Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

City Makes Narrow Exception for One Breast-Cancer Survivor Who Had Been Banned from Swimming Topless in Pools

Posted by on Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Jodi Jaecks: The only woman who can swim topless in Seattle pools. Other cancer survivors will be considered on a
  • Kelly O
  • Jodi Jaecks: The only woman who can swim topless in Seattle pools. Other cancer survivors will be considered on a "case-by-case basis."

Responding to a Stranger article that hit streets this morning, Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendent Christopher Williams issued a statement minutes ago about breast-cancer survivor Jodi Jaecks. City officials had refused since March to let her swim topless in public pools, Cienna reported, even though both of Jaecks's breasts have been removed (she has only two thin scars and bare skin).

Now the city is overturning that policy for Jaecks—and Jaecks alone. Williams says he will consider future requests from breast cancer survivors with double mastectomies to swim topless only on a "case-by-case basis."

While Jaecks says she "never expected that the response would be so quick," she is upset that the rule was construed so narrowly to apply solely to her.

"It puts the onus on the individual to ask for permission. It has the potential, then, for women to think that they should be ashamed or try to pass—that they should cover themselves up," she says. "It's not a policy then, really."

While the olive branch is a welcome gesture, it's a minimal gesture. Asked why the department didn't create a new policy for all women like Jaecks, parks spokeswoman Karen O'Conner was stumped. "I don't know the answer for that," she said.

Williams offered his thinking: “After looking at the situation again, I decided to reconsider based on the circumstances of the case. Our original concern stems from our responsibility to accommodate the needs of all our patrons. In this case I see nothing that might alarm the public. I think our staff were correct to follow our policy at the time the earlier decision was made, and my decision is based on new information.”

What "new information" did the city have between last week and this week? Bad press. Parks officials note that The Stranger "ran a piece that showed a photo of the cancer survivor."

Which raises the question: Does every breast cancer survivor who wants to swim topless need to be bold enough to have her topless photo published in the newspaper? Is that the standard for persuading Superintendent Williams? Or even submitting a photo for review? That's an awfully high bar—an intimidating barrier that most women would probably refuse. The whole point is that women in this position don't want to be treated as freaks. Unless the city makes this policy for all women like Jaecks—which they should do immediately—this seems like insincere damage control from a tone-deaf PR department.


Comments (77) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 1
Um... OK.

So Cienna what would your policy say? Have you got something in mind that would meet the needs of all patrons? Oh, wait, let me guess. Cienna's policy would be the same as The Stranger's approach: everybody who isn't 100% on board your more-enlightened-than-thou progressive bandwagon can fuck off back to wherever they came from.

The weird thing? Whenever The Stranger gets the my-way-or-the-highway elected officials they say they want (cough, McGinn), they are the first to bitch about how ineffective they are.

So thanks for being a bomb-thrower. Now go back to the sandbox while the grown ups sort out how to make this work.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on June 20, 2012 at 6:53 PM · Report this
lilmonster206 2
Even in a liberal city like Seattle men are making laws about lady-parts.
Posted by lilmonster206 on June 20, 2012 at 6:59 PM · Report this
Here's my proposed policy: wear whatever you want, handle complaints on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by Ben on June 20, 2012 at 7:11 PM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 4
Everyone let's sing! "Dude looks like a lady!"
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on June 20, 2012 at 7:11 PM · Report this
Josh Bis 5
This is great, but I guess that I also wonder what you'd suggest as an ideal policy?
Posted by Josh Bis on June 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM · Report this
raku 6
In New York, it's 100% legal to be topless in public regardless of your gender. And they have quite a bit of a diverse population there. You'd think it would be legal here too, based on the state, city, and county laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex, gender identity, or gender expression, but I guess someone needs to sue?

What is the parks department afraid of, besides not being able to oppress women?
Posted by raku on June 20, 2012 at 7:18 PM · Report this

Umm Okay.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on June 20, 2012 at 7:21 PM · Report this

She looks like The Man Who Fell To Earth:…

Seriously, can't we use stem cells to make new breasts these days? Seems like it wouldn't be hard now or in the near future.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on June 20, 2012 at 7:27 PM · Report this

There is no law regarding lady parts in Seattle, rather, this is a an administrative policy for city pools, nothing more. The law regarding nudity is simple: Nudity is completely legal so long as it does not offend anyone, but if a person is offended and calls police, they may cite the person for indecent exposure.

