trainer, there were lots of other people there during 'peak' times, right before practices or right after. If you came off peak, nope. During peak times, people were just trying to get in and out as quickly as possible so as not to be late for practice (which can come with unpleasant consequences). It's not a meat market. These are athletes and who're usually focused on being ready to play/perform.

[Bluegoat]

14 hours ago, Mainer said:

I agree with you that teenagers should be educated about what clothing is appropriate/not appropriate in a gym, BUT - there are reasons why it's not appropriate, like people could slip on water from a suit, it's not sanitary for the machines in swimsuits (maybe, I don't know about that one), etc. Because a girl might make a guy feel "tempted" is NOT an appropriate reason. It's not a girl's responsibility to protect a guy from feeling temptation, it's the guy's responsibility to act like a gentleman no matter how tempted he is.

I'd be completely fine with a policy that said both the girls and boys have to change to go to the training room, if that's really necessary. As long as it's equal. BUT the reason should be something logical, not something that wrongly encourages girls to think they're responsible for boys' behavior. 

 

I think there are weird implications with the "tempted" language, but I also think glossing over that there are differences in mixed sex groups, or that sexual elements are part of that, is missing an important point.  

I suspect,  for example, that if using the same reasoning they decided to have unisex change and shower rooms, people would be kind of upset.  There are certain expectations around privacy, not only in terms of not having people look at you, but also in terms of not having people in a state of undress in front of you.  It's the same reason if you had a bunch of high school kids having some kind of a sleepover, you'd expect them to be fairly "dressed" if it was a mixed sex group, whereas a single sexed group might be hanging around sleeping in their underwear without anyone thinking it was weird.

There seems to me that if we pretend that this doesn't have anything to do with sexuality, we are kind of fooling ourselves and giving the wrong impression to the kids - I think it's better to be clear about that being something real.  I wouldn't say it's about temptation, or not being able to control yourself, but it's not just about getting stuff wet either.  

[Bluegoat]

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

When I was a student athlete and trainer, there were lots of other people there during 'peak' times, right before practices or right after. If you came off peak, nope. During peak times, people were just trying to get in and out as quickly as possible so as not to be late for practice (which can come with unpleasant consequences). It's not a meat market. These are athletes and who're usually focused on being ready to play/perform.

 

It sounds like maybe some of this is sen as a liability thing - in which case it may not be all that logical, a lot of stuff people do as CYA is pretty illogical. It does sound like the rule is the same for all swimmers, I think - some of the posts aren't that clear to me.

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think there are weird implications with the "tempted" language, but I also think glossing over that there are differences in mixed sex groups, or that sexual elements are part of that, is missing an important point.  

I suspect,  for example, that if using the same reasoning they decided to have unisex change and shower rooms, people would be kind of upset.  There are certain expectations around privacy, not only in terms of not having people look at you, but also in terms of not having people in a state of undress in front of you.  It's the same reason if you had a bunch of high school kids having some kind of a sleepover, you'd expect them to be fairly "dressed" if it was a mixed sex group, whereas a single sexed group might be hanging around sleeping in their underwear without anyone thinking it was weird.

There seems to me that if we pretend that this doesn't have anything to do with sexuality, we are kind of fooling ourselves and giving the wrong impression to the kids - I think it's better to be clear about that being something real.  I wouldn't say it's about temptation, or not being able to control yourself, but it's not just about getting stuff wet either.  

 

Except they're NOT changing clothes. They are there for medical treatment. Ignoring the function of the space and the activity going on within it and the personalities of the participants is also missing an important point.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

 

It sounds like maybe some of this is sen as a liability thing - in which case it may not be all that logical, a lot of stuff people do as CYA is pretty illogical. It does sound like the rule is the same for all swimmers, I think - some of the posts aren't that clear to me.

 

If it were a liability thing, the admonition should apply to ALL athletes, not just swimmers or female swimmers. The uniforms for other sports are equally short on fabric.

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Except they're NOT changing clothes. They are there for medical treatment. Ignoring the function of the space and the activity going on within it and the personalities of the participants is also missing an important point.

 

I don't know - are they seeing the reason for asking the kids to change as purely practical, or because they think t's an issue of what is socially appropriate?  It sounds like they think it's both.  

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

If it were a liability thing, the admonition should apply to ALL athletes, not just swimmers or female swimmers. The uniforms for other sports are equally short on fabric.

 

My impression was the rule was for all the swimmers.  I didn't get any sense of what non-swimmers were told.  I'd expect it would be the same, except their coaches may not all see it the same way.  

