Seattle Cancer Survivor Allowed To Swim Topless

iguana

I've just read about Jodi Jaecks who after a double mastectomy found swimsuits painful on her scars and has now been given permission to swim topless in her city's pools. Seattle initially rejected her request but after a campaign relented and say they will now assess such requests on a case by case basis. Jaecks is unhappy with this, as she doesn't want to be an exception and would instead like a full review of the rules about gender specific clothing.

http://www.themarysue.com/cancer-survivor-fights-to-swim-topless/?utm_source=toplessrobot.com&utm_medium=direct&utm_campaign=toplessrobot_direct

When I was reading story initially I thought that assessing it on a case by case basis was fair but after thinking about it some more I can why it might be preferable for a cancer survivor to just get on with their lives without having to apply for special permission. If she doesn't have breasts it's hardly offensive and what is so offensive about breasts anyway. Out of curiosity I checked Seattle's breastfeeding bye-laws and it turns out that just this year it was made illegal to ask a breastfeeding woman to cover up or go to a quieter area. So if a mother is at the pool with her baby and it wants to feed, she is well within her rights to go to find a spot she finds comfortable in and feed with whatever discretion/or lack of discretion she chooses. But a woman who no longer has breasts needs to apply to the city for special permission. So I think I agree with Jaecks and any woman in her position should be afforded the automatic right to swim while avoiding discomfort to her scars, even if that means being topless.

The Big Red Button

Where do you draw the line, though?

Looking at the picture of her, it's clear she doesn't have breasts, but she has a lot of scarring. I can imagine some kids asking their parents about this - either asking why she has scars, or asking why she doesn't have breasts - and I can understand why parents might want to avoid having this discussions with very young children. But, on the other hand, it would be completely wrong to discourage women (or men) with any other sort of scarring from swimming in a public pool. So, my first thought was, why is this any different?

Something to consider, though, also, is that, from what the article appears, the double mastectomy does not appear to have been entirely necessary, from a medical point of view. "When she found the tell-tale lump in her right breast, a photo of a breast cancer survivor who had a double mastectomy ultimately led her to the decision to have both of her breasts removed: ”It’s such a powerful image. She’s so healthy and fit. It showed me I could be in shape again. I could be happy again,” she said, citing the feeling of empowerment it gave her to undergo the mastectomy in lieu of removing the lump and waiting for the cancer to possibly resurface." I'm not sure of the relevance of this, really. But, say if roles were reversed. Say if a man got a wee lump down there, and elected to have his bits removed, whether it was medically advised or not. Would it be OK for him to swim naked in a public pool? Even if there was nothing there to see?

I don't know.

I don't think that it is wrong for this woman to be allowed to swim topless, given the context (although I do wonder how she manages to find day-to-day clothes that she can wear comfortably, when she can't find comfortable swimwear.)

I do think that enforceable rules about nudity in public places are very appropriate and necessary.

So, I think that the decision (as per the article) of assessing on a case-by-case basis is actually the best decision that could have been reached. It makes sense, in my opinion.

Terrontress

kIds have to learn that we're all different.

My daughter watches Cbeebies and there is a very pretty presenter on there who was born with only one hand. I feel this is great to teach kids about difference in people.

Princess Peach

chatterpillar wrote: »

Something to consider, though, also, is that, from what the article appears, the double mastectomy does not appear to have been entirely necessary, from a medical point of view. "When she found the tell-tale lump in her right breast, a photo of a breast cancer survivor who had a double mastectomy ultimately led her to the decision to have both of her breasts removed: ”It’s such a powerful image. She’s so healthy and fit. It showed me I could be in shape again. I could be happy again,” she said, citing the feeling of empowerment it gave her to undergo the mastectomy in lieu of removing the lump and waiting for the cancer to possibly resurface." I'm not sure of the relevance of this, really. But, say if roles were reversed. Say if a man got a wee lump down there, and elected to have his bits removed, whether it was medically advised or not. Would it be OK for him to swim naked in a public pool? Even if there was nothing there to see?

Having a double mastectomy is very common when first diagnosed with breast cancer as it greatly reduces the risk of it reoccurring.