I think she is very brave for going forward with this, as it is the dumbest policy imaginable, and although I prefer not to see people walking around topless (men or women...), I do, however, see no rational reasoning for allowing men to go shirtless but not women, as far as I am concerned, it is a silly law and I personally would request my girlfriend to keep her top on unless previously negotiated, I realize that is my own issue dealing with the desire to have my partner's body visible to me only... lol.
Posted by scratchmaster joe on June 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM · Report this
If I get prostate cancer, can I walk around with my asshole hanging out?

Posted by Let's thank god she didn't have hemorrhoid surgery on June 20, 2012 at 7:37 PM · Report this
This wouldn't have been an issue if Jaecks herself hadn't gone out of her way to make an issue out of it. If she had just gone ahead and had her swim I'll bet others in the pool would have ignored her. She instead had to point it out to the poor pool employee who does not make the rules but is responsible for enforcing them, thus assuring that it is ratcheted right to the top.
There are plenty of womens' swimsuits available that cover the chest area without extra fabric and post-mastectomy prostheses--geez, ever heard of Speedo?--that should not exacerbate the post surgical pain. (Does she wear clothes during the day?)
This woman is an attention whore and Stranger writers are dupes for falling for it.,
And just for the record, I've had a mastectomy, but only on one side, so I'm looking forward to wearing half a swimsuit top next time I go to the pool.
Posted by crone on June 20, 2012 at 7:42 PM · Report this
Fucking gross. Isn't there a camp (out of sight) where we can send these people - permanently?
Posted by Stranger'sWorstNightmare on June 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM · Report this
Banna 13
So we have restrictive policies, or lawsuits over titty-leering. You can't legislate/administrate folks into enlightenment.
Posted by Banna on June 20, 2012 at 7:49 PM · Report this
One breasted woman calls no breasted woman an attention whore. How can you not love Slog?
Posted by Goodness gracious me on June 20, 2012 at 7:51 PM · Report this
@14 One-breasted woman declines having semi-nude photograph published in local newspaper. Invitations to jello wrestling will be considered.
Posted by crone on June 20, 2012 at 8:02 PM · Report this
ferret 16
As someone who regularly swam at Queen Anne Pool, the Colman Pool, Evans pool, and almost every Seattle Rec pool in Seattle. This shouldn’t had been a big deal. She should had been left alone from the beginning, and let her swim. A swimming suit for laps hardly both male or female leaves much to the imagination. She has been through hell, leave her alone.

I have seen more unwelcome man boobs at the Pools, than this picture of a breast cancer survivor.

Much like nudist colonies aren’t about sex, swimming at lap swim hours isn’t about checking others out, (which is inevitable,) but to get a swim workout in.

My main concern as a swimmer for her during lap swim, is she following proper swim etiquette like sharing a lane, she is the right speed of a lane, etc. I would take a double take if I saw her at a pool, and continue to swim, and admire her courage, and showing the world that this has made her stronger.
Posted by ferret http://!/okojo hide on June 20, 2012 at 8:06 PM · Report this
Is it illegal to be topless and female in Seattle?
Posted by kersy on June 20, 2012 at 8:25 PM · Report this
What about testicular cancer? Can we expect castrati to be out waving they twigs (sans berries) at the ladies from Seattle's Angry feminist alliance?
Posted by I'd love to flap my cock at a feminist on June 20, 2012 at 8:25 PM · Report this
I know I have terrible taste, but I was really hoping the resolution to this was going to be pasties, stuck in arbitrary places on her torso.

Posted by Limey Rick on June 20, 2012 at 8:37 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 20
@4, @8, @12

You are all assholes!

This is a woman who lost her breasts to cancer. She then decided that she doesn't need/ want fake breasts. She just wants to be natural.

You should respect her for it. Instead you make nasty comments on an internet blog. Did you graduate high school? If you did, you don't deserve your diploma.

I hope that none of you ever get breast cancer, which does affect men as well as women.