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I don't know - are they seeing the reason for asking the kids to change as purely practical, or because they think t's an issue of what is socially appropriate?  It sounds like they think it's both.  

 

Based on the OP and subsequent posts, it would seem it's a reaction to the recent exposure of sexual predators in sports. Those predators didn't prey on people BECAUSE they were in swimsuits, or leotards, or volleyball shorts or wrestling unitards. They preyed on them because they could.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Sneezyone

[LarlaB]

20 hours ago, Danae said:

 

Good grief. Coaches/trainers/doctors who molest athletes aren't lured into it by seeing girls in swimsuits or leotards. They deliberately look for and create opportunities and excuses whatever the athletes are wearing.

 

Yes.

[maize]

16 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

You may be wearing your suit during treatment because you are dressed/ready for practice. Many schools do issue warm ups so asking kids to wear them as much as possible when not on the field (for any sport) is a perfectly reasonable request. Singling out female swimmers is what's weird. Competition suits are tight and boob/butt-smooshing (to reduce drag). When wet, I imagine they're tough to remove. If you're receiving emergent treatment during a competition or during practice, no, you probably wouldn't remove it. Someone would probably grab your warm up or a towel and throw it over you when convenient but, at that point, modesty would not be the primary concern. This admonition was given to avoid tempting men/boys not to ensure athlete comfort during treatment.

 

This.

Totally reasonable to tell all athletes that warm-ups are the appropriate gear to wear when not actively competing.

Singling out girl's swimsuits as inappropriate for boys to see is not reasonable.

Emergent situations are and should be exceptions to many rules.

[Kanin]

59 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think there are weird implications with the "tempted" language, but I also think glossing over that there are differences in mixed sex groups, or that sexual elements are part of that, is missing an important point.  

I suspect,  for example, that if using the same reasoning they decided to have unisex change and shower rooms, people would be kind of upset.  There are certain expectations around privacy, not only in terms of not having people look at you, but also in terms of not having people in a state of undress in front of you.  It's the same reason if you had a bunch of high school kids having some kind of a sleepover, you'd expect them to be fairly "dressed" if it was a mixed sex group, whereas a single sexed group might be hanging around sleeping in their underwear without anyone thinking it was weird.

There seems to me that if we pretend that this doesn't have anything to do with sexuality, we are kind of fooling ourselves and giving the wrong impression to the kids - I think it's better to be clear about that being something real.  I wouldn't say it's about temptation, or not being able to control yourself, but it's not just about getting stuff wet either.  

I see what you're saying, and agree that teenagers, boys and girls, in bathing suits, can stir up all sorts of stuff - but I think it's different with competitive athletes - if you're on a swim team, you do expect to see your teammates in swim suits.

[SquirrellyMama]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It sounds like maybe some of this is sen as a liability thing - in which case it may not be all that logical, a lot of stuff people do as CYA is pretty illogical. It does sound like the rule is the same for all swimmers, I think - some of the posts aren't that clear to me.

The boys team swims in the winter so it was just cheerleaders, volleyball players, and the girls swim team getting the talk.

[unsinkable]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

 

When I was a student athlete and trainer, there were lots of other people there during 'peak' times, right before practices or right after. If you came off peak, nope. During peak times, people were just trying to get in and out as quickly as possible so as not to be late for practice (which can come with unpleasant consequences). It's not a meat market. These are athletes and who're usually focused on being ready to play/perform.

 Well, that's an interesting typo, given the conversation.

LOL

[wintermom]

14 hours ago, Katy said:

 

Lets say a distracted 16 year old boy, while wearing a speedo, slips in a pool of water and falls on the pool deck, twisting his ankle, wrist, and hitting his head on some bleachers on the way down.  Kid needs medical attention, to determine the extent of the injuries, if he can still compete that day, and if he has a concussion. They don't want to give him medical attention in front of a crowd of people watching the meet, so they move him to the treatment room.  If they don't make this injured boy hobble into his warm up suit FIRST, they shouldn't do that for a girl that met exactly the same fate. 

And they definitely should not announce it is policy for GIRLS only because the GIRLS are just too attractive to be denied and will cause adult men to lose all control of themselves and rape them, or boys to lose all control of themselves and harass them, or even be looking at them because they are attractive.  That is so ridiculous if that IS the policy the school is opening themselves up for a lawsuit just with that. There is no woman or girl on the planet that is so attractive a male isn't responsible for his own actions. And the idea that males of all ages are incapable of controlling themselves is extremely insulting to men too. Not to mention it implies whoever gave this lecture has had no exposure to the athletic world at all.  Sports are not sexual events.

