That having a bikini wax shouldn't be a necessary part of any job?

[ThatsWotSheSaid]

I've been watching the amazing gymnastics at the olympics and every time I can't help but wonder if they are all happy to have such revealing gym costumes. I would hate to have a camera doing a slow mo when I'm legs akimbo in the air wearing so little even if the camera angles seem to be discrete.

I have tried to look up if there is a rule about the cut and if they wanted could they wear little shorts but I can't find anything. I did read if they remove a wedgie they get marked down?!

AIBU to think that in this day and age it seems a bit odd that these elite athletes need to be so scantily clad and that they probably have more to worry about than waxing, ingrowing hairs and itchiness in the run up to the games?

Gah- wasn't not was.

I've often used the term clean line to mean a certain design aesthetic ... I don't think of myself as pretentious!
Clean line isn't the opposite of dirty line, or hairy line- just that the line isn't busy, and it's well, clean and sweeping, airy and uncluttered.

For any sport that requires an extension of the line it makes sense not to have a floppy uniform, and to have attributes to the costume that draw the eye along the line... Think the placement of sparkles, stripes or other elongated prints.

A big old mess would be blocks of colour, camouflage and loose fabric. These keep the eye in a small space, and there's no payoff for extending. The enjoyment you get for watching and participating in Ballet, gymnastics diving and swimming is all about that extended clean line, and the flexibility and strength which enables the flow of the line. It's why we love dolphins.

It's pleasurable to look along a line and for it not to be cluttered or busy. That's why people play golf I think- it's good at relieving anxiety as the fairways have clean lines. It's why people pay declutteres to sort out their flat surfaces!

There are plenty of other examples of the aesthetic qualities of clean lines.
The development of Perspective was absolutely mind blowing. It's why the cubists were reviled and modern art (seeming to have no structure or line) was so radical and still is an acquired taste

I'm delighted the American women's gym team won so many medals, considering the aesthetic of gymnastics was predominantly white and wasp shaped. Having muscular black, Jewish and Hispanic women on the us team is more of a game changer than their uniforms.

Black women are also making headway in ballet also, and this is something to be embraced as girls with bigger muscles and curves were traditionally excluded.

Sorry if that all sounds pretentious ... I work in design and clean lines (and negative space) matter to me.

Yet another ludicrous MN thread. A whole load of pseudo-feminists trying desperately to convince us that anyone who removes their pubic hair is a pathetic, brainwashed and hopeless victim who needs educating that pubic hair should be left growing 'as nature intended' and to do otherwise is bowing down to male dominance.

I'm pretty sure that wearing a revealing leotard and removing pubic hair are the very least concerns an Olympic gymnast has.

They train 35 hours a week, they eat only certain things, they put their bodies in danger of serious injury every day.
They can't socialise, they can't drink or go to parties or go to school or have other hobbies.

And people seriously think that removing pubic hair and wearing a leotard is a major challenge or downside of the job???? Really???

Men's hair free chins are referred to as clean-shaven. No one gets up in arms that a beard might be considered 'dirty'

It's a turn of phrase Ffs

MrsLion I couldn't agree more with you, funny how women being told to keep their pubic hair is fine regardless of individual choice, because that fits with someone else's idea of how women should be

Yeah, it might be over-kill to get so upset about the need for the waxing. But what bothers me is why so many women pile into threads like this specifically to mock feminism.

What is your problem?

You might be right that lots of the competitors couldn't give a shit, or that they like the waxed, sparkly look. Great - then they're in luck.

But what about the others? The girls who are strong and athletic and want to compete in these sports but don't fit the terribly prescriptive aesthetic, or are too hairy? What about them?

It's not good enough to say 'you don't like the rules, don't compete' if the rules or the prevailing culture are a bit... questionable.

Again, I understand that it might not be the biggest problem in sport. But there's a seed of truth here - the rules (or at least the over-riding conventions) for women's appearances in these sports can seem prohibitive. Some young girls will be put off before they get as far as they can go.

That can't be good.

Ask yourself why a feminist agenda brings out so much bile in you.

