Mixed swimming | Imamother

Ruchel

Wed, Aug 19 2009, 3:09 pm

Besiyata Dishmaya wrote:

Ruchel wrote:

BinahYeteirah wrote:

This isn't something I've studied extensively, but if you don't do mixed dancing, I can't see why mixed swimming, even dressed in a tznius swimsuit, would be different.

Does everyone who will go mixed swimming also have mixed dancing at their simchas?

Edited to add that by "mixed dancing", I mean dancing with men and women mingling and dancing in view of each other, although not necessarily with men and women touching.

Mixed dancing involved touching, not mixed swimming.

In mixed swimming you cannot say that touching is accidentally but almost purposely because the chances are extremely high.

We must not have the same idea of mixed swimming. As a child and teen I went because it was the norm in my circles. No touching ever happened.

ora_43

Wed, Aug 19 2009, 4:23 pm

Atali wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

Atali wrote:

I have actually never been to a wedding of observent Jews where there was mixed seating, although I know they exist.

I've only been to one or two weddings where there was separate seating for everyone. Although in all DL weddings I've been to, the frum single men and single women sat separately by choice.

That is interesting. I would have assumed that the DL in Israel would be more strict about things like that (at least among the more machmir crowd).

I don't know of DL rabbis who've ruled that it's necessary.

Also, DL tend to have more mixed families, and at every DL simcha I've been to the guests have run the gamut from chiloni to hareidi. So I think to some extent, it could be a cultural issue - it won't catch on by us because it would cause too many problems.

("Problems" - Mixed seating isn't a problem for those who are hareidi, since they still have the option of sitting at separate tables (although interestingly enough, they tend not to - usually at mixed weddings, I see hareidi guests sitting together as families). Separate seating would be a big problem for those who are chiloni, not because it's "extreme" but because it's just plain awkward -- in most couples, only one spouse knows the bride/groom, while the other would be sitting in the other-s-x section feeling very out of place.)

ora_43

Wed, Aug 19 2009, 4:31 pm

Quote:

Why is everyone assuming that his is forbidden?

1. Because that's what we've been taught.

2. Because it doesn't make sense. How is it logical to say that we should wear modest clothing outside for whatever reason (to show respect to our bodies / to make it easier for men to keep shmirat eynayim / whatever), but then to suddenly say "but if you want to swim forget all of that"? Whatever the reason is for dressing modestly outdoors, how could it be negated simply because a person wants to go swimming?

Basically, if it's OK for me to wear a swimsuit to a mixed pool just because I want to (I'm not the lifeguard, I have no medical need to, etc), why can't I go to the park in a tank top? Why would the desire to swim be a better justification for wearing minimal clothing in front of a man than the desire to stay cool in summer?

pacifier

Wed, Aug 19 2009, 11:11 pm

Atali wrote:

Peanut2 wrote:

Wow nelly!

I tried to stay away but just couldn't.

What swimming pools do you ladies go to?

The likelihood of bumping into a man at any "mixed" indoor pool I've seen is zero. Null, nada, bupkes.
Everyone stays in their own lane, and there are plastic barriers that separate lanes.

Swimming has nothing to do with dancing with men. When I wrote about "mixed swimming" I wasn't talking about swimming specifically with men, hanging out with them, and sipping pina coladas with them in the sun, just that there is no guarantee that only women would be around.

Fyi at the separate beach in Tel Aviv they have a male lifeguard (and also frum looking men wandering about, but that's a different story. I just had to share because I was so disgusted when I went with a friend and there was a frum looking man sitting on a chair pretending to read the newspaper and staring at us women.)

And now for the sharing section of my post: I went to swimming lessons at the local pool. There is not a single pool anywhere in this area that has separate hours for women. There are very few Orthodox Jews where I live and very few frummy Muslims as well. (I was also told it was fine under certain circumstances, including mine.) The instructor was a woman, and when I went to class every single person taking the class was a woman. Surprise! The lifeguard was a guy, and occasionally a man showed up in a one of those wetsuits for super-swimmers. He paid no attention to any of us.

I wear a robe or clothes until I reached the pool.
When I go to the pool just for a swim I often have it to myself, minus the lifeguard.

Why is everyone assuming that his is forbidden?

Some poskim permit a male lifegaurd for the same reason a male doctor is permitted, that since he is focused on doing his job properly he won't be focusing on the women's bodies (this is a recognized halachic concept). This concept does not halachicly apply to anyone who is not working there.

That said, if I personally would only swim at such a pool in a tznius swimsuit.

When I was in Gateshead, there was a male lifeguard at the pool during the girls/women hours.

But that isn't called mixed swimming, he was only doing his job and the swimmers were only girls.

I would go to the beach, or pool fully clothed, I don't see any problem of tsniut with that. I've always gone with my parents (my father's a rabbi) to the beach in the early morning and we would leave if a woman would come (untsniut) in a perimeter of 20 amot. (I think that's the right measurement according to halacha, but it could be a bit more, that was sooooooo many years ago)

Raisin

Thu, Aug 20 2009, 5:26 am

ora_43 wrote:

Quote:

Why is everyone assuming that his is forbidden?

but some people may have a medical need to go swimming.

marina

Thu, Aug 20 2009, 5:43 am

Besiyata Dishmaya wrote:

Ruchel wrote:

BinahYeteirah wrote:

Mixed dancing involved touching, not mixed swimming.

