WAG IGC requiring female campers to wear shorts or leggings

[bogwoppit]

I read all the comments. Agree with points on both sides. Still don't see why there is an outrage of allowing shorts.

If you don't want your daughter to wear shorts, then don't. But why force the rest of the gymnasts not to? Some girls like to wear leotards, some girls don't like the exposure and they feel objectified. We are not all made of one mold. It is empowering to allow girls to wear as little as they want and not feel shame and it is empowering not to be required to expose more than they feel comfortable.

I do not think there is outrage at allowing shorts. I think there is only outrage about forcing shorts in the name of solving abuse.

As I said way back in the first pages, FIG, as in the International federation of gymnastics, has stated that gymnasts may wear shorts and legging to compete in. Nobody complained when they said that because it is an option, not a mandate.

 

[Gigi]

I am glad I read this thread as I was actually unaware of the photos issue. I knew Nassar did that from the trial but didn't realize it is rampant and sold on ebay!

It does remind me of an experience I want to share for the parents whose gymnasts have public youtube accounts out there. I actually forgot about it until now (probably blocked it from my memory). Here's the story, I usually type in my daughter's name in Google to get to her mymeetscores page to check if scores are posted. One time, I noticed her names in these sites with weird addresses. Out of curiosity, I clicked on one and was confused at first as to what the site was. Videos of different gymnasts and other random news topics were on one side of the page, when I look closer on the other side, I realized....it is a porn site! It doesn't look like what you would expect of a porn site full of explicit porn images like you would expect. Not sure if they did it their way to get through filters?? The thumbnails are scantily clad women but not naked ....I don't think, I didn't look that closely and they were very small thumbnails.... but from the titles you can tell. I watched my daughter's video. It was unaltered. I found three other sites like that with my daughter's videos on there, unaltered. I am not sure if it was a click bait thing to get people to the site.... I almost called them to take down the video, but after some thought, abandoned the idea. I didn't want them to cause me more problems by getting on their radar. Since the videos were unaltered, I let it go. But I still felt violated. I never told my daughter. I immediately went to youtube and turned off the share and allow embed videos option.

So parents, if you and your gymnasts have public youtube accounts, you might consider turning off at least the allow to embed video option.

 

[MILgymFAM]

I do not think there is outrage at allowing shorts. I think there is only outrage about forcing shorts in the name of solving abuse.

As I said way back in the first pages, FIG, as in the International federation of gymnastics, has stated that gymnasts may wear shorts and legging to compete in. Nobody complained when they said that because it is an option, not a mandate.

Yes, it’s allowed but it’s so far outside the norm that it almost doesn’t matter that it’s allowed. It’s not reaching very far at all to guess that judges may judge more harshly for something so outside the norm- not specifically for the uniform, but maximizing allowable deductions became they don’t like it.

 

[RTT2]

If history didn't exist and context didn't matter, I probably wouldn't have an issue with this statement: "International Gymnastics Camp’s concern with the current issues facing USA Gymnastics drives us to take a pro-active approach to ensure gymnastics is a safe sport when it comes to abuse. International Gymnastics Camp is advocating that, across the entire nation, shorts or leggings be worn with leotards during both workouts and junior competitions in the women’s programs. In that regard, and to accelerate this trend for change, IGC is requiring our female campers to wear shorts or leggings during workouts at camp. Thank you for your cooperation."

but, there is such an excruciatingly long history of women and girls being assaulted and the first question asked being, "What was she wearing?"
Of course it's not about the shorts, that idea has been beaten to death. I don't think anyone has an issue with athletes choosing to wear shorts, as long as everyone understands throwing on a pair of shorts will prevent exactly 0.0 sexual assaults, but proactive coaching policies and practices (like believing girls when they report) will.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

As an older female parent of a about to be a teen daughter.

As a woman who grew up where women’s rights (the first time ), the pill, Roe v Wade, were current events in elementary and middle schools, not history lessons. And abusers and pedophiles and rapists have always existed. Not sure you can legislate it or solve it. And victim blaming is not the way to go.

My perspective is perhaps a bit different. When I started school girls were not allowed to wear pants to school. Even in bitter winter, you wore snow pants, but it was a dress in school. And yes this was public school.

And I grew up in bikinis and daisy dukes. But not when I was 12, 10, 8 and younger. Huge difference between grown women and minor girls. Yet it seems as a society not only do we continue with the “sex object” stuff but the age it starts keeps getting younger. We were shoe shopping for a nice Easter dress shoe. The shoes in the girl dept are as blinged out and high heeled as my disco days. I have a real disconnectwwitthisnd my kid who just wants a nice pair of shoes.