Next time, keep your asshole comments to yourself.
Posted by passionate_jus on June 20, 2012 at 8:57 PM · Report this
Not entirely sure how it's more intimidating for a woman to submit a picture for review than to actually go out in semi-public places topless. Totally agree that the initial decision was bullshit and kudos to the Stranger for shaming them into changing the policy, but I'd like to see what "case-by-case basis" means to the department before immediately crying foul.
Posted by Nitidiuscula on June 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 22
I think women should be allowed to be topless anywhere a man is.

If you don't like it, then don't leave your house. There is nothing that says that once you go outside your house you have the right not to be offended.

A woman's right to be topless is more important than some idiots right to not be offended by mammary glands.

It's your bodies sisters, do whatever you want with them!
Posted by passionate_jus on June 20, 2012 at 9:01 PM · Report this
I understand her position, but I can understand the swimming pool's as well. They don't want to get involved in judging whether mastectomy-scarred chests are still sexy; there is a general social convention that women's breasts are covered in public; so they just apply the rule. Works in 99.99% of cases.
Allowing one exception doesn't hurt, but starting to develop exempt categories just becomes weird: you don't want a swimming pool attendant examining your breasts to decide if enough has been cut away to qualify you. To avoid that situation, better just to keep the rule that all women wear tops.
Posted by Phil H on June 20, 2012 at 9:13 PM · Report this
"Where are you taking this....thing?"
Posted by Stranger'sWorstNightmare on June 20, 2012 at 9:16 PM · Report this
DavidC 25
In Canada its legal for a woman to be topless anywhere a man can be shirtless. I've seen one woman in a public pool and several on beaches - somehow as a society we have survived
Posted by DavidC on June 20, 2012 at 9:30 PM · Report this
john t 26
@11, Seriously, you think a woman should be wearing prosthetic breasts while exercising in a swimming pool? Seriously, you think that your right to not be aesthetically displeased by the shape of her chest trumps her right to exercise comfortably and conveniently in a public facility?
Posted by john t on June 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM · Report this
Teslick 27
As 16 points out, man boobs are worse, so I'd take Phil H.'s suggestion one step further: make everyone wear Victorian style full length suits. Then make sure everyone stay at least 6 feet away from the females, much like Seattle strip clubs. For an area as liberal as Seattle is, there is still a prudish streak that runs deep.
Posted by Teslick on June 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM · Report this
you go girl! its hot, and more women should take it off!
Posted by Cassette tape fan on June 20, 2012 at 9:51 PM · Report this
TVDinner 29
This thread depresses the shit out of me.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on June 20, 2012 at 10:17 PM · Report this
God she is ugly. I'm shocked the would be allowed out in public in the first place, with such a capacity to terrify small children and whathaveyou. Fucking glorious that she doesn't have to spend the extra minute to put on a proper fucking bathing suit and the swimmin' hole, right?

Eat a dick, Stranger.
Posted by Central Scrutinizer on June 20, 2012 at 10:40 PM · Report this
Add to that I hate the term "survivor" when not in used of the context of a plane, train, of naval accident. Most offensive is the term "suicide survivor" as reference to the loved ones of a suicide. White people are so fucking good at making everything about them. It doesn't matter if they've been suicidal, but they can profit from the social support for merely being tangentially involved with an actual victim--that is an actual suicide. Even better, women--particularly affluent, liberal, white women--have complete ownership of the psychology of victimhood, and exploit that advantage to the very end.
Posted by Central Scrutinizer on June 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM · Report this
@26: Not what I said. Please check reading comprehension.
@29 Why?
Posted by crone on June 20, 2012 at 10:50 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 33
Why does ANYONE have to "cover their naughty bits?"

Fuck that. Anyone and everyone should just wear whatever the fuck they want, or wear nothing at all, and the mundanes can go fuck themselves if they have a problem with it.

The mundanes need to die already. OH MY FUCKING GAWD WHO WILL THINK OF THE GODDAMNED FUCKING CHILDREN!!?1?!1?/!/1?!

