News Article: Shower with a Friend (but not naked)!

[bellagiobob]

I have no problem with this whatsoever. If it helps make dressing rooms at all more comfortable for kids (which it definitely will), then it’s worth it. If it makes old dinosaurs grumble, even better.

The president of Hocky Edmonton was on the radio and said, paraphrased: The policy is black and white, but Hockey Canada left lots of flexibility in how to implement it. The policy is just catching up to our social environment.

The comfortable part for kids is the tricky passage there. Will it make some kids more comfortable to not have to change in front of others and to shower with a bathing suit on, absolutely. But what % is that, and by doing that, what % are you upsetting that were fine with the same setup that we currently have at rinks, which is the same as we have at gyms, swimming pools, etc. 100% inclusiveness in anything is never going to happen. And I’m all for getting rid of some of the stupid hazing rituals, etc that just humiliate kids. But asking kids that wear suits to games and often on long bus rides to wear part of your gear under your clothes, or to change in rooms that often have one, maybe two private stalls if you’re lucky, or to then use these same one or two stalls to change into your bathing suit to shower, is not realistic and will likely make a large percentage of kids unhappy. And no players or coaches want the coaches to be in the room at all times, that’s taking away a large part of the hockey experience away from the kids. Having to leave the door open as an alternative is a terrible option based on many dressing room setups, which would directly expose the kids to the many passerby’s who walk the hallways. Non sanctioned leagues are growing by leaps and bounds, and this will just push more kids in that direction.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

So we definitely won't get any news about the investigation?

 

[brentashton]

So we definitely won't get any news about the investigation?

Probably not. That’s not important anymore.

But have you heard about the new underwear policy?? Fascinating.

 

[bobbythebrain]

Wokey Canada

 

[GrumpyKoala]

Probably not. That’s not important anymore.

But have you heard about the new underwear policy?? Fascinating.

Not my cup of tea, as I find undergarments vulgar and offensive

 

[Roof Daddy]

I feel like a lot of people in this thread should listen the the comic bit “Queer Showers” by Doug Stanhope. I know it’s got a different focus than what is at play with this conversation, but a lot of it still plays.

He mainly plays on the absurdity of a group shower under any circumstance. Which I think is a fair point. To correlate some of his points to this conversation - you spend thousands of dollars on registration, thousands more on equipment, but a $20 curtain for privacy is an outlandish ask?

 

[Seachd]

The comfortable part for kids is the tricky passage there. Will it make some kids more comfortable to not have to change in front of others and to shower with a bathing suit on, absolutely. But what % is that, and by doing that, what % are you upsetting that were fine with the same setup that we currently have at rinks, which is the same as we have at gyms, swimming pools, etc. 100% inclusiveness in anything is never going to happen. And I’m all for getting rid of some of the stupid hazing rituals, etc that just humiliate kids. But asking kids that wear suits to games and often on long bus rides to wear part of your gear under your clothes, or to change in rooms that often have one, maybe two private stalls if you’re lucky, or to then use these same one or two stalls to change into your bathing suit to shower, is not realistic and will likely make a large percentage of kids unhappy. And no players or coaches want the coaches to be in the room at all times, that’s taking away a large part of the hockey experience away from the kids. Having to leave the door open as an alternative is a terrible option based on many dressing room setups, which would directly expose the kids to the many passerby’s who walk the hallways. Non sanctioned leagues are growing by leaps and bounds, and this will just push more kids in that direction.

Sounds like you’re worried about inconveniences. I think that's pretty minor compared to making kids feel less vulnerable to teasing and bullying. It doesn't actually take anything away from those who want to shower.

I also didn't see anything in the policy about always having a coach in the room, or keeping the door open, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. This doesn't mean coaches are being made to spy on the team when they're dressing or showering (as tough as that is to hear for conspiracy theorists). But many coaches and parents are going to take this very seriously. What it means is that whenever a kid who cares tells parents who care that there are naked players in the dressing room, it will get reported to whoever it needs to get reported to.

I'm not sure non-sanctioned leagues will be a big concern based on this policy. I'm pretty sure this will lead to many municipalities enacting their own policies, and so it won't much matter who plays there.

 

[bellagiobob]

I feel like a lot of people in this thread should listen the the comic bit “Queer Showers” by Doug Stanhope. I know it’s got a different focus than what is at play with this conversation, but a lot of it still plays.

He mainly plays on the absurdity of a group shower under any circumstance. Which I think is a fair point. To correlate some of his points to this conversation - you spend thousands of dollars on registration, thousands more on equipment, but a $20 curtain for privacy is an outlandish ask?

In a perfect world, individual stalls or curtains would be ideal. But with the new rules you still have to get there with swimming trunks on. There are a lot of rinks out there with only one bathroom stall that could be used for changing. Say your buddy has had to take a dump since the start of the 3rd, and he rushes in after the game, and is taking his sweet time. Now you have 19 other guys waiting till he's done so that they can each take their turn changing into their swimming trunks in the stall. And then I assume they have to go back in there after their shower and change back into their underwear. Post game showers will take longer than the actual game.

 

[bellagiobob]

Sounds like you’re worried about inconveniences. I think that's pretty minor compared to making kids feel less vulnerable to teasing and bullying. It doesn't actually take anything away from those who want to shower.

I also didn't see anything in the policy about always having a coach in the room, or keeping the door open, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. This doesn't mean coaches are being made to spy on the team when they're dressing or showering (as tough as that is to hear for conspiracy theorists). But many coaches and parents are going to take this very seriously. What it means is that whenever a kid who cares tells parents who care that there are naked players in the dressing room, it will get reported to whoever it needs to get reported to.

I'm not sure non-sanctioned leagues will be a big concern based on this policy. I'm pretty sure this will lead to many municipalities enacting their own policies, and so it won't much matter who plays there.

Coach in the room or door open is part of the new policy.

"As part of the policy, Hockey Canada is also introducing a “rule of two,” requiring two trained and screened adults to be present in or directly outside (with an open door) the dressing room at once “to ensure it is free of any discrimination, harassment, bullying, or other forms of maltreatment.”

So where is the line drawn? Say for example a 16 year old kid wants to go swimming or go to the gym, and feels uneasy about nudity or being judged, I'm assuming that these rules should also be in place for those facilities?

 

[Seachd]

Coach in the room or door open is part of the new policy.

"As part of the policy, Hockey Canada is also introducing a “rule of two,” requiring two trained and screened adults to be present in or directly outside (with an open door) the dressing room at once “to ensure it is free of any discrimination, harassment, bullying, or other forms of maltreatment.”

Gotcha. Pretty minor in my mind, but others may disagree. In our arena that's where coaches always are anyway.

So where is the line drawn? If my 16 year old kid wants to go swimming or go to the gym, and feels uneasy about nudity or being judged, I'm assuming that these rules should also be in place for those facilities?

As I said, similar policies will likely come to other facilities to keep up.

 

[brentashton]

Not my cup of tea, as I find undergarments vulgar and offensive
View attachment 749890

As a person who goes full commando, I too find Hockey Canada‘s policy to be very discriminatory.

 

[bellagiobob]

Gotcha. Pretty minor in my mind, but others may disagree. In our arena that's where coaches always are anyway.

Lots of great coaches involved in sports, but also a lot of bad actors. I prefer less opportunities for coaches or any adults to be involved with kids in various phases of undressing/showering, not more. In the last 20 years there have been over 200 coaches convicted of sexual offenses in Canada across many different minor sports. That's not including the umpteen that never got to that stage. Always be wary of the coaches who volunteer to be the dressing room guy for every game, as most coaches hate that role, and prefer to just check in on occasion to make sure the kids are behaving. Maybe it's nothing, but to the wrong type of person, this gives them further incentive to get involved with youth and get their jollies.

 

[BlackDogg]

Just covering their asses...

 

[Seachd]

Lots of great coaches involved in sports, but also a lot of bad actors. I prefer less opportunities for coaches or any adults to be involved with kids in various phases of undressing/showering, not more. In the last 20 years there have been over 200 coaches convicted of sexual offenses in Canada across many different minor sports. That's not including the umpteen that never got to that stage. Always be wary of the coaches who volunteer to be the dressing room guy for every game, as most coaches hate that role, and prefer to just check in on occasion to make sure the kids are behaving. Maybe it's nothing, but to the wrong type of person, this gives them further incentive to get involved with youth and get their jollies.

If you’re saying these people are so common, why are you so insistent our kids get naked around them?