In mixed swimming you cannot say that touching is accidentally but almost purposely because the chances are extremely high.

What? It's called mixed swimming, not mixed groping. If you don't look where you are going, you might bump into someone, but otherwise, why would you?

Also the only thing assur is touching derech chiba, not simple accidental contact. Otherwise it would be just as assur to walk down the streets of manhattan, being probably that you might graze a shoulder or something.

marina

Thu, Aug 20 2009, 5:47 am

Quote:

2. Because it doesn't make sense. How is it logical to say that we should wear modest clothing outside for whatever reason (to show respect to our bodies / to make it easier for men to keep shmirat eynayim / whatever), but then to suddenly say "but if you want to swim forget all of that"? Whatever the reason is for dressing modestly outdoors, how could it be negated simply because a person wants to go swimming?

B/c you are not swimming to show of your body or entice men. You are just engaging in a sport. It's like on shabbos, if you go to shul and a light automatically goes on from one of your neighbor's houses, it is assur to walk there only if the light turns on every single time or if you are going for the purpose of turning on the light. If you are just walking to shul and the light does not always turn on, some will say it is not a problem for you to go that way b/c you are not doing anything for the purpose of violation a halacha and it is not necessarily so that a violation will result.

ora_43

Thu, Aug 20 2009, 7:07 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

And people who wear less than tznua clothing outside are doing so to "show of their bodies" or "entice men"??? Maybe in some cases, but not most. (You could maybe argue that women who dress immodestly know on some level that men are looking at them in a certain way, even if that wasn't a conscious part of their decision-making process when getting dressed, but in that case you could say the same about the situation at hand).

According to your argument it should be permitted to wear a tank top and short skirt if I'm doing so in order to stay cool (and the fact that men will see me dressed that way is just an unintended consequence), while it would be assur to wear the exact same outfit, or even something more modest but less than tznua, if my motives were different. But since tzniut dress is something we do for others (no need to wear modest clothes in the privacy of your own home), why should my motives determine whether or not I've done the mitzva? (like with other other-centered mitzvot aseh and lo taasah - maaser, tzedaka, lashon hara, etc - kavana is good but it's not what determines whether you've done the mitzva or not; the physical act is what matters).

Barbara

Wed, Aug 26 2009, 11:46 pm

miriamf wrote:

You people are really discussing whether mixed swimming is halachically allowed? Wow.
That even makes me miss Motek..I can just imagine what she would have to say.

If you want to say that halacha as we follow it all corrupted, needs to further evolve as we are enlightened and no longer have dirty minds, and should not interfere with your life if you want to exercise it is one thing. But to pretend it is Ok for someone who actually thinks keeping torah is important?

Judgmental, are we? My rav says its OK. Period. Want to comare your smicha to his?

gonewiththewind

Thu, Aug 27 2009, 1:00 pm

Is it judgmental when you criticize Rabbonim who say all men have a chiyuv to sit and learn and that it is OK to go on programs, and tell women it is assur to wear long shaitels or bright colors and make noise outside? You seem to feel it is OK to do so, as you feel these people are doing something wrong.

To me judgmental means that I don't look at other people and decide they are bad based on their actions, but I accept people for who and what they are and see the good in people.

But it does not mean that I can not say that certain people are making a mistake in halacha. There are different legitimate paths in Judaism that are all orthodoxy. But that does not mean that we have to accept without criticism any statement from a Rabbi who feels he is orthodox. I could find you endless amounts of Rabbonim with smicha who agree that saying mixed swimming is alllowed is twisting halacha into something unrecognizable (if you believe only someone with smicha can have an opinion). Modern Orthodoxy has a very good case for their philosophy of needing to combine the torah with the outside world and making halachically permisable compromises. However, if some Rabbonim keep stretching things to the left and compromise away the torah, can those who it pains not speak up against such a decision? I guess not.

Barbara

Thu, Aug 27 2009, 1:26 pm

miriamf wrote:

I don't recall ever expressing an opinion on long sheitls, bright colors, or kollel. My own path permits and encourages people to work for a living and to explore the outside world (the *what did you think of My Alps* view of Judaism), but I don't recall criticizing those who believe otherwise. I have, on many occasions, criticiized those who see it as the only path, or who state that other paths are not legitimate for anyone.

Feel free to disagree with my rav. But if you don't understand the difference between disagreeing with his ruling and sarcatically expressing shock that *someone who actually thinks keeping [T]orah is important* would *pretend [mixed swimming] is Ok* you simply lack sufficient comprehension to make discussion with you worthwhile.

By the way, I think that Torah is important and, accordingly, at least try to avoid Lashon Hara (although I concededly fail on that one). So I would certainly try to avoid suggesting that people who act in a certain manner condoned by their rabbis, and that does not violate the laws of the country in which they live, inherently don't think that Torah is important.