And back in my kickline/cheer days all new team members got the appropriate “grooming”, watch out for personal hygiene products lecture with regards to our outfits.

And photos took work. You had to take them (withcameras tha were bigger then your palm), go get them developed and it was a crap shoot if they came out well lit and focused. You then had to make actual prints from negatives and physically share them to spread an image. And there was no such as photoshop for dummies.

Now a quick unobtrusive snap that has great resolution and can be zoomed, edited and shared in a matter of seconds.

I have love hate relationship with this. I love that when my kid went to daycare/preschool I got an end of year personal scrapbook of her year.

And I also shudder to think who is snapping away and why, in public venues.

My kid is modest by nature. She would more likely opt of something that required less then more.

So while I’m progressive enough to get my body my choice. I’m also realist to know it’s not that simple.

I also have to reach/discuss with my kid, we now live in a world where choices and actions that happen in a moment, may live and travel much further and longer then we want them to once the moment has passed.
I could make some foolish or regrettable choices as a teen and not have them live on forever, back when I was younger. She may not have that luxury.

We also understand personal choice vs rules and requirements. When we make decisions, we keep those requirements in mind when we decide where to spend our dollars. Along with how equitable and reasonable they are and do the fit what is right for “us” personally.

Like some have mentioned I’m careful about what I even share on my private SM page. Sadly in today’s world even cute pictures of a little one in the tub can get twisted. Not something I ever envisioned being concerned about, yet here we are.

I shouldn’t have to worry about this kind of stuff, yet I do.

I’m glad theybacked off. But I also wonder if folks would of been as up in arms f they tried an absolutely no shorts or the like policy....

 

[Texasmomof3]

@Texasmomof3 just because she believes the shorts rule will protect children does not mean that she believes clothing choices prevent abuse. That’s an assumption and not a fair one.

I believe the shorts rule could protect them from compromising photos that could end up distributed online as soft porn, as has been previously discussed on this thread. Wouldn’t you agree it’s important to try and protect them from that exploitation?

She said the shorts rule would prevent *abuse.* IGC also said the shorts rule is to prevent *abuse.* They are wrong. But the comments arent just wrong, they are also demeaning. I find the insistence that shorts will prevent abuse to be extremely insulting and extremely ignorant about sexual assault. I was wearing long pants when I was raped when I was in school; I highly doubt shorts would have stopped my rapist. Nassar actually gave his victims shorts to wear while he abused many of them.

If the leotard is not the best clothing to wear for gymnastics performance is a question that can always be considered. But to keep claiming more clothing would stop molesters is just so wrong I don't know what to say that won't upset a mod.

 

[gymmomx2]

She said the shorts rule would prevent *abuse.* IGC also said the shorts rule is to prevent *abuse.* They are wrong. But the comments arent just wrong, they are also demeaning. I find the insistence that shorts will prevent abuse to be extremely insulting and extremely ignorant about sexual assault. I was wearing long pants when I was raped when I was in school; I highly doubt shorts would have stopped my rapist. Nassar actually gave his victims shorts to wear while he abused many of them.

If the leotard is not the best clothing to wear for gymnastics performance is a question that can always be considered. But to keep claiming more clothing would stop molesters is just so wrong I don't know what to say that won't upset a mod.

I am so sorry that happened to you.
I also think you need to broaden your definition of abuse. I guarantee you the girls whose photographs are shared on porn websites feel abused.

 

[TumbleTimes4]

She said the shorts rule would prevent *abuse.* IGC also said the shorts rule is to prevent *abuse.* They are wrong. But the comments arent just wrong, they are also demeaning. I find the insistence that shorts will prevent abuse to be extremely insulting and extremely ignorant about sexual assault. I was wearing long pants when I was raped when I was in school; I highly doubt shorts would have stopped my rapist. Nassar actually gave his victims shorts to wear while he abused many of them.

If the leotard is not the best clothing to wear for gymnastics performance is a question that can always be considered. But to keep claiming more clothing would stop molesters is just so wrong I don't know what to say that won't upset a mod.

I’m also very sorry that this happened to you. But I also believe that sharing images of young children in leotards on the dark web is abuse, just a different type. Why not protect against all forms of abuse?

 

[Texasmomof3]

It is fine to protect kids from having their pictures posted and traded online. But that is not what IGC said they were doing with the shorts rule. They said this rule is in response to the recent abuse issues, and that is the Nasser situation and the sexual molestation of gymnasts.

 

[raenndrops]

It is fine to protect kids from having their pictures posted and traded online. But that is not what IGC said they were doing with the shorts rule. They said this rule is in response to the recent abuse issues, and that is the Nasser situation and the sexual molestation of gymnasts.