The children can go fuck themselves. Wear what you want. Or don't wear anything. I don't care. Nobody else should care. If they do "care," they should go die in a fire.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on June 20, 2012 at 11:14 PM · Report this
LEE. 34
Hey have you guys checked out the new registered troll?? He's terrifyingly ineffective!
Posted by LEE. on June 20, 2012 at 11:15 PM · Report this
@31 Accidents are okay but double mastectomy breast cancer is not?
Posted by kersy on June 20, 2012 at 11:17 PM · Report this
If we're going to talk about Parks Department policy lapses, we might ask McGinn why he hasn't acted to get anybody confirmed as actual Parks Superintendent. Since the last confirmed Superintendent Gallagher ran off, the mayor has left Williams, a twenty-year Parks guy and Nickels appointee, in place as "Acting" Superintendent only. Why is that? McGInnn ran as a Parks supporter - is his plan to keep Parks from having a confirmed chief? What effect does it have on a department's ability to carry out a policy revamp when the department head isn't given full authority and responsiblity?
Posted by gloomy gus on June 21, 2012 at 12:07 AM · Report this
I can only assume the comments here about her appearance are tame in comparison to the rest of the internets. I do think it's weird that someone would go to a city blog to troll about something like this, though.

Anyhow, I am so fucking pro topless breast cancer survivors (maybe especially andro ones)! The randomly applied pastie idea upthread also pleases me, however.
Posted by zobot on June 21, 2012 at 12:15 AM · Report this
malcolmxy 38
I feel for women who have to go through this, but i no more want to see your appendectomy or hernia scar than I want to see the two scars where this lady's breasts used to be.

Wear a tight, one piece speedo and be done with it already. What the fuck does this prove other than scars are nauseating? Two scars are twice as nauseating?
Posted by malcolmxy on June 21, 2012 at 3:46 AM · Report this
malcolmxy 39
Does Lance Armstrong get to leave the trunks at home as well, or does his single nut possession status exempt him from this policy?
Posted by malcolmxy on June 21, 2012 at 3:49 AM · Report this
tainte 40
36, it's because williams has cancer. he has been offered the position permanently but he will not accept until he is more confident about his long term outlook.
Posted by tainte on June 21, 2012 at 5:29 AM · Report this
terrence 41
christ, theyre just tits! or rather, scar tissue, which is even less of a big deal.
Posted by terrence on June 21, 2012 at 5:50 AM · Report this
Last of the Time Lords 42
Welcome the the United States. This isn't Europe and isn't going to become Europe anytime soon. That means if you are a woman you are expected in public areas to be appropriately covered matter what medical conditions you have been through.

But the logic here, if you've had anal warts removed you should be allowed to go bottomless with your ass cheeks spread apart so everyone can participate.

And secondly, I don't see this as some great liberating looks more like someone who is starved for attention and found a way to get some.
Posted by Last of the Time Lords on June 21, 2012 at 6:26 AM · Report this
@40, are you pulling my leg? Why wouild cancer treatment make a difference to whether a super popular 28-year Parks veteran would allow his name to go for confirmation? Personal decision, of course, but the logic escapes me how being more secure in your work could be anything but a plus. Still, if that's true it would be an interesting twist on the Jaecks story.
Posted by gloomy gus on June 21, 2012 at 6:48 AM · Report this
--MC 44
Some people might look at her and instead of lust or approval feel sadness and pity. I doubt that Ms. Jaecks wants people to look at her with pity -- maybe she does, I don't know --

Her appearance might also be triggering to people who've had traumatic surgical experiences, or have fearful ideations about body damage. Maybe Ms. Jaecks might want to consider how he appears to others a bit more. As Louis Jordan says, "It makes no difference what you think about me, but it makes a whole lot of difference what I think about you."
Posted by --MC on June 21, 2012 at 7:37 AM · Report this
--MC 45
^ "she" --oops
Posted by --MC on June 21, 2012 at 7:38 AM · Report this
perhaps we should allow all flat breasted women to go topless in public pools. And what about testicular cancer survivors, can they go bottomless as a badge of honor?
Posted by jeffy on June 21, 2012 at 7:43 AM · Report this
I couldn't care less if this woman wears a top to swim or not - I couldn't care less if any woman does. If I don't want to see it, I just don't look. But reading the original article makes her ascribed reasoning for wanting to be topless - namely, it hurts to wear clothing - pretty suspect. If it hurts all the time as she said, what's the difference between wearing a top and not? Does she intend to go everywhere topless? That's going to suck hard in the winter. If she can wear a top most of the time, why can't she in this case? If a form-fitting top hurts, doesn't the water itself pressing against her while swimming cause pain?