I would probably incredulously ask the principal about it, and if it wasn't clarified in a satisfactory manner I'd find a woman or an attorney on the school board and ask her if she thought it was appropriate.

In my country, a qualified life guard would be responsible for injuries sustained on the pool deck. They may or may not move the injured person depending on the risks of spinal injuries. Keeping an injured person warm is part of protocol for treating shock, so they would be covered with a blanket. Neither the gender of the injured person nor the brand or style of swim suit plays a role in treating injuries in a pool.

The comments the OP received were delivered from a trainer, who may be a professional, a full-time school staff or possibly simply a volunteer from the community. What exactly this individual said and what rules they are following provided by the school administration are unclear. This could simply be a school-wide dress code for all students, male and female. We have no idea what the lay-out of the school training room and pool are. They may be in 2 different building for all we know. 

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by wintermom

[TechWife]

I think this conversation is getting at the root of the problem when it comes to sexual assault in our country. The topic immediately veered off of the inappropriate comment made by the person going over the rules with the team to encompass the swimsuit, the suitability of wearing the swimsuit outside of the pool area and looking for any exceptions to a dress code. The problem isn’t the swim suit. The problem is the mindset of the person who would place responsibility on the girl wearing the swimsuit for a sexual assault. People who are sexually assaulted are victims. That is not a popular word, but it is the truth. Hopefully they will one day be survivors, but they are not responsible for the actions of the criminal - ever! That's the mindset we need to talk about - not whether or not it is appropriate to wear a swimsuit in a training area.

Edited August 11, 2018 by TechWife

[Daria]

6 hours ago, wintermom said:

In my country, a qualified life guard would be responsible for injuries sustained on the pool deck. They may or may not move the injured person depending on the risks of spinal injuries. Keeping an injured person warm is part of protocol for treating shock, so they would be covered with a blanket. Neither the gender of the injured person nor the brand or style of swim suit plays a role in treating injuries in a pool.

The comments the OP received were delivered from a trainer, who may be a professional, a full-time school staff or possibly simply a volunteer from the community. What exactly this individual said and what rules they are following provided by the school administration are unclear. This could simply be a school-wide dress code for all students, male and female. We have no idea what the lay-out of the school training room and pool are. They may be in 2 different building for all we know. 

 

In the U.S. an athletic trainer is an allied health professional who usually has a master's degree, and has passed certification exams, which are far more extensive than those required by a lifeguard whose training takes less than a week.  Their speciality is evaluating sports injuries, making decisions about when an athlete can return to play or when to refer for further medical treatment, and making and implementing plans for rehabilitating injuries.  At our school, there is always either an athletic trainer or nurse on campus when athletes are training or competing.  At something like a swim meet, that may occur off campus and involve multiple schools, schools take turns providing them.  

A lifeguard would be responsible for getting the athlete out of the water, but would then defer to the trainer, in the way that they'd defer to a doctor or a nurse or a paramedic.  

 

[Daria]

I am a big baffled by the idea that school dress code should take any priority here, other than the dress code for the actual sporting event (e.g. a swim coach might require a certain style of suit).  

I mean, I work in a Catholic school.  We have lots of rules about what kids can wear in school.  For example, there are rules about how your uniform polo collar must be showing under your sweater, or what color your socks can be. But if a kid is injured and making their way for treatment, no matter how minor the injury, then they just go.  They don't stop and change.  For example, if you're injured in gym, you just wear your gym uniform to the nurse, you don't stop and put on a collared shirt.  One of my students tripped and scraped her knee on the way from the subway.  She happened to be wearing pajama pants to stay warm during the commute, but no one expected her to go to her locker and change. 

Unless the trainer is asking for the athlete to change for medical reasons (e.g. suggesting a pitcher put on a warm up to keep their pitching arm warm while be evaluated, or suggesting that my student above take of the pj pants so she can see the bleeding knee), as professionals they should be able to treat someone regardless of what they're wearing. 

[wintermom]

7 hours ago, SquirrellyMama said:

The boys team swims in the winter so it was just cheerleaders, volleyball players, and the girls swim team getting the talk.

So this was a talk the trainer made to a group of girls only, hence not mentioning that boys are also required to cover-up?  And it was your dd's interpretation about the "tempted" stuff, not actually spoken?  This is how negative rumors spread, and how the professional reputation of people can be destroyed when people jump onto an issue that is fabricated by others.

