- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Health
Video: Public Pool Refuses to Allow Breast Cancer Survivor Jodi Jaecks to Swim Topless
In Seattle, Washington, 45-year-old breast cancer survivor Jodi Jaecks politely warned the desk manager of the Medgar Evers Pool that she planned on swimming topless in the public facility (video below), but was told that she could not.
Jaecks had a bilateral mastectomy in 2011 that left her flat-chested with two thin scars across on chest.
Jaecks told Seattle Parks and Recreation officials that she suffers from nerve pain across her chest and neck, and that wearing post-mastectomy swimsuits was too uncomfortable.
Jaecks told Seattle paper The Stranger: "It burns all the time, a pretty searing, intense pain."
Parks department spokeswoman Dewey Potter said: "She made it clear she wanted to show her scars as a 'badge of courage' and wanted to use the pool to spread her message."
Potter said that bathing suits must be "appropriate at a family facility," so that people from different cultural backgrounds feel comfortable swimming.
As a lesbian who describes herself as "pretty androgynous," Jaecks said: "It's good for kids to be exposed to the positive reality, not only of the existence of cancer as a fact of humanity, but also the example of surviving it with strength and spirit intact. I have no intention of accepting this pronouncement.
Responding to the The Stranger, Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendent Christopher Williams announced on June 19 that he would overturn the policy for Jaecks.
Williams said he will consider future requests from breast cancer survivors with double mastectomies on a "case-by-case basis."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
The top is supposed to cover
The top is supposed to cover the breasts and particularly the nipples. She has neither so the law really does not apply to her. The statement about not wanting to offend other cultures is a problem. What if the Muslim family, who are offended by any skin shown by women, make a stink? Do you make the "burkini" a requirement? Let's keep our laws for the American culture and those who don't like it can go to where cultures are practiced as they like. Does anyone remember..."When in Rome, do as the Romans"?
What are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of? Men's nipples are exposed. Why fear women's nipples?
American Culture is juvenile as set up by Conservative religious zealots. Grow up. Stop demonizing the human body. If you don't like looking at breasts or anything else on a body, then don't look. Stop trying to repress everyone else's rights.
It's wrong of the manager to
It's wrong of the manager to object to her swimming topless because there is nothing to hide. It's not like a flat chested woman with breasts could be allowed because that is not the same. This woman has no breasts. Swim suit tops are made to cover breasts. So what if it makes people uncomfortable? There are many sights people come upon that are uncomfortable to look at almost anywhere you go. That's just life.
And this is certainly not
And this is certainly not something she should live in shame about if she is a cancer survivor.
She could have worn a
She could have worn a T-shirt. What's next -- letting women swim topless if they've had sex-change surgery to become men?
What's the big deal about
What's the big deal about women being topless? I mean, really? What's so profane or disgusting about women's breasts? Why are Americans so prudish and intolerant of the human body?
Easy answer, the religious
Easy answer, the religious reich.
Why not? Unless you were in
Why not? Unless you were in the boys locker room, you wouldn't know the difference if you saw a person who is surgically a male.
Or you could stop being a
Or you could stop being a bigoted woman-hater and let women swim topless as they can in civilized nations. It's in the religion-ridden USA that equal rights are denied to women and other minorities.
When you start covering your chest at the pool, you'll make some sense. Not much, but a little.
I salute you and raise my
I salute you and raise my glass of gin & tonic. Why are these religious folks such prudes?
Was this intentionally
Was this intentionally ironic?
"What's next -letting women swim topless if they've had sex-change surgery to become men?"
Ummmm... they already do that, so... what was your point? Based on your other posts, I took this as a mistake and not intentionally ironic. Please correct me if I am incorrect.
And why not? If she had a
And why not? If she had a sex change, you wouldn't know the difference if you saw him/her. Again, are you so immature and so busy comparing your equipment to others and keeping up with the Jones' that you cannot mind your own business? Sheesh, you sound as bad as a Fundamentalist Christian....
I respectfully disagree with
I respectfully disagree with Lilcheeks, Kate Tietje and Ariel Angelique Lawson above. I think it was a very positive and mature decision for the Seattle Parks and Recreation to make an exception to the normal bathing suit rules on the grounds of the double or bilateral mastectomy. She enjoys swimming, her scars are not that pronounced, and wearing a normal bathing suit is painful for her, so why not let her swim without covering up where she once had breasts? This is being handled on a case-by-case basis, so I don't see how this has anything to do with special treatment. Rather this is the first time people are beginning to realize that some of the application of our rules on decency need to be more flexible to ensure that the greatest number of people can enjoy public facilities like swimming pools. The only reason that some here are upset is that of her appearance lacking breasts and the surgical scars. Let's be honest ladies.