I guess I can't see a reason to get worked up over this one way or another. Western society expects men to cover their junk in public. It expects women to do the same. And breasts count for women as sexual objects - sorry, but they do. I don't think there are many women out there who only have their breasts manipulated by their breastfeeding offspring. I don't see it as women's civil liberties being infringed upon to be expected to put a top on in public. To me, it's a silly argument to make. That doesn't mean you aren't welcome to make it, as is Ms. Jaecks. I sympathize for her condition and what she's gone through, but that's about as far as it goes.
Posted by NateMan on June 21, 2012 at 7:43 AM · Report this
Pithy Name 48
@23 - All this bloviating, and only one reasoned response to the whole thing. Thank you, Phil. That is exactly what they are doing, and exactly the reason they are doing it that way. Case-by-case is the way to go. Not the best solution, but the only one that meets everyone's needs.
Posted by Pithy Name on June 21, 2012 at 7:46 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 49
How can so many men on this blog think that all women are good for is looking hot for you? God damn, some of these comments are almost down to YouTube levels.

So a woman has to get up and think "well, what will all the men I run into want to see today?"

It does not fucking matter if you think she is attractive or if you do not want to see scars. Jesus Christ, you do know that women are humans as well, and have rights, desires, and independent thoughts right?

Grow the fuck up children. A woman is not just an unfeeling vessel put here for your sexual and aesthetic pleasures. I am sure most of you rail against Christian facists, but here you are reasoning with the exact same mindset, that all women are owned by men, and only exist for male pleasure.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 21, 2012 at 7:53 AM · Report this
Would the superintendent have made an exception if she had long hair?
Posted by anon1256 on June 21, 2012 at 7:54 AM · Report this
It doesn't hurt to wear a swimsuit, she's obviously lying for effect. Unless you see her naked outside as well, let us know. No, this is attention seeking. As the one-breasted woman above said best, "attention whore".

This, for upper middle class white womyn, is 'oppression'. So enjoy the freak show that is the delusionally oppressed upper middle class white woman who thinks her medical issues are for public consumption. She reminds me of the crazy lady on my old bus commute who talked about her diverticulosis every morning in graphic detail to anyone unfortunate enough to sit next to her.
Posted by She needs a shrink not a swim suit on June 21, 2012 at 7:54 AM · Report this
passionate_jus 52

Breasts are not sex organs, dumbshit.

Here are sex organs:


PS I have had many girlfriends who do not have sensitive nipples, while mine, as a man, are my number one erogenous zone. By your logic, I should be made to cover up while some of my lady friends should not.

Women should be allowed to be topless anywhere a man is.

Grow up, America!
Posted by passionate_jus on June 21, 2012 at 8:30 AM · Report this
One thing I don't get is that the policy is in place so that swimwear will be acceptable to "all patrons." That's just never going to happen. I mean, some people think Burkinis are too revealing and would be grossly offended by what others would consider to be a very modest, sporty one-piece suit. So clearly the only solution to keep everyone happy is only to allow biological men to swim.
Posted by zee on June 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM · Report this
@38: I don't want to your dumb face in public, doesn't mean I'm going to expect you to be forced to cover it up.

Fortunately, I've developed a sophisticated technique for not seeing things I don't want to see. I call it "not looking at them."
Posted by Ben on June 21, 2012 at 8:37 AM · Report this
@52: Well, gee, when you put it like that, it becomes clear that the opinion and an incredibly small minority of people share should certainly become law, and tits should just dangle all over the place. Of course, it won't, so feel free to kiss my hairy white ass, you pretentious cunt. Congratu-fucking- lations, your holier-than-thou douchebag attitude just managed to turn me frmo not caring if this woman showed off the space where her breasts used to be to actively hoping she gets wrapped in duct tape from the waist up before being allowed to swim. Seriously, what is it with so many of you fuckers that you can take a perfectly civil conversation and have to turn it into a flame war?
Posted by NateMan on June 21, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 56
So testicular cancer survivors can now swim trunkless?
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on June 21, 2012 at 8:59 AM · Report this
Lissa 57
@ 1 30 38 and 55:
What on earth are you all so afraid of? Boobs? No boobs? The visual confirmation that we are mortal? That people get sick and age and get scars?
Y'all only ever want to see perfect bodies, then stick to porn.
Posted by Lissa on June 21, 2012 at 9:04 AM · Report this
Looks like she also has a wicked case of 'lookameeeee!'.

