Nekkid! Nekkid, I Tell You!!!
Heavens to Murgatroyd! David's just been swimming at our beloved Arches and he's in a bit of a lather over the facilities...
"I went to the Arches in Maze Hill for a swim the other day, the first time in absolutely ages. After a suitably invigorating number of lengths, I popped myself into the gents' poolside showers. As I hung my towel up I was rather shocked by the note that hung under the peg, which read (and I paraphrase), "Due to child heath issues, no [-] showering here. If you wish to take a shower [-] please use the dry-side changing rooms".
The Phantom interjects here. Normally I would edit out the next paragraph because it's pertinent only to being in an email - but it made me laugh, so it stays...
"The blank in the sentence above [-] was, if I remember correctly, a common word for being sans trunks (or any clothes at all) -- n*k*d. I don't want to spell the word out as I'm sure as using it in the same email as the word "child" is at best likely to put this email into your spam folder, at worst get the police round.
Which is in a roundabout way what I'm getting at with this email. I don't want to embark on a Daily Mail-style "PC gone mad" rant but what's this about? How long has it been there? Is it in response to an actual event, or is it one of those typically hysterical responses to a non-existent problem?
I'm not going to go on the streets to protest my rights to shower sans trunks, but this seems pretty crazy -- after all the showers are suitably separated from the pool, so you wouldn't be "exposed" to anything by accident. I'm going to write to the manager about this to get the "official" view (I would have written something on the suggestion forms by the entrance but I had no pen, and there weren't any available by the forms, helpfully enough). Oh, and I guess it goes without saying that (according to my partner who
came swimming with me) there was no such sign in the ladies."
You know what? I'm with David here. I can't see the harm in this - it's not as though the place is unattended. Any man caught waving his willy at minors would soon be caught and exposed. But I don't have kids. All you parents - would you be disturbed to see a man with no clothes on in a shower? Could it affect your child's health? Or are we demonising half the population?
Sorry - no pics to go with this one ;-)
"I went to the Arches in Maze Hill for a swim the other day, the first time in absolutely ages. After a suitably invigorating number of lengths, I popped myself into the gents' poolside showers. As I hung my towel up I was rather shocked by the note that hung under the peg, which read (and I paraphrase), "Due to child heath issues, no [-] showering here. If you wish to take a shower [-] please use the dry-side changing rooms".
The Phantom interjects here. Normally I would edit out the next paragraph because it's pertinent only to being in an email - but it made me laugh, so it stays...
"The blank in the sentence above [-] was, if I remember correctly, a common word for being sans trunks (or any clothes at all) -- n*k*d. I don't want to spell the word out as I'm sure as using it in the same email as the word "child" is at best likely to put this email into your spam folder, at worst get the police round.
Which is in a roundabout way what I'm getting at with this email. I don't want to embark on a Daily Mail-style "PC gone mad" rant but what's this about? How long has it been there? Is it in response to an actual event, or is it one of those typically hysterical responses to a non-existent problem?
I'm not going to go on the streets to protest my rights to shower sans trunks, but this seems pretty crazy -- after all the showers are suitably separated from the pool, so you wouldn't be "exposed" to anything by accident. I'm going to write to the manager about this to get the "official" view (I would have written something on the suggestion forms by the entrance but I had no pen, and there weren't any available by the forms, helpfully enough). Oh, and I guess it goes without saying that (according to my partner who
came swimming with me) there was no such sign in the ladies."
You know what? I'm with David here. I can't see the harm in this - it's not as though the place is unattended. Any man caught waving his willy at minors would soon be caught and exposed. But I don't have kids. All you parents - would you be disturbed to see a man with no clothes on in a shower? Could it affect your child's health? Or are we demonising half the population?
Sorry - no pics to go with this one ;-)
Labels: Debates
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
15:09
16 Comments:
Err, surely children use the 'dry-side' changing rooms too? How bizarre.
personally i think it's more wrong to make children think there is something nasty and wrong with nakedness.
Well I'm still in shock from seeing my father naked in the bath when I was five.
I dont see how you can have a proper shower with your trunks on?
Perhaps the Arches has been secretly taken over by The Amish.
No such signs at the fantastic new Deptford pool. Although I noticed that the unisex area with the hairdryers on the way out has been called the "Grooming Area," which just sounds plain wrong in the context of this post.
Returning to the point, if the staff have concerns about inappropriate behaviour I would have thought that the pool-side showers would (if anything) be easier to monitor, what with life guards on duty, than those in the changing area. That said suspicion of the lone male seems pretty much ubiquitous anywhere where there may be children now.
There was a similar sign in the ladies showers a few weeks ago, which now seems to have disappeared. So are ladies now allowed to shower sans swimsuit? I've no idea.
"child health issues" sounds strangely non-specific to me. Are children catching colds (or perhaps verrucas?) because of the large numbers of naked, showering adults? Exactly what "child health issues" have been raised as a result of showering adults? Mind you, this does sound so like our beloved Arches. I complained a while ago that the "Women Only Swimming Sessions" were sexist and where were the "Men Only Swimming Sessions" please?
Couldn't agree more. The dryside is presumably 'adult only' then? Err no! I've seen kids in there. I noticed they have also removed the curtain that covered the men's poolside showers. Tricky not to expose oneself reaching for a towel. I think the actual wording is 'child protection issues' Are we going back to Victorian days?
Frankly I'm surprised that showering is allowed at all by anyone - think of the risks involved, slippery floors and all. Surely the only responsible thing to do here would be shut all swimming pools across the land, thereby removing all risk (health and 'protection') at a stroke, and we could finally all be safe and happy.
As Ruth says, this same notice was in the women's pool showers too, and I took great exception to it. I decided to ignore it on the grounds that I couldn't see it without my glasses on. It is very dangerous to let children think there is something wrong with nudity, especially in showers, for whatever misguided reason. Since the notice in the women's showers has gone, I would say the gents have even more reason to protest.
My wife said she had heard several conversations about the swimsuit issue, and it all comes down to one dreaded word "Paedophile", and I wont mention what else she said other than there are some despicable men in the world!
Tell me all about it. But I guess my point is that by creating signs like this in areas which are patrolled and safe, we're demonising all men for the sake of a handful, who would frankly use 'easier' venues for their own sordid purposes.
So women are not capable of child abuse? There are some equally despicable women out there, you know. And, Phantom, I really object to your use of the word "sordid"
Yeah - I'd call whatever paedophiles get up to sordid. I think you misunderstood me, RTB. I see no reason why this sign should be up in either the Gents OR the ladies changing rooms when the area must be one of the safest around, patrolled by pool attendants and monitored regularly.
you're also not allowed to take photos of your babies, on their first day of swimming class, at the Arches either.
Ah nicki, thats because Nirvana have the Copyright on all photos of babies underwater........
Nicki, try these people instead of the Arches...and yes, I declare an interest - it's run by my sister-in-law and brother....
http://www.babyswimming.co.uk/index.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home