[lexi]

What? My kids are all on swim team. Team suits are way more modest than most types of suits you would see at any community pool. And when you’re on a swim team a suit is the uniform. It’s not inappropriate to wear a suit near the pool area  

I would be having a talk with the person who said those things. 

Now, I don’t let my kids wander up and down the halls of the school where they swim (wearing only a suit) because that’s not appropriate. But suits in the athletic area near the pool are normal attire when there’s a swim team. 

And honestly, I’m way more uncomfortable with the itty bitty teeny tiny speedos that some of the boys wear. Lol! 

[Daria]

29 minutes ago, wintermom said:

So this was a talk the trainer made to a group of girls only, hence not mentioning that boys are also required to cover-up?  And it was your dd's interpretation about the "tempted" stuff, not actually spoken?  This is how negative rumors spread, and how the professional reputation of people can be destroyed when people jump onto an issue that is fabricated by others.

Why would it matter if the boys are required to cover-up?  It's much less common for boys to be told they need to cover up to avoid tempting people to molest them but it's still not OK.  

[Farrar]

Ds's ballet studio has a strict cover up policy regarding leaving the studio in tights/leotards/etc. They send periodic reminders to the boys and girls. Not once has the wording or attitude about it ever been about the dancers' bodies being distracting. They just say, here's the policy - you should wear street clothes outside and not your dance uniforms, which are not street clothes (most kids just throw on athletic pants/shorts). End of policy. No shaming needed. No "modesty" talk needed. No singling out one gender needed. Just a clear, blanket, common sense policy.

In this case, the policy doesn't even make any sense though. If this is where they go when injured, they should go there regardless. Otherwise, the implication is that only fully dressed, modest girls deserve needed medical treatment, which is the most shocking, offensive load of crap I've heard from a school in awhile, and that's really saying something.

 

[Dmmetler]

DD’s cheer team has a similar policy-practice clothes are tank tops, sports bras, and tight shorts or leggings. Boys wear tank-tops and shorts, and again, fairly tight. Competition uniforms are shorts or short skirt for girls and shorts or tight pants for guys and a tight top, either the practice top or the long sleeved competition top. It is REQUIRED that coverups be worn at competitions off the competition venue and floor, and to awards, especially for senior teams who often have bare midriffs (it’s safer to contact skin to skin once the skills get higher level), and the same applies when going to/from practice. 

 

[TechWife]

On 8/11/2018 at 8:37 AM, Bluegoat said:

 

So there aren't going to be other kids there?  In which case, it was a weird comment from the trainer.  I'd still say the rule about no bathing suits is as much about social convention as it is about not getting stuff wet though.

 

 

Except that is not what was said. You can say that swimsuits are for poolside only & you should wear your sweats over them when not at the pool. That's teaching a social convention. That is not what the OP described.

 

[Momto6inIN]

Is it possible that the trainer was (clumsily) trying to be proactive and helpful about preventing possible abuse instead of shaming the girls? Possibly he/she was trying to acknowledge the challenges that are involved when (1) you can't possibly know who is a pedophile until after victims come forward so it is unfortunately completely possible that a trainer in the injury room could have ugly intentions despite the best of hiring procedures (2) most of the girls are probably aware of the recent news story about Larry Nassar and (3) it would be at least a little bit harder for abuse to happen if the girls are wearing something other than a swimsuit during therapy and treatment. Not because anything about their attire is what might prompt an attack but because pedophiles are always looking for an opportunity. And making it physically more difficult to get to the private parts of your body lessens that opportunity. In other words, he/she might have been trying to get them to be proactive about their own safety, kind of like when my dad bought me pepper spray to carry in college. He wasn't saying it was my fault if I got attacked when I walked home from the library after dark by myself, just that if it happens this was a way to potentially protect myself. Possibly that is what was meant, even if it wasn't elegantly worded.

I know my daughter is very prone to reading more into a conversation than was intended and can jump to some pretty outlandish conclusions sometimes. I'm not saying that's the case with your daughter, but if the word "tempt" wasn't used then there could be some ambiguity there about what the trainer's intent was. Sometimes the message sent and the message received are not the same thing, especially with teenagers.

I'd give him/her the benefit of the doubt and ask them to clarify instead of just assuming that they are placing the burden of inappropriate sexual advances on the girls and their school issued swim suits. But if that's what was, in fact, meant - then I would let them have it ?