The Big Red Button

Princess Peach wrote: »

Having a double mastectomy is very common when first diagnosed with breast cancer as it greatly reduces the risk of it reoccurring.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that.

I've had plenty of experience with various forms of cancer, but not breast cancer. In general, I've found that surgical removal of body parts (as opposed to the tumour itself and surrounding tissue) tends to be a later resort.

analucija

This actually got me thinking. (it doesn't happen often. ). Go to the certain parts of Mediterranean or where ever and 50% of women, especially younger would be topless and nobody would worry about propriety or poor children being corrupted. Yet put the same people in the covered swimming pool and it would be very weird and illegal if same girls would be topless. It's just funny.

That being said I think that where we are does dictate the dress code and I actually agree that permissions should be given on individual bassis. Would you leave it to the swimming pool employees to decide less clear cut cases or to deal with some idiot who complains about somebody being topless? It's a lot easier when you can just say "she has the permission from autorities so f off" I know it's more hassle for cancer survivors but it is also way more decisive and it's granted for all swimming pools and you don't have argue every time you go to different swimming pool.

lonestargirl

Princess Peach wrote: »

Having a double mastectomy is very common when first diagnosed with breast cancer as it greatly reduces the risk of it reoccurring.

chatterpillar wrote: »

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that.

I've had plenty of experience with various forms of cancer, but not breast cancer. In general, I've found that surgical removal of body parts (as opposed to the tumour itself and surrounding tissue) tends to be a later resort.

A double mastectomy would be very rare in breast cancer cases. It's usually be those who are BRCA positive as they have a large risk of having a 2nd cancer or else someone very young. For the breast with cancer the choice will usually be mastectomy or lumpectomy + radiation therapy. These options have been demonstrated to have equivalent survival. Some bigger tumours will always require a mastectomy.

The issue of breasts (or lack of them) can be very emotive. Losing them doesn't bother some people but others find it impossible to evenlook at their scars. I have no problem with this women swimming topless and I think it helps to normalise the idea that we are all different. She's clearly comfotable talking about the topic and I can't see it bothering her if a child asks her about her scars.

AhInFairness

chatterpillar wrote: »

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that.

Christina Applegate had it done in 2008.

On topic - personally I'm with the OP. I don't think special permission should be required for anyone in this situation.

I find it crazy that breasts have been so sexualized to the point where we are required to cover them up tbh. :rolleyes:

Terrontress

analucija wrote: »

This actually got me thinking. (it doesn't happen often. ). Go to the certain parts of Mediterranean or where ever and 50% of women, especially younger would be topless and nobody would worry about propriety or poor children being corrupted. Yet put the same people in the covered swimming pool and it would be very weird and illegal if same girls would be topless. It's just funny.

That being said I think that where we are does dictate the dress code and I actually agree that permissions should be given on individual bassis. Would you leave it to the swimming pool employees to decide less clear cut cases or to deal with some idiot who complains about somebody being topless? It's a lot easier when you can just say "she has the permission from autorities so f off" I know it's more hassle for cancer survivors but it is also way more decisive and it's granted for all swimming pools and you don't have argue every time you go to different swimming pool.

There are no hygeine issues with toplessness, as there may be for a man who has had a testicle removed, so I can't see why there should be any reason for rules around it.

Princess Peach

The number of women opting for masectomies and double mastectomies has more than tripled in the past 15 years after diagnosis, often even when lumpectomy and therapies are the easier solutions. Few women in my family have had breast cancer.

I think it is so brave of that woman. I can't imagine how she feels about her illness, recovery and appearance, but she is inspiring.

analucija

Terrontress wrote: »

There are no hygeine issues with toplessness, as there may be for a man who has had a testicle removed, so I can't see why there should be any reason for rules around it.

But there are. Would you walk around the town topless? I've done plenty of topless or nude sunbathing but I wouldn't do it everywhere or at any occasion. What it should be is in a way irrelevant at this moment. Anyway this is completely seperate issue.