Being anti-feminist looks bad on a man. It looks fucking insane on a woman.

I think your post was very interesting lion. I agree. That may be why men and women are hair free in sports where a clean line is important.

Sorry I meant yoda!

I didn't mock feminism.

I am a supporter of feminism.

People who treat others with contempt or sympathy because they chose to remove their pubic hair or wear a sparkly leotard are not feminists.

They are pseudo-feminists. Which I am anti. Because they are trying to enforce the view that women only want to do these things because of some male agenda. Just because it doesn't fit in with their person view.

I meant 'personal' view.

The thing is, though, people are not suggesting that women shouldn't be free to remove any hair they wish, or wear the most sparkly, skimpy outfit on earth.

The trouble is with the lack of range. If all the women are following this very narrow aesthetic, one which does require extreme grooming, then where is the genuine choice.

If it were a 'wear the smallest, spangliest leotard' competition, then that limited range would be fair enough.

But it's not. It's a sport.

As I've said before, those who genuinely love the whole waxed, revealing genre have no fight on their hands. No one is having a go at them!

But anyone outside that 'norm' needs genuine feminists onside to help bring about a real choice.

But they have a choice, they can wear flesh coloured leggins, it's on the handbook!! As are other choices! They're just not often taken up, but many here have already said flesh leggins in competition is quite normal!!

Seems like a non-battle because the choice is there in black and white?!

This article is about elite female atheletes NOT waxing and its benefits! www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/aug/15/team-gb-cycling-saddle-sore-medals

I wonder why the men when doing the pommel/rings/high bar wear looser fitting trousers? Wouldn't skin tight ones show the line better, or no trousers at all and just a short legged unitard?

I agree Mrs Lion, I think you might like The Guilty Feminist podcast!

But don't you worry about why these other options aren't taken up?

It's the same, to a different extent, in wider society. Of course women can make any choices about their appearance that they choose. But does that mean there aren't pressures on young girls? ?

Just find it odd that people who proclaim themselves feminists want to deny that these pressures exist.

Maybe they just prefer naked legs. I know if I was sweating like a pig doing flippity flips and spinning around and other amazingly athletic feats the last thing I would want to do is be wearing tights.

Yes maybe they do just prefer it.

People have been saying that all through the thread. Trouble is, we don't actually know - it's speculation.

So, to return to the original question, I think it is unreasonable for gymnasts to have to wax to within an inch of their lives, and, in the context of society's fucked up attitude to women's appearances, I'd say it's an issue worth questioning.

It's too easy just to say 'No, they all love it, it's totally fine.'

Maybe its a personal preference! And that preference is more wide spread than wearing leggings when doing sport. Why is it so hard to understand that the preferred option would be naked legs? It's like you don't believe it could be?

Why do more young women have long hair than short hair? Is it fashion? Is it just a popular preference?

Why do the majority of Women like putting on make up or grooming their pubic hair to varying degree?

So many what ifs? But you can't say all are due to a perceive patriarchy surely? It's just a preference, a popular preference?

Yes, maybe it's a preference. Key word - maybe.

How do you wax within an inch of your life? ....(misses point of thread)

But Merchant these women have done this sport since infancy, they will have grown up doing it and will have copied peers and the coaches will have coached the same for years, told them of mark deduction (for knickers, NOT pubic hair) and the regulations on costumes.

So after 15 years of training, given that 90% of the gymnasts are all groomed and dressed the same way it would become a preferred norm to look the way, some people on here feel overly abhorrent about

It just seems like you want a "feminist" argument when really there isn't one to be had. The female gymnasts have a wealth of choice for kit.

But you can't say all are due to a perceived patriarchy

Nope. I'm not even trying to claim that most present themselves in that way in a sort of against-own-will patriarchy - dominated way.

I'm willing to concede that most are happy with the status quo.

I'm saying what about the ones that are not happy?

Don't they count?

The ones who love the current style are already catered for. How about the acceptable aesthetic is widened a bit to also cater for others?

But if they have a 'wealth of choice' why do they all look so similar?