But "The Nasser situation" included a LOT of Child Pornography Images in addition to the sexual assaults. In fact, he was sentenced to 60 years for the porn charges.

 

[gymmomx2]

Marvin Sharpe was arrested for child pornography too. I’d consider that recent as well.

 

[Texasmomof3]

Just to be clear, having pictures of kids you don't know in leotards is creepy, but that is not porn.

 

[raenndrops]

Just to be clear, having pictures of kids you don't know in leotards is creepy, but that is not porn.

But hundreds and hundreds of crotch shots (not just "kids you don't know in leotards") that are being used as fodder for self-gratification (and being shared throughout the Internet) is WRONG!

 

[TumbleTimes4]

Just to be clear, having pictures of kids you don't know in leotards is creepy, but that is not porn.

Depending on the pose and the amount or lack of leo coverage, especially in a compromising position, could by definition be considered child pornography. So yes pictures could easily be part of “recent gymnastics events.” And it was just released that Nassar’s Boss at MSU had at least one video on his work computer of Nassar performing a “treatment.”

 

[gymgal]

Just to be clear, having pictures of kids you don't know in leotards is creepy, but that is not porn.

*Just to be clear*, we are not talking about simple gymnast photos. Photos of gymnast children and teens depicting revealing positions is, in fact, child porn. Soft porn, but porn none the less. And Raendrops was being conservative in the numbers that are available on the dark web.

Say what you will about playing the "victim shaming" card by forcing a change in gymnastics attire but these photos do not focus on fully dressed hockey, basketball, softball players. They focus on the private parts of female minor athletes in minimal clothing - gymnasts, acrobats, dancers, swimmers (though less so due to the policies USA swimming has regarding no photography behind the starting blocks). So yes, along with attempting to regulate the photography at meets (which is not 100% preventable), a little more clothing in that area will do a lot to curb this area of abuse.

Bottom line, I believe IGC meant well in their position and that they were not purposely attempting to victim shame. Upon hearing that others felt differently, they changed their position to be a recommendation.

 

[raenndrops]

*Just to be clear*, we are not talking about simple gymnast photos. Photos of gymnast children and teens depicting revealing positions is, in fact, child porn. Soft porn, but porn none the less. And Raendrops was being conservative in the numbers that are available on the dark web.

Heck, I know I was being conservative and not even really counting the pics on the DARK web OR photoshopped pics!

 

[Texasmomof3]

If IGC changed their rule because of the pictures they post of campers, I certainly would hope they are not pictures of slipped leotards or otherwise revealing child photos. Is that really the type of picture IGC takes and posts of their campers? I really don’t think that is the case.

 

[Letstalkgymnastics]

She said the shorts rule would prevent *abuse.* IGC also said the shorts rule is to prevent *abuse.* They are wrong. But the comments arent just wrong, they are also demeaning. I find the insistence that shorts will prevent abuse to be extremely insulting and extremely ignorant about sexual assault. I was wearing long pants when I was raped when I was in school; I highly doubt shorts would have stopped my rapist. Nassar actually gave his victims shorts to wear while he abused many of them.

If the leotard is not the best clothing to wear for gymnastics performance is a question that can always be considered. But to keep claiming more clothing would stop molesters is just so wrong I don't know what to say that won't upset a mod.

NO ONE said that shorts would prevent abuse! Not me, not IGC, or anyone on this thread from what I've read. I could understand your outrage...had someone actually said this.

 

[gymgal]

If IGC changed their rule because of the pictures they post of campers, I certainly would hope they are not pictures of slipped leotards or otherwise revealing child photos. Is that really the type of picture IGC takes and posts of their campers? I really don’t think that is the case.

Their announcement clearly stated they were doing it to accelerate the change sport wide, not necessarily specific to the photographs that are taken at their camps. Seriously, all you have to do is look at past covers of USAG magazines to see what we are talking about in terms of revealing photos. You know - the ones of gymnasts flying over the bar in straddle position or a needle kick on the beam. It doesn't actually have to be a "wardrobe slip" for it to be enticing to a predator.

 

[gymgal]

Would love to hear opinions on this -

If this hadn't been in relation to abuse and USAG made the adjustment out of the blue, say 5 years ago, for the comfort level of the gymnasts, coaches, and spectators combined, would anyone have batted an eye at the decision?I am sure some would have questioned why but the majority would have cheered it because deep down, we would prefer our little (and not so little) girls to have a little more coverage when performing their skills, especially with the way the leo cuts are going to high hips, narrow but coverage, etc.