Shame there's no way to cure that.
Posted by Can u tie them in a knot, can u tie them in a bow? on June 21, 2012 at 9:07 AM · Report this
The Victim Industry has just found another cause to mine.
Posted by Here comes 'Big Victim' again on June 21, 2012 at 9:15 AM · Report this
@55: Nope. As said previously: I don't care if a woman with no tits or great big 36DD breasticles wants to swim with out a top. Right up until people decide to get self-righteous about it. Then I support the other side out of sheer vindictiveness.
Posted by NateMan on June 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM · Report this
malcolmxy 61

When did breasts cease to be sex organs?

Breasts are used by every other mammal as a way to signal that a female is going through her fertile period and is ready to be nailed.

Humans are the only mammals, with the possible exception of certain species of apes who are very closely related to us, who have the females of the species with engorged breasts at all time.

It's a sign that they are pretty much always ready for sex post-puberty.

And, the areola are erogenous zones for both men and women. If yours are broken somehow, that's too bad, but that doesn't mean you get to remove breasts as sex organs (or, containing sex organs) because of it.

The feeding function of breasts is temporary. Their use to signal males to tell them "hey, come fuck me" is, by far, their more common use.
Posted by malcolmxy on June 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM · Report this
malcolmxy 62

EVERYONE looks at breasts, even women. Looking at women's breasts, especially if the pair is of a notable size, increases mens' and womens' heart rates and is as healthy as a 5-minute walk (15-30 stare).

You can avoid looking at my stupid face, because you are not genetically predisposed to looking at my beautiful mug. You can't avoid looking at someone's tits, and you especially can't avoid it when all they have are scars where the tits used to be.

You're an idiot.
Posted by malcolmxy on June 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM · Report this
malcolmxy 63
^^15-30 second stare...
Posted by malcolmxy on June 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM · Report this
is it me, or should the photo editor at the Times have been a bit more careful?…
Posted by notsurewhythisiswrong on June 21, 2012 at 10:31 AM · Report this
ferret 65
I am surprise in how many immature, puerile comments on this thread. I swam with a trans gender person at the Queen Anne Pool, and what I remember about her, wasn’t she wasn’t trans gender, but she was a fast swimmer.

I think it is important to encourage those who suffered life altering experiences to encourage them to exercise, they have not to be ashamed of, and they should be supported.

To say that testicular cancer survivors now can swim without speedos, completely miss the point, (I have actually seen Lance Armstrong swim at the Kona Community Pool, and he wears a speedo/training suit) I think for all cancer survivors, it is important to get them part of the community, and try to help with the self pity as much as possible.

People go to pools to swim for exercise and improve their swimming. The Main reason why Testicular cancer survivors will go without swim trunks is cold water and shrinkage, and god forbid that guys want to show off their retracted wangs and shrunk up scrotum, besides it is easier to train with a swimsuit.

I realize most of the comments are trolls, but let this woman swim showing her mastectomy scars, it is no big deal.
Posted by ferret http://!/okojo hide on June 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM · Report this
@62: But the entire point of this episode is that she had her breasts surgically removed, so you should have no trouble not looking at them, right?
Posted by Ben on June 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM · Report this
#49, EXACTLY. I love how Seattle pretends at being this sexually progressive city when the commenters here are some of the most back woods, chauvanistic pricks I've ever encountered.
Posted by theodora on June 21, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 68

I never said any such thing about me having any problem with boobs. It's just easier for you to pretend that the world is divided into only ignorant rubes, and enlightened, reasonable humanitarians like yourself. Nothing in between.

Answer the question. Do you have a policy that would work for all of the Seattle parks and recreation users? What do you think would happen if you alienate half the pool users? There will be no more public pools, that's what.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on June 21, 2012 at 2:03 PM · Report this
Lissa 69
@68: Adult swim. No children would be "traumatized"and adults of more delicate sensibilities could also avoid swimming at those designated times as well.
Ideally, of course, we could all grow the fuck up regarding nudity, but until that longed for blessed day: Adult Swim.
Posted by Lissa on June 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM · Report this
This has everything to do with this women's political agenda and zero to do with the park policy. So in order for Jodi to feel empowered, she has to make everyone feel uncomfortable by flaunting her scars, much like the double amputee at the nude beach. I guess Jodi got what she wanted. She's now a hero among the militant feminist sect and breast cancer survivors.
Posted by Rodrick on June 21, 2012 at 2:42 PM · Report this
Wow Seattle- just checking in and I see way to little conversation about the obvious, why a natural part of the female body that grows regardless of intention of use. Men need to Grow Up. Breasts are for babes, men included.
Posted by Girlhere on June 21, 2012 at 10:56 PM · Report this
Wait, isn't the politcy that breast should be covered?

