People are talking about a double standard, but if I’m honest, I don’t really think it is. There’s a real double standard especially with respect to women’s upper bodies, and that bit tacked onto the end about a man from the Gold Coast is absolutely beyond the pale. But if there’s a rule against nudity, presumably there has to be a line somewhere where technically someone might be wearing clothes, but it’s not realistically enough to count?
Personally, I’d be fine with just allowing nudity and normalising it…at least at pools. That would take away all its power. But so long as we don’t live in that world, it seems reasonable to say that clothing so skinny it gets hidden by the bum cheeks is not within acceptable limits.
There seem to be some people trying to turn this into a US-style argument about women’s clothing in offices or at schools. But there’s a big difference between a bit of leg above the knee, or exposed shoulders, and the bum crack, I feel. It’s equally inappropriate (or appropriate) for men and for women.
But I will just quickly add…though I haven’t been to any of the pools in question, I do think this is almost certainly making a mountain out of a molehill. It probably just didn’t need to be said.
I definitely get the sense that Germans are a lot less prudish than anglophones are, and they don’t even have nudity allowed at all pools…just at a few relatively-easily-accessible public spaces.
It’s not about “no longer having any appeal”, it’s about taking away the shock value.
People are talking about a double standard, but if I’m honest, I don’t really think it is. There’s a real double standard especially with respect to women’s upper bodies, and that bit tacked onto the end about a man from the Gold Coast is absolutely beyond the pale. But if there’s a rule against nudity, presumably there has to be a line somewhere where technically someone might be wearing clothes, but it’s not realistically enough to count?
Personally, I’d be fine with just allowing nudity and normalising it…at least at pools. That would take away all its power. But so long as we don’t live in that world, it seems reasonable to say that clothing so skinny it gets hidden by the bum cheeks is not within acceptable limits.
There seem to be some people trying to turn this into a US-style argument about women’s clothing in offices or at schools. But there’s a big difference between a bit of leg above the knee, or exposed shoulders, and the bum crack, I feel. It’s equally inappropriate (or appropriate) for men and for women.
Man, back in the 50s or whatever, going to the pool nude was just the norm. Why can’t we just swim in the nude if we want?
Agreed if your bottoms could work as a functional eyepatch they aren’t appropriate for public beaches.
But I will just quickly add…though I haven’t been to any of the pools in question, I do think this is almost certainly making a mountain out of a molehill. It probably just didn’t need to be said.
If this is what the council are spending their time on , I’m sure all the issues of the Blue Mountains are solved!
You think if all the women in the pool are naked that boobs will no longer have any appeal? This is complete nonsense.
I definitely get the sense that Germans are a lot less prudish than anglophones are, and they don’t even have nudity allowed at all pools…just at a few relatively-easily-accessible public spaces.
It’s not about “no longer having any appeal”, it’s about taking away the shock value.
I’ve been to clothing optional festivals and for the first day you look, then afterwards it just becomes the norm and you barely even notice.