Sweden's Therese Alshammar has had her World Record stripped by the International Swimming Federation (FINA). Per The Local website, FINA said that swimmers can not wear anything under their swimsuit to protect their modesty.
"Alshammar slammed the decision, declaring the rules sexist and saying she thought she was allowed to wear a "modesty suit" under her skin-tight racing gear."
FINA executive director Cornel Marculescu told specialist website swimnews.com that his organization had adopted a clear position.
"That means that nothing must be worn underneath," he said. "One suit only. That's it."
From the article apparently Australia (where the World Record was broken) allows bikinis (bottoms only) for modesty purposes under their suits. However, they will amend their rules to match FINA.
While this isn't anywhere near the level of beach volleyball in the Olympics, where participants are required to wear bikinis, still (per the bottom of the article) there's a maximum thickness rule in place. I haven't seen swimming in a while, so I don't know just how much is shown in a typical one-piece for them.
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Modesty is not allowed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12599
I was looking for a photo that might explain the different types of suits, but there wasn't one. I don't understand what exactly happened. Was she wearing a full bathing suit under a bikini? Is there some way that that could help her swim faster, by making her skin smoother? Swimmers care so much about things like shaving all body hair to get a 10th of a second faster, so I could see how all wearing the same swimsuit could concievably make a difference. But if they all have to wear the same one, it should be one that they can be comfortable wearing.
I think the volleyball thing was definitely sexist-- there's no way wearing a bikini makes you better or worse at volleyball. I think its very offensive to say "you're a world class athlete in the olympics, but we need you to show off your cleavage." Its not like the men were playing volleyball in bannanna hammocks.
was the volleyball thing required or grew out of the culture on the beach and was adopted by the volleyball rule makers. the beach volleyball suits differ from indoor volleyball so i assume it's a part of the culture
I'm sure that's why it got started, yes, but it is now a rule and a clearly sexist one. Just because it came from beach culture doesn't make it not sexist.
What about those neck-to-ankle suits which male pros wear?
Those have also been recently put into the rule books with specifications at the same time as the women's suits. With that, they tackle this issue because wearing multiple suits can more streamline your body, making you a tinge faster.
If a "modesty suit" is giving her a competitive advantage, then I don't see why it should be allowed.
Also, shouldn't feminists be against the idea of a "modesty suit" anyway?
I think feminists are in favor of choice, and of not objectifying female athletes more than male athletes. I don't know the details of the swimsuit issue-- if it does give her a competitive advantage then it shouldn't be allowed, but they should asses whether there's something wrong with the standard swimsuits.
I'm unclear on the article though. Was she wearing a full body suit under a bikini or was she just wearing a slightly less skimpy bikini? Was she covering her arms and legs, or just her torso, or just her boobs, or what?
It's a strange assumption that feminists would be opposed to something just because its purpose is modesty. Note that the claim here is that she's choosing the additional suit for the sake of modesty. If it was being forced on her because of some puritanical cultural standard, then that would be a feminist issue. But supporting women's choices (within reason) is the standard feminist stance.
Wait, feminists should be against the idea that a woman only has to show as much (or as little) of her body as she wants to?
When the fuck did that happen?
That said, I can see both sides of the argument, but I tend to agree that she clearly violated the rules.
If she's a world record breaking swimmer I can almost guarantee that she was racing in something like this.
The one suit limit was imposed last year after the Beijing Olympics because some competitors had been wearing two suits which can help compress the body and trap air, providing greater buoyancy in the pool. The reason they are working out limitations on things like suit thickness, and how much of the body it can cover (not the neck, arms or feet) is because in recent years swimsuits have started crossing over into the territory of performance enhancement devices, and they want to keep the sport as a competition between people and not the suits they can afford to wear.
Hmm, that seems perfectly modest to me. I was picturing them in bikinis like the volleyball players.
Did you mean that was the suit she was supposed to be wearing or the one she added to the mix?
I think that's probably the style of suit she was wearing, but she added an additional one-piece swim suit underneath.
That's the type of suit Alshammer was wearing for the race. The problem is her wearing of an additional swimsuit under this one that went beyond the bikini brief allowed by Swimming Australia (SA). FINA only allows one suit with no additional swimwear underneath.
If Alshammer were wearing only a bikini brief under her suit, then she would have been fine under SA's rules (but not FINA's). She went way beyond that, though, wearing two competition suits. It's a clear and unambiguous breach of the rules.
Ok, that is more clear. Then I have to agree she broke the rules and presumably knew she was breaking the rules, so should have her record taken away.
Yeah it doesn't make any sense, if you've watched world class swimming like the Olympics the suits are very modest because a bikini or other skimpy suit would be a distraction to the swimmer and would create extra seams and lines on the body. The full suit compresses the body and makes a streamlined second skin. There's really no excuse to wear a second suit as far as I can tell.
"There's really no excuse to wear a second suit as far as I can tell."
For my lack of a more technical term I'm going to go with camel toe
She definitely deserves to have the record stripped. She was wearing two competitive suits, which is a serious advantage. As has been mentioned wearing two suits increases buoyancy, and in doing so offers an unfair competitive advantage.
The suits worn by female swimmers (and male swimmers) today are hardly "immodest". They're space age suits with specifically designed surfaces that almost glide on the water. Doubling up doesn't seem like a modesty issue at all.
Still, even if this woman wanted to do this for modesty purposes, the swimming body is well within their rights to strip her of the record. She has the right to double up for "modesty", and they have the right to invalidate her record. No real controversy here.
Yeah, I live in Sweden right now and the general consensus here seems to be that she broke the rules knowingly and is trying to use the modesty excuse to get her record back.
You might want to explore what "modesty" this swimmer was trying to protect.
http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/multimedia/archive/00042/ryggm_rkt_42286w.jpg
"She's a slut!!"
..Seriously, Thomas. If she cheated, and is now trying to use a weird excuse, then that's wrong, but let's not trot out the old "she's a big slut anyway" thing. This is the first step before the inevitable "she was asking for it".