A recent swimwear ban at public pools in Greater Sydney has sparked a heated debate about gender double standards and the policing of women’s bodies. Earlier this month, the Blue Mountains Leisure Centres (BMLC) announced on Facebook that “revealing swimwear” like thongs and g-strings would no longer be permitted at their five aquatic facilities. The post clarified that regular bikinis were still acceptable, but anything more revealing was now prohibited for both males and females.
Council’s Swimwear Policy Ignites Controversy
The council’s announcement immediately ignited a firestorm in the comments section. Supporters argued it was a reasonable dress code for a family-friendly venue, with one commenter stating: “it’s about the rules … don’t like them? Then swim and bare your bum elsewhere”. But critics accused the policy of unfairly targeting women and perpetuating harmful double standards.
“So long as [practicality] and safety are considered it shouldn’t be any one else’s business what I’m comfortable swimming in,”
– Angry commenter on BMLC’s Facebook post
Many expressed outrage at the idea of regulating swimwear, feeling it was an individual’s right to wear what makes them comfortable. “If you don’t like it, don’t look,” proclaimed one incensed commenter. Others pointed out the double standard of frequently policing women’s clothing and bodies in a way that rarely happens to men.
A History of Focusing on Women’s Attire
According to cultural expert Lauren Rosewarne, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne, Australia has a long history of scrutinizing and judging women’s swimwear and bodies. She argues that these types of dress codes provide “a legitimacy to looking at women in small bathing suits” and place the burden on females to dress “appropriately”.
“Somehow, the responsibility is on women not to stir desires in men, because then men might act badly and be punished, so we have to put the responsibility of morality on to women’s shoulders,” Rosewarne explained. She believes it’s not a woman’s job to dress a certain way to avoid provoking others.
Not the First Skimpy Swimwear Ban
This is hardly the first time revealing swimwear has caused a stir at Australian pools. In recent years:
- Marion Outdoor Pool in Adelaide was slammed in 2023 for requesting “modest swimwear” instead of skimpy bikinis
- A man on the Gold Coast called for banning g-string bottoms entirely because he felt “uncomfortable” after he “innocently … admired a shapely bare bum”
- Even Swimming Australia mandates “modest” competition suits and specifically excludes g-strings from its approved swimwear list
But the BMLC ban seems to have struck a particular nerve, perhaps because it affects such a broad swath of public pools in the Greater Sydney area. The council has declined to comment further, leaving many questions about how the new policy will actually be enforced.
Implications of Policing Women’s Bodies
At the heart of the issue is the enduring debate about society’s control over women’s bodies and choices. Experts argue these types of swimwear policies overwhelmingly target women and perpetuate the notion that females must cover up to avoid “tempting” or “provoking” men. Rather than teaching men to be respectful and responsible for their own behavior, the onus is placed on women to stay “modest.”
“Not everything is sexual just because you see it as such,”
– Lauren Rosewarne, cultural expert
Many feel it’s a slippery slope that perpetuates outdated notions of gender roles and dangerously implies that men simply can’t control themselves around scantily-clad women. In an era striving for greater equality, critics argue we should be moving away from these double standards, not enforcing them through dress codes.
Where We Go From Here
The swimwear debate in Sydney has once again shone a spotlight on society’s fixation with policing women’s attire and the urgent need to re-examine these gendered double standards. As the controversy continues to swirl, it’s clear that policies regulating swimwear and bodies will remain a contentious issue.
But perhaps this latest uproar will be the catalyst for an overdue reckoning and a movement towards more body-positive, consent-based approaches to public spaces. One that places the responsibility on individuals to treat each other with respect, regardless of the amount of skin on display. As Rosewarne eloquently stated: “Not everything is sexual just because you see it as such.”
