Changing the Garb rule to allow for Sports Bras

[Huma]

At Chaos Wars this year, a hot topic was discussed, and discussed and discussed.
That Topic was regarding Sports Bras. And why men can go topless, but women can't wear a Sports Bra.

Look, it gets hot outside when we fight sometimes. REALLY hot. Many men choose to go the shirtless route (I don't I lather on sunscreen and wear layers so I don't die from burning.)

Women would also like the option to be able to remove layers to keep cool as well. Since Chaos Wars many of the woman folk gathered together in discussion about how to change the current ruling into something that is more allowable. And thus I present what has been worked on and (mostly) agreed with. This is something they are hoping to have voted on in September and Babylon is going to be the realm to help them realize this rule change.

Without much more ado,

This is the current rule:

1. Garb
1.1 Garb is defined as the clothing to be worn by all participants of Belegarth.
1.2 Minimum garb is the basic requirements for all participants. Minimum garb is defined as.
1.2.1 A tunic or tabard covering the torso.
1.2.1.1 Neutral colored t-shirts, with no visible printing, or sports bras may be worn underneath a tunic or tabard.
1.2.1.2 Wearing nothing on the torso is acceptable for men.
[/qoute]

I would like it changed to:

1. Garb
1.1 Garb is defined as the clothing to be worn by all participants of Belegarth.
1.2 Minimum garb is the basic requirements for all participants. Minimum garb is defined as.
1.2.1 A tunic or tabard covering the torso.
1.2.1.1 Neutral colored t-shirts, with no visible printing, may be worn underneath a tunic or tabard.
1.2.1.2 Wearing nothing on the torso is acceptable for men.
1.2.1.3 Wearing a neutral colored sports bra with no visible logos or modern prints is acceptable for women.

Comments? Suggestions?

[Derian]

Moving this over to RD&D.

[varadin]

Personally I feel this is a step in the wrong direction. Id rather see sports bras and nuetral colored t-shirts banned from the field.

Doubt that would ever happen, but I can dream.


As the rule stands a Sports bra with a tabard over it is fine, this is to cover a blatantly modern item of clothing on the field. This is a medieval combat society, changing the rules to be even more lax on garb when the rules as are aren't even followed on any field to me just seems like a bad idea.

And To the women and men who think its a great idea to run around shirtless, I suggest you invest in a Linen tunic.


Me sweating my * of in tabard and underarmor


Me quite chilly at chaos this last year in full linen with underarmor on.

Seriously this **** works there are better ways to beat the heat, and while looking better.

[Sir Anastasia]

Ironically, I also see this as a bad direction. You can make a mini-top out of linen to cover a bra, you could even modify a sports bra to make it look like a small top. I think either of these should be fine for women, and should be fine in the heat. When I think about this proposed change, all I can really see is the field looking less professional. I don't see a female equivalent of "men being topless", I don't see an improvement for garb, I don't see any benefit to the community as a whole.

[Rocca]

I am for this rule change. For me, it is the exact equivalent to men going topless. Also, there are plenty of historical examples of sports-bra like garb for women.

I say this as someone who does not just wear a bra as garb - I don't need photos to prove it, others can back me up: my garb is legit and I layer it on for sun protection. HOWEVER, as a matter of equity, I feel that this is something that should be changed. We can all push others to up their garb game, but the base level of minimum garb should be equal between men and women and at the moment it is not.

[varadin]

..plenty of historical examples of sports-bra like garb for women.

Then wear them and don't wear the sports bras?

How is it an arguement when something medieval is an option. We as a game need to strive to go for medieval first, before modern.

And im in agreement Rocca, The base should be the same. Shirtless men should be required a tabard or something in my eyes. I would rather up the minimum for men, then lower the minimum for women.

[Rocca]

.How is it an arguement when something medieval is an option.

The POINT was that sports bras are just as close to medieval as neutral colored t-shirts. Or the majority of tabards people wear, for that matter.

But sure, take it as an argument for making no one able to go shirtless ... see how far that gets you.

[Brutus]

To me, you can only take the argument of what is truly period so far, and I think it's a good starting point for this discussion. Perhaps more importantly, there's a metaphor in our sport that is the sum total of every episode of Xena & Hercules, every truly accurate period movie we've all seen, every fantasy RPG game, etc. etc. etc. that makes up what we expect to see on our battlefield. While there may be examples of historical garb that looks similar to a basic sports bra, the fact remains that for me a sports bra breaks the metaphor in a way that male shirtlessness does not. One does not immediately associate a sports bra with medievalism. It would look out of place for an extra in the background of a shot from Gladiator or Braveheart in a way that a shirtless male would not.

With all that said, I understand the equality issue as well, and it doesn't seem like throwing up our hands and saying "Welp, that's just another thing that sucks about being a girl, sorry! Take it up with the rest of society" is a good solution either. I just think it would be a shame that we'd never see any more bands of shirtless Celts or whatever making a foolish charge against vastly superior numbers.

I guess I wish it was like it was in the old days where people with really crappy garb (crappy because they were making no effort, not due to lack of resources or skill) of either sex would feel out of place, and the problem would self-correct. Maybe it's time Belegarth examined the state of the garb requirements overall with an eye towards trying to improve that aspect of our culture. Certainly there are more resources than there were back in the day, but it seems like the good garb has gotten a lot better and the bad garb has gotten worse.

[Anij Kalish]

First of all I want to acknowledge that I am new to the sport. I am coming up on being in the sport for one year, therefore I realize my perspective may not be as broad as many of you. I am however an active female fighter in the sport and felt the need to share my view and thoughts in this as well.

I would like to make some points before I begin my thoughts.

Rocca mentioned that there are plenty of sports bra like historical examples of garb, and Varadin asked why not use those? I second that question. Why does it HAVE to be a commercial sports bra? Why can't someone take the time to make/buy a garb-like equivalent?

Second. Rocca mentioned that a logo-free sports bra is equal in garb status to a neutral colored t-shirt. She is correct. But even the t-shirt must be covered with a tabard or tunic according to our book of war.

1.2.1 A tunic or tabard covering the torso.

1.2.1.1 Neutral colored t-shirts, with no visible printing, or sports bras may be worn underneath a tunic or tabard.

So..currently they are equal. That doesn't really point towards commercial sports bras being on the same garb status of not having a tabard covering them or of being topless.

May I also point out there are no specifications as to how much coverage a tabard must have? Just a thought..

Unfortunately, the only way for women to really enjoy the same benefits males do by going topless is to well...go topless.

I will put a disclaimer here saying that I do not actually support this path of action due to the fact that most of society would freak out.