Terrontress

analucija wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

There are no hygeine issues with toplessness, as there may be for a man who has had a testicle removed, so I can't see why there should be any reason for rules around it.

But there are. Would you walk around the town topless? I've done plenty of topless or nude sunbathing but I wouldn't do it everywhere or at any occasion. What it should be is in a way irrelevant at this moment. Anyway this is completely seperate issue.

That's not a hygeine issue though. I'm just trying to state that this woman's case doesn't equate with a man, or a woman, swimming bottomless due to an operation.

Victor

chatterpillar wrote: »

Say if a man got a wee lump down there, and elected to have his bits removed, whether it was medically advised or not. Would it be OK for him to swim naked in a public pool? Even if there was nothing there to see?

I don't think treatment for testicular cancer doesn't result in removal or the scrotum, penis, buttocks or anus.

Ickle Magoo

I'm don't think children's natural curiosity and the resulting awkwardness some parents would rather avoid is any reason to dismiss a legitimate request to swim topless after a double mastectomy...I mean, by that logic anyone with scarring or disability could be refused entrance to the pool which I think is a road few want to go down.

Over all I find it a story sadly lacking in basic sympathy and common sense - a women with no breasts cannot have breasts on display, when a woman is dealing with the sometimes horrendous body issues, health implications and prognosis that necessitates double mastectomy, is huffing and puffing over the semantics of social mores really what's important?

Mat the trasher

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm don't think children's natural curiosity and the resulting awkwardness some parents would rather avoid is any reason to dismiss a legitimate request to swim topless after a double mastectomy...I mean, by that logic anyone with scarring or disability could be refused entrance to the pool which I think is a road few want to go down.

Over all I find it a story sadly lacking in basic sympathy and common sense - a women with no breasts cannot have breasts on display, when a woman is dealing with the sometimes horrendous body issues, health implications and prognosis that necessitates double mastectomy, is huffing and puffing over the semantics of social mores really what's important?

I couldn't agree more.

Terrontress wrote: »

That's not a hygeine issue though. I'm just trying to state that this woman's case doesn't equate with a man, or a woman, swimming bottomless due to an operation.

What would be the hygienic difference between swimming with or without bottoms, assuming you are referring to normal swimwear?

MissFlitworth

Mat the trasher wrote: »

What would be the hygienic difference between swimming with or without bottoms, assuming you are referring to normal swimwear?

I think bottoms catch discharge (like from mucus membranes or if there was, em, flecks of poo a swimmer was unaware of)

Madam_X

AhInFairness wrote: »

I find it crazy that breasts have been so sexualized to the point where we are required to cover them up tbh. :rolleyes:

Went for lunch with a bunch of friends last weekend and one had her two-month-old with her. When it came to chow time for him, she just whipped her boob out, whole lot exposed, didn't give a hoot (if only for seconds) instead of being at pains to be discreet (not that there's anything wrong with that - some breastfeeding women don't want their boob seen, I probably wouldn't). I thought fair fecking play to her - and, childish I know, hoped it annoyed people.
The attitude some have towards breastfeeding in public evoked this in me.

Links234

Terrontress wrote: »

kIds have to learn that we're all different.

My daughter watches Cbeebies and there is a very pretty presenter on there who was born with only one hand. I feel this is great to teach kids about difference in people.

A thousand times this!

Also, I find the arguments that kids might be asking questions or that it might be awkward are terrible. Children are naturally curious, developing minds need to find out about every little thing they can, and I think it's just terrible that so many adults seem to want to stamp out such wonderful curiosity, or at least, shelter them from things they might be curious about.

Princess Peach

If you're discussing it on the grounds of children being curious, there are going to be exposed to other people with physical disabilities or illnesses anywhere there go. And not even that but people that just look different than who the child is surrounded by, be it race or even just someone with a crazy hair colour!

If anyone was to get upset or distressed by this woman being topless, its more than likely an adult.

Enkidu

Princess Peach wrote: »

If anyone was to get upset or distressed by this woman being topless, its more than likely an adult.

Certainly, I always find that this "Please, think of the children!" really translates into "I find this embarrassing/odd, please make it go away!".