What about the 250lb fat man with a double D cup? SHould he be forces in a top?
What about the person wearing speedo's that show so much of the asscrack that you're afraid you're going to fall into that Grand Canyon?

Seriously, the woman has no breasts, furthermore the skin where her breasts used to be hurt when fabric rubs over it.

Get a life and let all men and women decide what to wear.
How can a human body ever be disgusting?
Posted by Manon on June 22, 2012 at 4:13 AM · Report this
Too many comments here are childish and disgusting, so I'm skipping to the bottom just to say I completely support this brave woman's decision. I think it's archaic that women have to wear tops at the beach, but it would be truly insane to make a woman wear a bikini top when she has no breasts. If other people, including children, are traumatized by her reality, they need to fucking buck up.
Posted by mitten on June 22, 2012 at 8:30 AM · Report this
Whether or not women should or should not be able to swim topless in our society does not appear to be the issue. The issue at hand seems to be personal to Jaecks and her need to "feel liberated" while drawing attention for what she has endured. Granted, she has residual nerve pain from the double mastectomy - not everyone does, or they may tolerate it better. Clearly she states the pain has subsided over time. Perhaps she is the first to speak up and come forward, perhaps others learn to deal with it better. I feel for her discomfort both physical and emotional. I applaud her for being front and center, and for making the right decision to save her own life. I would love our society to better embrace the fact that so many women have mastectomies and a women can be just as beautiful without breasts. My mother was. If the image in society were to change perhaps it would be easier for more women to make this choice. But the fact remains that she does have alternatives, she can wear a tank top, she does not have to wear anything binding. Further, while swimming can help ease pain by assisting with circulation, it can also exacerbate the pain. One would also think that any coverage offers some protection especially in a crowded pool or beach from something that may scratch the skin surface. Whether or not children should see this is an interesting question. I think it may be a bit much for a young child, especially a young girl to see this when it is not "their mother" but it doesn't mean it's not a good time to introduce children into the reality of some lives - no different than an amputee. Jaecks concern that not including all women in this motion by the city is not helping the "more reserved" and "self conscious" come forward. Well.......the more reserved and self conscious would probably not want to swim topless regardless. In her quest for "equal rights" if you will, Jaecks does not appear to be including women who have undergone single or double mastectomies but chose reconstructive surgery. What about their pain and scars... how are they managing... And to take it further, how about cosmetic surgery gone bad and the pain and scarring endured by those women. No - they may not have had cancer, but it doesn't mean they don't have pain. At the end of the day - what's the real message here and the true purpose of Jaecks actions.
Posted by hsm on June 22, 2012 at 5:03 PM · Report this
Victims, victims, victims, victims......
Posted by Victim on June 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM · Report this
wockyjockey 76
I have no problem with women swimming topless, or nude, or whatever. And men too. We are all naked underneath.

But this woman does piss me off: just go do your fucking swim and be done with it, why go out of your way to pick a fight by confronting the front desk at the pool? I don't know if the quotes from the Park department is accurate, that she wanted to "wear it like a badge of honor", but hey, this is a swimming pool, not a billboard. Wear your badge of honor elsewhere and just get in the fucking water and do your fucking laps and leave us alone.

Good for you for surviving cancer, you should very proud, but this doesn't make you any more special because of it. Leave your self-importance because I'm a survivor political message to yourself.
Posted by wockyjockey on June 22, 2012 at 11:02 PM · Report this
If Ms. Jaecks plans to, wishes to and has swum in a public place with her chest exposed before she realized that anyone would care, why would anyone think that she had been coerced into being photographed in that same state of dress/undress? She's the one who declared it acceptable for public viewing.
Posted by DRF on July 7, 2012 at 9:13 PM · Report this

Add a comment


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy