They cited that the threads of wool or cotton swimsuits would clog up the traps, leading to disease and bacteria. (Like, you couldn’t clean the traps?)

Another excuse was to check them over for open sores. Like they couldn’t look them over real quick before they put their suits on?

However, the girls were allowed to wear wool or cotton swimsuits, and apparently didn’t need to be looked over for open sores.

It was practiced from 1885 up until as recently as 1980.

Why didn’t somebody say something? Would everyone have just looked the other way if girls were forced to swim nude?

Source

“In 1885, the Brooklyn YMCA opened America’s first recreational indoor pool and required men to swim nude. Wool swimsuits were potential traps for disease and bacteria, and fibers clogged the pool’s simple filtration system. At the time, nude swimming seemed like the most sensible option (even though incorrect proportions of chlorine had a tendency to burn swimmers’ bare skin). That’s a bit redundant. A swimsuit is not going to stop chlorine from getting on skin, plus even when you wear a suit, most of your skin is exposed anyway.
It wasn’t long before school administrators followed suit. Per their pool management guidelines, The American Public Health Association (APHA) required male public school students to swim nude between 1926 and 1962.”

I came across a person on FB, who is in the same “Remember the 70s” group as I am in. He looks back with dawning horror, considering the possibility of the REAL reasons they were forced to do that in 1975, 76. ”The most disturbing aspect of all was when we were made to have “chicken fights.” That’s right, naked boys riding on the shoulders of other naked boys, jousting around trying to knock each other into the water. Body parts were touching that should have never been in the same vicinity.”

He wonders if there is a potential for a lawsuit.

Topics: girls, boys, ymca, PE, Swimming nude