We have become so politicly correct to the point of absurdity. This reflects more on our Puritanical history of repressing women and viewing the female and even the male body as evil, dirty, and sinful. In Europe there are many public beaches today and public places where it is acceptable for both women & men to wear nothing, and Europeans don't seem to be so hung up (sorry for the pun) about a little bit of skin exposure as we do. It's time we Americans grow up and act like the mature nation we are instead of carrying on this schizophrenic attitude of pushing sensuality and sexuality all over the place, but repressing it at the same time. Maybe some of you are so caught up in the trap of comparing your equipment with others and keeping up with the Jones' that you feel the need to go around and make judgments about what is appropriate or not for all other women. Bullshit. For me, your comments are similarly reflective of what Fundamentalists do by imposing their beliefs on others and expecting us to follow them because they somehow have a monopoly on what is right and wrong and can speak for all of society. Actually they are loud mouths. I would assume you ladies wouldn't deem to align yourselves with those kinds of bigots, but your comments are seemingly similar.
Whether you like it or not,
Whether you like it or not, it's the law. I never said I agreed with it, but you'll see what you want to see in what I say.
Well, clearly the progressive
Well, clearly the progressive minds working for the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation view that even if there is a law on "decency" the law has sufficient wiggle room in it for interpretation and to make exceptions for people on a "case-by-case" basis. Consequently your entire comment is completely irrelevant and it doesn't say anything germane. So why bother even making that comment?
I was making a devil's
I was making a devil's advocate argument. I didn't say I disagreed with whatever Seattle Dept of PnR did. Saying my comment is irrelevant and lacking anything germane is redundant. Keep arguing with me if you want, but I'm not disagreeing with you.
You are correct in saying we
You are correct in saying we as Americans are hung up on our Puritanical roots. That being said we are not living in Europe and the law is the law. Abide by it or lobby to get it changed. I'd vote for topless beaches. As has been stated already some people come to the public pools with a given expectation and not "what will they allow today". Again, I've been to nude beaches and topless beaches so I'm not opposed to it. Give her a citation and move on.
Give her a citation for what?
Give her a citation for what? Exposing her breasts? Or for being a woman?
No, we are not living in
No, we are not living in Europe and your point is well taken. However, I don't need to lobby for anything since the fine folks at the Seattle Parks & Recreation Department were smart enough to be flexible in their interpretation of subjective and religiously based "decency" laws. There is a movement already out there that intends to take on and challenge some of these anachronistic laws that may have made sense in the 1950's but are irrelevant today when we are a much more diverse country. It seems to me that there are a forum readers here who are expressing their own pre-conceived notions about decency (which they are entitled to do so) and I am also entitled to try to open the closed minds by offering a rational explanation of why we need to change these laws. I think using the precedence of Europe is very much relevant to raise the standards of our laws in this country out of the Puritan Age and into the 21st Century. I could be mistaken, but I feel your comment is trying to tell me not to rock the boat. That disturbs me.
Let me give you an example. In 1994, there was a tragic case of a mother who suffered postpartum depression (as it was called then) and threw her colicky baby into a pond during Winter in Farmington Hills Michigan. The case gained national attention because the mother was charged initially with 1st degree murder, which later was dropped to 2nd degree manslaughter. In England and in other European nations, it was already accepted that a woman who kills her child whilst in this state of depression cannot be charged with murder. At that time, people made similar comments like you have just done saying that we are not living in Europe and the law is the law.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept the status quo especially when it is both morally and socially indefensible.
If people do not step up to the plate and say that such laws are in need of updating or trashing, then nothing gets done and people's rights get trampled on. Is that acceptable to you? It isn't to me.
Long story short, it took several years, but enough people felt similarly about the unfairness of our laws and the lack of recognition of this medical condition after birth of a child, and as a result, today, a similar case of postpartum depression a defendant would likely not face murder charges. Using the example of other democratic nations is the best way for our nation to be in a leadership position when dealing with other nations (as we once did) instead of playing catch up all the time. Policies of unilateralism have caused us to fall behind the rest of the world in many key areas, and that is unacceptable.
If the pool people just said
If the pool people just said "the rules are the rules" and left it at that, this might not be such an issue. They went wrong with making it about the cancer and saying she was trying to show her scars off. That's a messed up accusation and isn't very compassionate for her struggles.
You gotta figure the logic is that if they make an exception for her, other flat chested women will want to be able to do the same. Then other women who are almost flat chested might want to do this... and where does it end?
You got big flapjacks flopping all over the place, and that's a slippery slope.
Why's it a slippery slope?
Why's it a slippery slope? To what? Not treating women's breasts as though they are evil objects to hide? I mean, seriously, the Religious Zealots need to get over themselves and stop demonizing the human body.