However, when it comes down to it. That really is the only way. A commercial sports bra is not going to be any cooler than a tunic and will in fact greater restrict airflow to the very area most are seeking to cool down. I will also point out here that there is no rule stating that a woman must wear another layer under a tunic, or tabard for that matter..though I'd suggest ties/binding on the sides. I personally could not comfortably take advantage of this, but there are women who could.

Now one thought for getting the same visual effect would be to have a sports bra-like top that is flesh colored (either by dying/modification/etc), do a ton of make-up work to make it blend and bazam, you look semi-topless in photos, congratulations. But that still isn't a off the shelf commercial sports bra.

Also to my knowledge there is no rule against using a sports bra as a base and modifying it to look like a female garb top. Add fur, or fabric, or chain-mail, or..feathers or whatever you want. Bazam, again I believe it then falls under garb and is no longer a commercial sports bra.

Personally I see no benefit to allowing unmodified commercial sports bras (without logos) to be minimum garb. They don't equalize male and female fighters (unless you are going to require males to wear one too instead of going topless...), they ruin photos, and they allow minimum garb to sink down even lower.

See, for me it isn't that the rule currently bans bra or sports bra LIKE tops for women. What it bans is blatantly modern sports bras from being worn without a tabard or covering of some kind. Therefore I don't see why we need to allow them when female fighters (and males for that matter) are, and have always been free to create garb with as much or as little coverage as they see fit.

For instance, I highly doubt any male or female fighter/herald/belegarth participant would object to a female fighter walking on the field in this or the multitude of female fighting garb images that popular media provides us:


Personally I want as much coverage as possible seeing as I have found that weapons coming in contact with bare skin, especially if it is exposed to the sun, hurts WAY worse than covered skin, but hey, that is their choice. I apologize if this is not appropriate for this thread but this video makes my point rather well I feel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGh0EMmMC8

My last and final thought is this. And please understand that I mean no disrespect or offense to anyone. However, I am generally disappointed in society as a whole (and this inevitably spreads into Belegarth) with the idea that "since men can operate at this level of bare minimums (either in clothing, behavior, or any aspect of life), so should we!". Personally I feel that that is a giant step in the wrong direction. If anything I feel that if an inequality is found, that whichever gender has the lower standard, that is the one that should be brought up. It shouldn't be a matter of allowing the other to slip down. But that is my personal opinion and I understand and respect that it will remain so.

At this point in time, due to the options availible to females already that I presented above, I do not feel that there is currently an inequality that needs to be, or will be properly addressed by the changing of the sports bra rule. If there is any inequality, it is in the fact that men can go topless and females can't. And sadly that is not something that will be, or can be truly addressed or solved by allowing commercial sports bras.... In order to be truly equal in that aspect, we will have to take that up with society as many big cities across the United States have done or are in the process of doing.

[Sir Thurat]

As it is, I have to say that I am also against this change. The argument has been well put, so I won't reiterate it unnecessarily. I would like to echo the underlying issue, however, that our garb standards have been slipping. We have more lax garb standards than some other organizations, and that's not a terrible thing, but it goes beyond that. A general unwillingness to procure proper, passing garb seems to be an issue in our sport. When I was running a realm back home, I had somebody quit fighting completely, because I told him that he needed to wear garb. Right now, I feel that if we give an inch, we're going to lose a mile.

[Acorn]

Rocca mentioned that there are plenty of sports bra like historical examples of garb, and Varadin asked why not use those? I second that question. Why does it HAVE to be a commercial sports bra? Why can't someone take the time to make/buy a garb-like equivalent?

Because home made sports bra's don't work as well as real ones. It is a safety/playability issue at hand.

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/sports-bras-5 ... know/78122

One does not immediately associate a sports bra with medievalism.

They don't associate foam bats with it either. We need some perspective on this

I guess I wish it was like it was in the old days where people with really crappy garb (crappy because they were making no effort, not due to lack of resources or skill) of either sex would feel out of place, and the problem would self-correct... good garb has gotten a lot better and the bad garb has gotten worse.

I don't know what good ol' day's you're talking about. I've been fighting for over a decade and garb has always had a vast spectrum. Hell, now we look waaayyy better because there are more of us with established colors, unit mythos, etc. and that creates distinct style groups. The "good" garb we have now has a different take to it than classic medieval. You can prefer the more SCA-like look all you want but the truth is we have a sport like look with medieval/fantasy elements. And it's one that many fighters emulate and like.

Take a look at this picture:


To us it looks like a bad * unit stand. Us Bel kids don't even see the thick shield and fat swords as weird. To the rest of the world however this is a jarring and definite change from medieval. We clearly are a medieval-esque combat SPORT. A sports bra comes with that.







look at what is in those shots. Sports-like lines mixed well with genre. THIS is what our game looks like.

A sports bra would not be out of place in these shots.
And this is what we do.



Oh, and if that wasn't enough:

"Belegarth Medieval Combat Society is a fun, safe, and inexpensive sport where participants wear medieval or fantasy-themed clothing and fight with foam-padded weapons. "
-first line of the Belegarth.com web page.

Lets reinforce this.

[Brutus]

One does not immediately associate a sports bra with medievalism.

They don't associate foam bats with it either. We need some perspective on this

I am a strong proponent of increasing weight minimums and instituting balance point requirements for omni-directional weapons, but that isn't what this discussion is about.

We HAVE to have some kind of weaponry in order to play this game, and current tech does not allow for realistic looking weapons. Are you saying that the only way for females to play this game is to fight in just a sports bra?

We make our weapons as realistic-looking as we can, and our garb should be as period/realistic as it can be.

...where participants wear medieval or fantasy-themed clothing...

[Acorn]

you ignored the whole point of the post. congratulations.

we are a sport. sports bras go with that.

and you are also ignoring the point that the reality of what we do is an awesome THEMED game.

good lord man.

you want true accuracy? go to the sca.

and banning bats wouldn't change the fact that even the swords are thick fraking foam.

[varadin]

you want true accuracy? go to the sca.

Acorn, please don't say **** like this you seriously have no idea how ignorant it makes you sound.

Sure home made sports bras, might not work as well, but whats to stop you from covering a modern sports bra with something, Right now all that is required to cover it is a Tabard. If you honestly tell me a tabard is making you hot you might need to stop fighting if thin fabric is the difference...

Sure our foam weapons look stupid, but I can go up to someone on the street in cleveland show them the same picture i posted here and they will respond with something along the lines of "is that a sword or some ****?"

I show someone a picture of a guy in a tabard and hakamas, and they think they are some type of medieval warrior guy. A shirtless guy with crappy garb pants... maybe not(thus an issue in my mind)

I show someone a picture of a woman in baggy pants and a sports bra and they think shes going to the gym or going to zumba or something.

See the issue? It doesn't look medieval, it doesn't work in Belegarth. Im not saying I want women rocking apron dresses and period underwear, im saying look medieval in some way.

This rule would go against the spirit of a Medieval Combat Game.

If you want to just hit people with sticks, Belegarth is not the game for you.

[varadin]

ohh and in your gif, i seriously gave locuitus **** that day for just throwing on his armor without a tunic on.

[Brutus]

As with all decisions you have to weigh the benefits versus the drawbacks. I don't think allowing sports bras on the field is completely devoid of benefits. There are obviously at least some females that think that allowing sports bras would make fighting better for them, and in general I think anything that encourages more people to fight is a good thing.

However, I respectfully submit that sports bras are completely non-period (whether you define "period" in a broader sense, or the more specific and unique sense that we use in Belegarth) and aren't necessary to participation in the same way that our foam weapons or even safety equipment like gloves are. We must accept those things that break our "period" metaphor which we have no power to change. Allowing sports bras to count as garb is 100% within our power to allow or disallow, and so comparisons to those other aspects of the game are not entirely valid.

Regarding your assertion that simply because we are a sport, we should allow anything with the word "sport" in it: this argument could be used to drop the garb requirement altogether. Ultimately, that's what this argument comes down to, whether Belegarth should require garb or not.

I'm also sorry that you are so upset at my position, which I've attempted to describe without rancor or malice, that you have decided to resort to snarky sarcasm. I doubt you're doing your side of the argument much good. Remember, just because this is the internet doesn't mean you can't remain civil as we attempt to weigh the pros and cons of this issue. Even though we differ on this important issue doesn't mean that we should not be friends.

[Acorn]

you want true accuracy? go to the sca.

Acorn, please don't say **** like this you seriously have no idea how ignorant it makes you sound....
If you want to just hit people with sticks, Belegarth is not the game for you.

The SCA is an international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of pre-17th-century Europe. - their home page. http://www.sca.org/.

I already posted our sports definition so I won't bother repeating. If you choose to pretend your aesthetic and opinion is the only one, that's your problem.

And thanks for the belittlement and * implication that I only value the sport interaction. I have great garb. So eff off.

Sure home made sports bras, might not work as well, but whats to stop you from covering a modern sports bra with something, Right now all that is required to cover it is a Tabard. If you honestly tell me a tabard is making you hot you might need to stop fighting if thin fabric is the difference...
...
See the issue? It doesn't look medieval, it doesn't work in Belegarth. Im not saying I want women rocking apron dresses and period underwear, im saying look medieval in some way.

if this is so then demand more than painted-over logos on mma gloves, ban lacrosse gloves altogether,and only allow sunglasses with fabric rims. No...?

Than treat sports bras the same way.

Regarding your assertion that simply because we are a sport, we should allow anything with the word "sport" in it: this argument could be used to drop the garb requirement altogether.

I am sick and tired of you keyboard cowboys intentionally misconstruing posts.
That was not my assertion. my assertion was that sports bras are sports equipment. not to allow everything.

...aren't necessary to participation in the same way that our foam weapons or even safety equipment like gloves are.

The proposed rule change is NOT a push for bad garb. It is a push for enabling more girl fighters by giving the same consideration to female sports equipment that we do other types. As such they should be regarded the same way as gloves. Because they ARE. And until you grow a pair of *, don't tell me otherwise.

I'm also sorry that you are so upset at my position, which I've attempted to describe without rancor or malice, that you have decided to resort to snarky sarcasm. I doubt you're doing your side of the argument much good. Remember, just because this is the internet doesn't mean you can't remain civil as we attempt to weigh the pros and cons of this issue. Even though we differ on this important issue doesn't mean that we should not be friends.

what you call "snarky sarcasm," I call being fed-up out your persistent strategy of quoting small points and arguing syntax to derail discussions that you disagree with. You do it all the time Brutus. And apparently me being direct is being taken as being angry. Nope. I'd be just as direct in real life, believe me. And you're right, we should still be friends. Who said we wouldn't be?

[Acorn]

sports bras are safety equipment in that they lessen the pain of having magnificent boobs yanking on your chest and back, therefore as long as they have the logos covered up and comply to the other safety equipment rules, they should be allowed. This is not being respected by the current rules by creating a double standard.

^^ A great quote from the VERY active discussion going on about this on the Valkyrie boards. Oh man! This topics gettin' hot!

/gleefully lurks.

[Brutus]

Here's the way logic works. You make assertions that are based on premises. You build up piles of these premises, one on top of another, and if you can convince people to accept your premises, and your logic is sound, then they are forced to accept your conclusion. My "persistent strategy of quoting small points and arguing syntax to derail discussions that you disagree with" is actually me demonstrating flaws in your premises. Once I point out that they are invalid, by the rules of logic your conclusion is rendered invalid.

Your malice seems to be increasing as this discussion wears on. Varadin was not as tactful and respectful as I continue to attempt to be, so perhaps that explains it. But I don't think you'll find someone who will listen to your points as open-mindedly as I will. I just haven't been swayed yet, and I hope that doesn't upset you. I assure you it is nothing personal.

A question: If you're wearing a skirt or pants, and a sports bra, exactly which part of your outfit would satisfy the description that you yourself quoted about medieval or fantasy-themed clothing?

(Note: I am a big proponent of tightening garb requirements for males as well. In my own realm we do not allow non-color-coordinated t-shirts or UnderArmor to be visible even if covered mostly by garb or armor. Arguments like this one are exactly the reason why I've been a proponent of tightened garb requirements, because once you 'let things go' beyond a certain point, it's not any more unreasonable to have people running around in sports bras than it is to let other sub-par grab slide.)

[Acorn]

Here's the way logic works. You make assertions that are based on premises. You build up piles of these premises, one on top of another, and if you can convince people to accept your premises, and your logic is sound, then they are forced to accept your conclusion. My "persistent strategy of quoting small points and arguing syntax to derail discussions that you disagree with" is actually me demonstrating flaws in your premises. Once I point out that they are invalid, by the rules of logic your conclusion is rendered invalid.

Your malice seems to be increasing as this discussion wears on. Varadin was not as tactful and respectful as I continue to attempt to be, so perhaps that explains it. But I don't think you'll find someone who will listen to your points as open-mindedly as I will. I just haven't been swayed yet, and I hope that doesn't upset you. I assure you it is nothing personal.

my malice isn't increasing. don't assume because I am direct that I am angry. again, I am exactly this blunt in real life when perfectly calm. ask anyone.

As to your statement that you are demonstrating flaws in my premise, I disagree that that is what you are doing. You are IGNORING the point I have made TIME AND AGAIN. (all caps for emphasis. not yelling. in case that's unclear).

Neither you nor Veradin has addressed this statement, which I have repeated multiple times: that sports bra's are equipment for girls to play sports. As such they should be the same as gloves. THAT is the point I am making.

Instead of giving a counter point to that, the good ol' boards start arguing about how "medievalesque" something is, and thus derail the conversation to opinions on style and word definition. Which is derailing because while the importance of medieval v. not medieval is certainly an important conversation for Bel, it is NOT the point I am making.

It is the persistence in quoting me only when I address YOUR strongest argument that reads to me as a weak, as you are continuing to ignore my strongest point in preference for reiterating what others have already said.

Or can you not refute it?

A question: If you're wearing a skirt or pants, and a sports bra, exactly which part of your outfit would satisfy the description that you yourself quoted about medieval or fantasy-themed clothing?

It doesn't and I never said it does. I simply said it was a necessary thing for girls and no more jarring than our already existing sport-like style of clothing, or than ANY OTHER SAFETY EQUIPMENT which you see in all of those photos. But even without that, it CERTAINLY fits the sport part of that sentence that you didn't quote, (apparently it does need quoted again:)

"Belegarth Medieval Combat Society is a fun, safe, and inexpensive sport where participants wear medieval or fantasy-themed clothing and fight with foam-padded weapons. "

(Note: I am a big proponent of tightening garb requirements for males as well. In my own realm we do not allow non-color-coordinated t-shirts or UnderArmor to be visible even if covered mostly by garb or armor. Arguments like this one are exactly the reason why I've been a proponent of tightened garb requirements, because once you 'let things go' beyond a certain point, it's not any more unreasonable to have people running around in sports bras than it is to let other sub-par grab slide.)

And I am on the other side of the spectrum for totally different reasons. I am a big proponent for allowing a wide spectrum of players to be drawn to the game and for encouraging different styles to evolve as the game does. I don't like strict garb rules. And I have garb that fits most peoples idea of period, so that's not for myself. It's about creativity and playability. It's just the way I see it.

Which, again, is why I am bringing up the point about bra's as equipment. Which is what I feel we should be discussing. Not whether they are medieval. They're not, and yes I did argue that they could be considered as close as many other Bel things, but that was not the point.

And as far as a sympathetic ear, you're wrong. I don't know how things work out east, but out west, we listen to each other and have this kind of discussion all the time. Because it's important. And it is just assumed that everyone will get along regardless of opinion. /shrug. So if I sound particularly venomous, take it instead as vehemence, for that is as it is meant.

[Sir Anastasia]

(Trying to get Acorn's point - so if I goof, please correct). So then the question is do we want to think of a sports bra as safety equipment, similar to gloves, knee-pads, ect., and therefore under this interpretation they are already permitted under the current rules:

1.2.5 Any piece of modern equipment or clothing required out of medical necessity overrules the minimum garb requirements.

As much as I hate this argument or the possible effect of this interpretation, I'd have to agree with it. I have NEVER in 12 years fought without a sports bra, nor would I be able to go without one- so I guess in that way, this interpretation makes sense. I could never fight without one - it is an absolute necessity to prevent pain, discomfort, injury, ect. For me and probably many other women it is a medical necessity.

The question is then whether the BOW as currently written makes it an obligation that you need to cover that equipment. We talked about that before and as it is currently worded, the interpretation is that you do not need to do so because of the rules, but that you should do so to honor our culture.

[Acorn]

(Trying to get Acorn's point - so if I goof, please correct). So then the question is do we want to think of a sports bra as safety equipment, similar to gloves, knee-pads, ect., and therefore under this interpretation they are already permitted under the current rules:

1.2.5 Any piece of modern equipment or clothing required out of medical necessity overrules the minimum garb requirements.

As much as I hate this argument or the possible effect of this interpretation, I'd have to agree with it. I have NEVER in 12 years fought without a sports bra, nor would I be able to go without one- so I guess in that way, this interpretation makes sense. I could never fight without one - it is an absolute necessity to prevent pain, discomfort, injury, ect. For me and probably many other women it is a medical necessity.

Thank you Ana. That was entirely my main point.

The question is then whether the BOW as currently written makes it an obligation that you need to cover that equipment. We talked about that before and as it is currently worded, the interpretation is that you do not need to do so because of the rules, but that you should do so to honor our culture.

which means either

a) that those girls who were removed from the field (again. not me) at CW for sports bras without tunics should not have been removed, and thus the rule change is not needed but rather a rule-in-practice change.
or b) we need to change the rules to include more alterations to modern equipments than just painted over logos, so that it is equal for all types. A stance that some would prefer, and a perfectly good one. It's the wish-wash of things being ruled on either side and in the middle that gets my goat.

[Alom]

Here's the way logic works. You make assertions that are based on premises. You build up piles of these premises, one on top of another, and if you can convince people to accept your premises, and your logic is sound, then they are forced to accept your conclusion. My "persistent strategy of quoting small points and arguing syntax to derail discussions that you disagree with" is actually me demonstrating flaws in your premises. Once I point out that they are invalid, by the rules of logic your conclusion is rendered invalid.

Your malice seems to be increasing as this discussion wears on. Varadin was not as tactful and respectful as I continue to attempt to be, so perhaps that explains it. But I don't think you'll find someone who will listen to your points as open-mindedly as I will. I just haven't been swayed yet, and I hope that doesn't upset you. I assure you it is nothing personal.

my malice isn't increasing. don't assume because I am direct that I am angry. again, I am exactly this blunt in real life when perfectly calm. ask anyone.

As to your statement that you are demonstrating flaws in my premise, I disagree that that is what you are doing. You are IGNORING the point I have made TIME AND AGAIN. (all caps for emphasis. not yelling. in case that's unclear).

Neither you nor Veradin has addressed this statement, which I have repeated multiple times: that sports bra's are equipment for girls to play sports. As such they should be the same as gloves. THAT is the point I am making.

Instead of giving a counter point to that, the good ol' boards start arguing about how "medievalesque" something is, and thus derail the conversation to opinions on style and word definition. Which is derailing because while the importance of medieval v. not medieval is certainly an important conversation for Bel, it is NOT the point I am making.

It is the persistence in quoting me only when I address YOUR strongest argument that reads to me as a weak, as you are continuing to ignore my strongest point in preference for reiterating what others have already said.

Or can you not refute it?

A question: If you're wearing a skirt or pants, and a sports bra, exactly which part of your outfit would satisfy the description that you yourself quoted about medieval or fantasy-themed clothing?

It doesn't and I never said it does. I simply said it was a necessary thing for girls and no more jarring than our already existing sport-like style of clothing, or than ANY OTHER SAFETY EQUIPMENT which you see in all of those photos. But even without that, it CERTAINLY fits the sport part of that sentence that you didn't quote, (apparently it does need quoted again:)

"Belegarth Medieval Combat Society is a fun, safe, and inexpensive sport where participants wear medieval or fantasy-themed clothing and fight with foam-padded weapons. "

(Note: I am a big proponent of tightening garb requirements for males as well. In my own realm we do not allow non-color-coordinated t-shirts or UnderArmor to be visible even if covered mostly by garb or armor. Arguments like this one are exactly the reason why I've been a proponent of tightened garb requirements, because once you 'let things go' beyond a certain point, it's not any more unreasonable to have people running around in sports bras than it is to let other sub-par grab slide.)

And I am on the other side of the spectrum for totally different reasons. I am a big proponent for allowing a wide spectrum of players to be drawn to the game and for encouraging different styles to evolve as the game does. I don't like strict garb rules. And I have garb that fits most peoples idea of period, so that's not for myself. It's about creativity and playability. It's just the way I see it.

Which, again, is why I am bringing up the point about bra's as equipment. Which is what I feel we should be discussing. Not whether they are medieval. They're not, and yes I did argue that they could be considered as close as many other Bel things, but that was not the point.

And as far as a sympathetic ear, you're wrong. I don't know how things work out east, but out west, we listen to each other and have this kind of discussion all the time. Because it's important. And it is just assumed that everyone will get along regardless of opinion. /shrug. So if I sound particularly venomous, take it instead as vehemence, for that is as it is meant.

http://www.livescience.com/21691-600-ye ... vered.html
Sport specific bras may not be, but bras are, and in Ancient India as well. And since supportive breast wrappings are period, I find that argument lacking.

[Rocca]

Dude ... which argument? There have been like .... 6 points argued...

[Acorn]

I think he's saying bras can look "modern" and still be period. ... Yes?

That's what i get from that anyways. That historians can be wrong and biased.

[Derian]

Hey everyone -

If you're lurking on this topic and would like to contribute but don't have posting abilities to this forum, please send me a PM. I'll get you added to the Rules Development group ASAP so you can.

[varadin]

SO by how you are reading this

1.2.1.1 Neutral colored t-shirts, with no visible printing, or sports bras may be worn underneath a tunic or tabard.

is overwritten by

1.2.5 Any piece of modern equipment or clothing required out of medical necessity overrules the minimum garb requirements.

Which makes sense, If we can agree that Sports bras are safety equipment. Which I don't think many people will be behind.

http://www.amazon.com/Budget-womens-fen ... 823&sr=1-1

That is safety equipment for a woman to everyone. Just because something gives a bit of safety doesn't make it safety equipment, if thats the case ALL clothing is safety equipment as it keeps me safe from the Sun. No one wants skin cancer right? Im sure compression shorts help against ball sag too, but they aren't safety equipment, and they are covered.

Wear what offers the most safety IMO if you want to be safe, its why I wear safety glasses. Helmets don't stop arrow nocks.

Acorn look back at the pictures you posted, Sure everything has a very sports look. between the exposed underarmor, and the safety glasses. But you didn't post ONE picture of an completely exposed chest on a guy. Every guy has on a tabard, or something over top their chest. I don't feel a sports bra would be out of place, and it would also be passed by our current rules. So you kinda shot yourself in the foot with those, if you can find a picture of woman rocking only a sports bra and still looking like shes in garb, you may have an argument.

[Xooyan]

I was asked to cross post this from the Valkyries forum. I have altered the language only to make it more relevant to the board discussion.

"Ok, Garb Rules. I read through the 80 some posts on Acorn's thread in the Valkyries FB page and I read through everything here. I'm responding here, despite the fact that I'd rather stay out of this discussion partially because so many of the responses in both places don't seem to understand the origins of the rule set we currently have and why we still have to have rules in some form or another even if they are changed. If you feel strongly about this, please read what I have to say here and then try to respond with logic and understanding instead of calling others hypocrites and the like. Let's assume for a moment that perhaps everyone should ask questions rather than jump to conclusions.

So, the garb rules as they stand were written badly. They make some statements as suggestions, leaving things widely open to interpretation (something I think we can all agree is a bad idea when you have multiple population sets spread out around the country) and they make other things a hard line. Whatever we decide upon this time around need to be clear and concise throughout. The rules we have now were written in reaction to the increase of people showing up in Underarmor and other logo stamped gear without covering any of it with the remotest attempt at fantasy or medievalism. At the time, the wording came up for sports bras and those of us females who were present didn't have a problem with it. From my standpoint, we all have to have a standard of trying to at least look fantasy or medieval based and after 15 years of fighting I have never run into a scenario where I was made unbearably hot by putting a tabard over my sports bra. That said, the majority rules in this game and if the rest of you want this right, vote it in.

To dispel a few rumors. Huma did not bring this up as an issue because he wanted to control what women were wearing on the field. He was asked to do so by the Chaos Wars War Council as a realm leader. Please don't make him out as the villain for doing so. Par also has nothing to do with this rule. He didn't write it, didn't vote for or against it (it was written before his time), and won't be the deciding factor on a new vote this time around. As for women being removed from the field at Chaos. I'm guilty. I required that a woman leave the field at Chaos for fighting bare breasted and to not return without minimum garb. I would do it again.

For those of you that feel I am a great big prude for any of my thoughts or actions, I wrote my senior semantics paper in college on the issue of women's breasts being treated equally in society. I studied the social issue and legal concerns for 3 months and believe strongly that women's breasts and men's breasts should be treated no differently in the eyes of the law. I have continued to advocate on this point ever since. However, in the instances of Belegarth events, we are required to adhere to the basic laws of the states, counties, and cities that we fight in, which is why I asked the young woman to leave the field.

Also, please consider this final point, though many of us are comfortable with nudity, especially of the upper body, there are many of us who are not. As a community, I feel it is extremely important to take the sensibilities of others into account. We have Belegrim who are Mormon, Christian, etc that do not approve of bared breasts. We also tout Chaos Wars as a family friendly event and whereas, I don't have any concerns about my daughter seeing any of your breasts, many parents do have concerns about their children being exposed to what they consider inappropriate nudity. I know many of you are young and haven't started families yet, but consider for a moment how you might feel if you were in some of those parents' shoes and whether or not you would like to continue eventing after you have children.

Please do offer your thoughts and concerns to the conversation about changing the rule set. I agree with considering ideas that relabel sports bras as safety equipment and I also agree with the ideas to require men to wear something on top. Yet, I plead with all of you to voice your opinions respectfully rather than thinking of this issue as discrimination. No discrimination was ever intended or implied when we all sat down at that War Council over 8 years ago. Please take my word for it."

[Brutus]

Yeah, what you said is fine and all, Xooyan, but can we find someone who could explain this issue with intelligence and grace?

</sarcasm>, for those of you who aren't genetically enhanced.

[Acorn]

Yeah, what you said is fine and all, Xooyan, but can we find someone who could explain this issue with intelligence and grace?

</sarcasm>, for those of you who aren't genetically enhanced.

lawl. bel jokes.

SO by how you are reading this

1.2.1.1 Neutral colored t-shirts, with no visible printing, or sports bras may be worn underneath a tunic or tabard.

is overwritten by

1.2.5 Any piece of modern equipment or clothing required out of medical necessity overrules the minimum garb requirements.

Which makes sense, If we can agree that Sports bras are safety equipment. Which I don't think many people will be behind.

http://www.amazon.com/Budget-womens-fen ... 823&sr=1-1

That is safety equipment for a woman to everyone. Just because something gives a bit of safety doesn't make it safety equipment, if thats the case ALL clothing is safety equipment as it keeps me safe from the Sun. No one wants skin cancer right? Im sure compression shorts help against ball sag too, but they aren't safety equipment, and they are covered.

Wear what offers the most safety IMO if you want to be safe, its why I wear safety glasses. Helmets don't stop arrow nocks.

Acorn look back at the pictures you posted, Sure everything has a very sports look. between the exposed underarmor, and the safety glasses. But you didn't post ONE picture of an completely exposed chest on a guy. Every guy has on a tabard, or something over top their chest. I don't feel a sports bra would be out of place, and it would also be passed by our current rules. So you kinda shot yourself in the foot with those, if you can find a picture of woman rocking only a sports bra and still looking like shes in garb, you may have an argument.

Varadin, you're a facepalm and a half.

But let me address the most ridiculous part of your post:

Which makes sense, If we can agree that Sports bras are safety equipment. Which I don't think many people will be behind.

http://www.amazon.com/Budget-womens-fen ... 823&sr=1-1

That is safety equipment for a woman to everyone. Just because something gives a bit of safety doesn't make it safety equipment, if thats the case ALL clothing is safety equipment as it keeps me safe from the Sun. No one wants skin cancer right? Im sure compression shorts help against ball sag too, but they aren't safety equipment, and they are covered.

Every Valkyrie agrees that they are not optional but required for many women. Basically a c cup or larger. And not all ladies agree on what should be done about the rule, or even if that is the right rule to address. But the importance of them is not in question.

It is not the same as a supportive brief. I cannot believe I have to clarify this. Just because you don't have the equivalent anatomy on your body does not mean every woman who believes this is an essential piece of equipment if full of ****. In case you haven't noticed, your balls are not grapefruit sized and on your chest; Don't act like they are the standard of secondary sexual characteristics.

And before you say something like "then if you choose to wear a modern sports bra you have to cover it, otherwise get period bindings," I say this: We should not have to compromise our breast health with lower homemade tech just to make your photos better. It would be like us telling you to wear codpieces instead of modern cups, or cover it up. *Which would be fine if it were required for all safety equipment, but as the current rules stand there is a more strict requirement for this one piece of woman-specific safety equipment than for any other piece, such as gloves.

*On the Valk boards the discussion on whether a rule change for other equipment should be the direction we take has started as well, so maybe that should happen here too. Please remember that this is NOT a push for bad garb. It is a push for equality in the ruling for this piece of equipment. How we accomplish that is up for grabs.

[Sir Anastasia]

I do want to add before we go too far down this direction that I firmly believe we can never ask someone to remove safety equipment for garb/aesthetic based concerns. I just want you to imagine facing a lawsuit where you told someone to take "X safety equipment" off because it broke garb rules and then they were injured. Imagine your insurer's perspective on that policy of aesthetics over safety, imagine all the time you loose in a lawsuit whether or not you win or loose it, and then understand why this can never be a direction that our leaders, groups, and events can go in. Safety first, realism last.This puts the bra in a bad position, because it can be modified, but would require all equipment be modified too or it results in a special case.

For that reason and to prevent a special case scenario, I do feel that the definition of a sports bra as either garb or safety equipment is very important. I could never fight without one. I have fought without gloves and knee-pads, but never without the sports bra. I can buy that it is safety equipment.

But then that brings us to another point to consider, which is whether we need to legislate to get better garb on the field or whether this can be accomplished through other means: culture, promotion, information, recognition and awards. I think the latter is the best way to get the best garb.

TLDR: Sports bras should be safety equipment, and like all safety equipment, the culture should be that we improve our look by modifying it to fit theme whenever possible.

[Brutus]

lawl. bel jokes.

My comment was directed to and for the benefit of Xooyan, not to you. I was merely voicing my support for her argument, which I found to be highly articulate and in need of no correction or modification. By targeting my comment instead of her argument with your own snarky and inarticulate attempt to shame me, you merely demonstrated the bankruptcy of your position. Or perhaps you'd care to point out the flaw with her reasoning? I note that when you had the opportunity to reply to her, you chose instead to direct your comments to myself and Varadin.

[Sir Anastasia]

Guys, I think if you were all in the same room together you would all realize that the hostile tones you are perceiving aren't there. We really need to get off this and move to doing things that are productive. Even if someone does have actual issues with each other, which I highly doubt, it serves no purpose to dwell here. From now on, let's assume the other person's motivations are our own: we are negotiating a solution to an issue by correctly weighing safety, playability, and realism while establishing fairness and promoting great garb culture.

[Acorn]

lawl. bel jokes.

My comment was directed to and for the benefit of Xooyan, not to you. I was merely voicing my support for her argument, which I found to be highly articulate and in need of no correction or modification. By targeting my comment instead of her argument with your own snarky and inarticulate attempt to shame me, you merely demonstrated the bankruptcy of your position. Or perhaps you'd care to point out the flaw with her reasoning? I note that when you had the opportunity to reply to her, you chose instead to direct your comments to myself and Varadin.

um... excuse me? I was trying to agree with your point about her eloquence by recognizing your GELF joke and the irony of your statement. You took "lawl. Bel Jokes." as aimed directly at you? Do you have some personal issue with me Brutus? I have never even met you.

I have nothing to say to Xooyan on here. I agree with all her points. As we've been discussing in PM's.

and for the record, you're the one throwing around insults all while claiming that I am being immature. Harsh words at being willfully misconstrued are not the same as outright condensation and bigotry. Stop being so sensitive. And stop reading malice in my posts. I write exactly what I mean.

[Brutus]

You took "lawl. Bel Jokes." as aimed directly at you?

That's what it means when you quote someone, and then put your reply directly beneath the quote, yes.

and for the record, you're the one throwing around insults around all while claiming that I am being immature. Harsh words at being willfully misconstrued are not the same as outright condensation and bigotry. Stop being so sensitive.

Actually, I haven't insulted you at all. You've called myself and Varadin names at several points during this discussion. The closest thing to an insult I've said is that your argument is bankrupt. You've called Varadin a "facepalm and a half" and called part of his post ridiculous (note, according to the dictionary that means you think his argument deserves to be mocked). I recognize that Varadin has thrown his own barbs your way in this discussion, but despite he and I being of the same opinion on this matter, I pointed that out in one of my earlier posts in hopes that he would take notice and tone down the rhetoric a little bit.

In this thread you've called me a keyboard cowboy and condescending. I don't care, I've been called a lot of things by a lot of people, and these two things, while untrue, won't even make the highlight reel. I'm just mentioning them because while I haven't insulted you, you can't say the same, and yet you attempt to claim the high ground in this discussion. You are not allowed to insult people who haven't insulted you and claim the high ground. Well, actually you can do whatever you want, but intelligent people will not respect you or your position as a result, and some of them may call you on it.

Now we've gone and started talking about how we're talking instead of talking about the topic. Can we get back on track?

[Acorn]

You're the one, again, derailing.

Quoting someone only means I am replying to that comment. Normally people don't take being quoted alone as being mocked. Apparently for you the word lawl in response to anything you post, even if what you posted was a joke, is an insult at you.

I did insult Varadin after he opened our interaction with condescension and insults himself. You I responded rudely to since I took your response as a misinterpretation of my words. And yet even there I never attacked you, saying instead that you missed the point. To which you replied you had not. And I disagreed and gave the reasons as to why. I am and have been direct just not deferential and apparently this is insulting to you.

You have twice now called me snarky and sarcastic despite my repeated reassurance that I mean what I say at face value. It is not my fault if you refuse to take it that way. And I called you condescending because you are being condescending, and insulting, opening paragraphs with, "This is how logic works." Followed by a wordy and demeaning explanation of how you feel your debate tactics are valid. Let me quote yourself back too you,

"Remember, just because this is the internet doesn't mean you can't remain civil as we attempt to weigh the pros and cons of this issue. "

Hi kettle, meet pot.

[Sir Anastasia]

SOOOOOOOOO...can we get back on topic now?

I think sports bras should be included as sports equipment and encouraged, though not required (for safety's sake), to be covered or modified to be medieval/fantasy themed. Please discuss.

I swear the next person to derail this is going to get a punch to the junk.
Emoticons should reveal my intention is to defuse the situation and be humerus.

[Eternitie]

SOOOOOOOOO...can we get back on topic now?

I think sports bras should be included as sports equipment and encouraged, though not required (for safety's sake), to be covered or modified to be medieval/fantasy themed. Please discuss.

Hello, my name is Eternitie and I am a fighter from the Illinois realm of Muxlovia. I've been discussing this topic with a lot of fighters vigorously over the last day or so (on another medium) and after hearing both sides of the argument/understanding what everyone is getting at, I would like to offer my voice in support of what Anastasia just posted.

I think that it is the most logical conclusion and it helps the most people. I feel as though our fighters can always be encouraged/offered help to have excellent garb and make good decisions on the field, so I don't think we have to worry about anyone abusing having a sports bra as safety equipment. PERSONALLY I will always aim to cover my sports bra in some way, but it would really make me feel more comfortable knowing that if for some reason I run out of time to make garb last second/forget to bring something/etc, that I have the option to, if I can't handle excessive heat, wear my neutral colored sports bra along with my regular bottom garb. It's just nice to have options.

Thank you very much for reading!

[Falcorin]

Hi all - also have been talking about this with many female fighters in another forum.

I agree with the position that sports bras should be classified as safety equipment. They promote breast health for many women.

I think they should be subject to the rules of other safety equipment (covering logos).

I agree with the few people who have said this before as well: I don't worry about female fighters abusing this potential addition to safety equipment. I think the sport has a great deal of pride in its garb, and there's a great culture of encouragement and reward for awesome clothing. If it does start being abused in a way that can't be changed without a further rule change, we could revisit the subject.

What this change would accomplish, is for women to use their health-promoting equipment in all circumstances, without requiring that they modify it, if they judge that that modification would be a detriment to the effectiveness of the bra.

[Remdawg Killionaire]

Sports bras are safety equipment akin to a cup, or gloves. If a woman is wearing a sportsbra in a neutral-colored tone with no blantant modern logos or prints then she should she be kicked off the field? No. She should not. Should you harass her, put her down and talk down to her? Or should you inspire her to achieve better garb, or to take said sports bra and turn it into a great piece of period-looking garb? All I'm saying is that if this inspires sweet sport's bra armor, I'm all for it. Mostly because I have a buncha hotties in my unit and all you poor virginal nerds are gonna fall like wheat to the scythe if this happens.

You can argue that it's taking garb in the wrong direction. That's fine. It might be taking a step back in the developing of better garb standards. If that takes priority over our female fighter's comfort that's your prerogative. I'd rather take a step back now if it means achieving better cohesion and involvement in the long run.

I will stand by any ruling allowing women to achieve as much comfort and approachability in this game as men.

[Ignatius]

This rule change and discussion is unneeded and silly. A quick definition search defines a sports bra as an article of clothing that provides protection. This is covered by safety gear rule. Ladies, wear the bra of your choice. This doesn't need codified.

Also, since this is safety gear, you don't have to do anything to modify it or change your oft expensive bras. Nor do they need to be neutral colored as the proposed rule would have required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_bra

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sports+bra

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sports-bra

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sports-bra

http://www.calfreduction.net/content/healthy-breast%3A-why-you-should-wear-sports-bras-every-workout%3F

http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=5822&channel_id=1003&relation_id=4536#.UhaR8D_heFp

[Eternitie]

This rule change and discussion is unneeded and silly. A quick definition search defines a sports bra as an article of clothing that provides protection. This is covered by safety gear rule. Ladies, wear the bra of your choice. This doesn't need codified.

The only worry I would have here is, what if a fighter wearing said sports bra is approached and asked to leave the field for it, because it's not "officially" stated in the B.O.W that her sports bra IS safety equipment and IS allowed? I'm not sure how many events/heralds would BE this strict/by the book, but if they were, wouldn't it be prudent to at least change the phrasing so that we can defend the sports bra with valid sources?

[Acorn]

they were exactly that strict at CW this year. Hence this whhooollleee thing. :/

[Ignatius]

Oh, and I think we should offer an apology to the young ladies who were removed for wearing a piece of safety gear at Chaos this year . It seems the rules were misinterpreted.

And I do believe it was decided at this Chaos that sports bras would be allowed on the field next chaos. Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken. I was rather tired of the circular discussion then, as now.

[Eternitie]

And I do believe it was decided at this Chaos that sports bras would be allowed on the field next chaos. Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken.

If it was already allowed, then adding it into the rules as a formality should be a breeze, and it would make a lot of us feel more comfortable I think.

[Cyric]

I think the problem is that sports bras are both safety gear AND garb, unlike cups, gloves, glasses, etc. Obviously, they shouldn't have to not use one anymore than someone shouldn't be able to wear gloves. If a guy were running around in just a cup, i would throw him off and tell him to get some pants. I would say that sports bras should be treated more like underarmor, and have to be covered by at least a tabard.

[Xooyan]

lawl. bel jokes.

My comment was directed to and for the benefit of Xooyan, not to you. I was merely voicing my support for her argument, which I found to be highly articulate and in need of no correction or modification. By targeting my comment instead of her argument with your own snarky and inarticulate attempt to shame me, you merely demonstrated the bankruptcy of your position. Or perhaps you'd care to point out the flaw with her reasoning? I note that when you had the opportunity to reply to her, you chose instead to direct your comments to myself and Varadin.

Brutus,
Acorn and I are long term friends. She agrees with my argument. She was the one that asked me to post it here. She had no intention of shaming you for your Gelf joke. She thought it was funny. Don't get your feathers so easily ruffled.

Xoo

[Xooyan]

Oh, and I think we should offer an apology to the young ladies who were removed for wearing a piece of safety gear at Chaos this year . It seems the rules were misinterpreted.

And I do believe it was decided at this Chaos that sports bras would be allowed on the field next chaos. Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken. I was rather tired of the circular discussion then, as now.

The rules were not misinterpreted. The rules specifically state "1.2.1.1 Neutral colored t-shirts, with no visible printing, or sports bras may be worn underneath a tunic or tabard." This is not currently optional in the rules and as they are specified in this section I think it's clear that they are not accepted as safety equipment by everyone in Belegarth.

I also don't particularly care for the decision to make an exception at Chaos Wars. I would rather, as I believe many people would agree, that this be part of a clear written rule, however the group as a whole comes down on it. In general, our garb rules need an overhaul, so let's accept that and work toward a consensus. That will, of course, take time, clear heads, and everyone taking a moment to forget about whatever implied, direct, or perceived insults got tossed around and instead address the issues.

I think if everyone were to look back at this thread and other discussion boards, you'd find that many Valkyries, Acorn included, have suggested the alternative of tightening our entire garb rule set, rather than loosening this one aspect. Let's take the time to give each other the benefit of a doubt so we can make good decisions for the whole community.

I'd like to propose that rather than view this as a one issue topic, we start proposing a whole new set of clearly worded garb rules to avoid confusion and alleviate some of the concerns of our community.

[Reverend]

Oh, and I think we should offer an apology to the young ladies who were removed for wearing a piece of safety gear at Chaos this year . It seems the rules were misinterpreted.

And I do believe it was decided at this Chaos that sports bras would be allowed on the field next chaos. Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken. I was rather tired of the circular discussion then, as now.

The rules were not misinterpreted. The rules specifically state "1.2.1.1 Neutral colored t-shirts, with no visible printing, or sports bras may be worn underneath a tunic or tabard." This is not currently optional in the rules and as they are specified in this section I think it's clear that they are not accepted as safety equipment by everyone in Belegarth.

I also don't particularly care for the decision to make an exception at Chaos Wars. I would rather, as I believe many people would agree, that this be part of a clear written rule, however the group as a whole comes down on it. In general, our garb rules need an overhaul, so let's accept that and work toward a consensus. That will, of course, take time, clear heads, and everyone taking a moment to forget about whatever implied, direct, or perceived insults got tossed around and instead address the issues.

I think if everyone were to look back at this thread and other discussion boards, you'd find that many Valkyries, Acorn included, have suggested the alternative of tightening our entire garb rule set, rather than loosening this one aspect. Let's take the time to give each other the benefit of a doubt so we can make good decisions for the whole community.

I'd like to propose that rather than view this as a one issue topic, we start proposing a whole new set of clearly worded garb rules to avoid confusion and alleviate some of the concerns of our community.

Like, upvote, digg'd, whatever agreement term can be used

On a side note, I realized while typing a response on this topic (for the event staff of BftR), I think we should treat all clothes as garb and ban shirtless men. :P

I definitely agree that the entire garb rule set needs to be overhauled and would be more than happy to work with people on hashing that out.

[Juniper Wynd]

So, after rifling through a bunch of nit picking and implied (or not so implied) name calling and the like....I think I have the main idea of this topic and thus have an opinion

I don't have any real issue with calling sports bras with the logo covered minimum garb. I do take issue with calling them "safety equipment" because that it flat out stupid. The only reason to call them safety equipment is to try and use a loop hole to get something passed that you want. They are ~not~ safety equipment in any sense of the word. I'm a big chested woman that often wears a regular bra plus a sports bra for support so I know these things pretty well. They are as much "safety equipment" as your underwear. Safety equipment is meant to prevent you from injury.....like safety goggles or a cup. Exactly what injury does a piece of fabric protect you from?

To claim that these sports bras are safety equipment just baffles me. Absolutely baffles me. In all the years I fought in this sport I never wore a sports bra. I never saw the need for a sports bra. I never wished I had been wearing one. I have never known them to be protective in any way. They are kinda cool for the extra support they give but I can't prance around on the field in my bra just because it gives a little support.

Anyway....my point here is that calling them "safety equipment" is stupid. If you wanted to pass them as minimum garb I would be more in support of the idea.

As far as making them minimum garb....I think lessening our standards is foolish. Make a cool sports bra type thing, get inventive. It seriously isn't that hard.

Frankly, I would rather see people (guys AND girls) in decent garb instead of seeing a bunch of guys with their bellies and nipples hanging out.....nor do I want to see a bunch of chicks with their boobs flapping in the wind.

At this point you ~cannot~ go topless, girls....put your big girl panties/safety equipment on and deal with it. But because we are prevented from going topless by public indecency laws women should be allowed the option of a sports bra with logos covered to count as minimum garb.