As well as bad actors among coaches, there are also those among players themselves. Bullying, teasing, hazing… these have been clamped down on, but why not take away even more opportunities?

But the vast majority of these coaches are fantastic people volunteering a ton of time. Not to mention in the grand scheme of things, relatively few are there to get our kids to an elite level. It’s not about making the show - it’s making sure the kids have fun, are great teammates, and helping to provide a safe environment for that to happen.

People flip out over stories such as the 2003 Junior team, and rightfully call for change, but then lose their minds when even the smallest step to protect kids is taken.

And not only that, but the inclusivity aspect is a huge deal. The many likely positives far outweigh the inconveniences that some might need to put up with.

 

[McSpecial DraiBlend]

My kid doesn't play hockey but if he did I would tell him to ignore this crap and I would stand behind him.
Be respectful. That's the proper way to act.

I obviously don't know what is going on these days but our coaches were never in the room while we were changing and showering when I was growing up.
They would come in pre game when every one was dressed and have a chat and same post game.

 

[bellagiobob]

If you’re saying these people are so common, why are you so insistent our kids get naked around them?

As well as bad actors among coaches, there are also those among players themselves. Bullying, teasing, hazing… these have been clamped down on, but why not take away even more opportunities?

But the vast majority of these coaches are fantastic people volunteering a ton of time. Not to mention in the grand scheme of things, relatively few are there to get our kids to an elite level. It’s not about making the show - it’s making sure the kids have fun, are great teammates, and helping to provide a safe environment for that to happen.

People flip out over stories such as the 2003 Junior team, and rightfully call for change, but then lose their minds when even the smallest step to protect kids is taken.

And not only that, but the inclusivity aspect is a huge deal. The many likely positives far outweigh the inconveniences that some might need to put up with.

I never said they were common, I said there have been more than enough to raise a concern, and I’m campaigning to have them in the room less, not more. Thought that was pretty clear. The absolute worst thing you can do to ruin a kids sport/activity is have 24/7 adult supervision. Why not do a pilot project, with younger kids, some of whom still dress at home, and in the lower tiers, and see how that goes. Let the junior players and other elites continue the structure they currently have.

 

[Seachd]

I never said they were common, I said there have been more than enough to raise a concern, and I’m campaigning to have them in the room less, not more. Thought that was pretty clear. The absolute worst thing you can do to ruin a kids sport/activity is have 24/7 adult supervision.

With younger kids the supervision is pretty much always there anyway. At the very worst, the coach is outside the door for the most part. This isn't much of a difference for most kids.

Why not do a pilot project, with younger kids, some of whom still dress at home, and in the lower tiers, and see how that goes. Let the junior players and other elites continue the structure they currently have.

The policy doesn't apply to Junior.

 

[RegDunlop]

Why doesn't HC take all that hush money slush account and retro fit arenas across the nation with 2 or 3 stalls with showers. Expensive - yes. Doable - not sure.

But come up with some common sense solution instead of CYA bullshit.

 

[harpoon]

And not only that, but the inclusivity aspect is a huge deal. The many likely positives far outweigh the inconveniences that some might need to put up with.

This paragraph reads like propaganda.

The ‘inclusivity aspect’ is not a ‘huge deal’ because very few children are ‘excluded’ to the extent that steps like these are needed. And those who are having issues can be the ones to come to the rink already dressed. It’s quite simple.

What are the ‘many likely positives’? And if there are really so many of them, why hedge your bets by saying they are ‘likely’? For such a staunch supporter of these new policies you seem kind of unsure of their merit.

It isn’t ‘inconveniences that some might need to put up with’. It’s inconveniences that the overwhelming majority will need to put up with. Why say ‘some’ and ‘might’ when you know those words do not apply? I’ll repeat my opinion that the tiny minority of people these policies are hoping to ‘protect’ can be the ones to get dressed at home before coming to the rink.

Your comments about bullying and hazing are irrelevant to this discussion because that sort of behavior has always been wrong and punishable by coaches and minor hockey associations. I know you don’t actually believe that just keeping your pants on at all times is going to eliminate or even reduce bullying.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Is their any thought to these new policies increasing personal hygiene problems and skin diseases, infections, rashes and the like? Several conditions exist wherein not drying under region sufficiently will create problems. Imagine going to shower with swimtrunks on then putting our clothes back on over those soaking wet things. Unless one is going home immediately this will introduce moisture to nether regions for the rest of ones day, and a miserable experience. Showering and not drying is about as bad as not even showering after hockey.

It would even seem that better, not worse hygiene would be something to be furthered in hockey wherein the average gym bag is a biological experiment.

 

[McDNicks17]

Is their any thought to these new policies increasing personal hygiene problems and skin diseases, infections, rashes and the like? Several conditions exist wherein not drying under region sufficiently will create problems. Imagine going to shower with swimtrunks on then putting our clothes back on over those soaking wet things. Unless one is going home immediately this will introduce moisture to nether regions for the rest of ones day, and a miserable experience. Showering and not drying is about as bad as not even showering after hockey.

It would even seem that better, not worse hygiene would be something to be furthered in hockey wherein the average gym bag is a biological experiment.

The policy asks them to change into those swim trunks before showering, so I would assume changing out of them after is part of it too.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Sounds like you’re worried about inconveniences. I think that's pretty minor compared to making kids feel less vulnerable to teasing and bullying. It doesn't actually take anything away from those who want to shower.

I also didn't see anything in the policy about always having a coach in the room, or keeping the door open, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. This doesn't mean coaches are being made to spy on the team when they're dressing or showering (as tough as that is to hear for conspiracy theorists). But many coaches and parents are going to take this very seriously. What it means is that whenever a kid who cares tells parents who care that there are naked players in the dressing room, it will get reported to whoever it needs to get reported to.

I'm not sure non-sanctioned leagues will be a big concern based on this policy. I'm pretty sure this will lead to many municipalities enacting their own policies, and so it won't much matter who plays there.

What prevents the rare person that is uncomfortable getting naked in the shower from just wearing the trunks in the shower or just showering at home? Why should everybody else be FORCED to wear trunks in the shower for the alleged few that may feel uncomfortable?

You even mentioned inconvenience. What is more inconvenient, the vast majority being inconvenienced or the few?

Showering in swimming trunks and keeping those on is not recommended hygiene for anybody.

The policy asks them to change into those swim trunks before showering, so I would assume changing out of them after is part of it too.

Thanks. That part was unclear but as others have mentioned a lot of facilities lack sufficient cubicles for everybody to be doing this. Not considered either is how the average hockey arena and change rooms in present day are turnstile environments getting kids in and out and where almost every facility is overused and anything that delays getting new teams out on ice is less than ideal and impacts even being able to have all the scheduled teams play. As it is delays are endemic from one scheduled game or event or skate to the next.

So that having to put trunks on, then take them off just to get a shower is introducing a longer time regimen.

So wait, lets get this straight. In order to avoid being buck naked in the change room you have to go to a cubicle to change into trunks, then transfer all your stuff to dressing area to allow use of same cubicle by others, you then have to gather up all your clothes, jump in cubicle again, undress, and then dress... Can anybody see this happening efficiently and orderly. I could see lots of kids just leaving all their stuff in the cubicles and then nobody else has room or ability to use the same cubicles to change in.

Go to any rink anywhere right now and kids and families are waiting for the changerooms of previous games to be vacated so that theres room for the teams to get changed and put equipment on to play hockey. The new policies will slow things down.

Our rinks are heavily used.

 

[McDNicks17]

What prevents the rare person that is uncomfortable getting naked in the shower from just wearing the trunks in the shower or just showering at home? Why should everybody else be FORCED to wear trunks in the shower for the alleged few that may feel uncomfortable?

You even mentioned inconvenience. What is more inconvenient, the vast majority being inconvenienced or the few?

Showering in swimming trunks and keeping those on is not recommended hygiene for anybody.


Thanks. That part was unclear but as others have mentioned a lot of facilities lack sufficient cubicles for everybody to be doing this. Not considered either is how the average hockey arena and change rooms in present day are turnstile environments getting kids in and out and where almost every facility is overused and anything that delays getting new teams out on ice is less than ideal and impacts even being able to have all the scheduled teams play. As it is delays are endemic from one scheduled game or event or skate to the next.

Our rinks are heavily used.

I think that's where the inclusivity part comes in. If a few kids want to do that, I'd say the chances of them catching flak for it is pretty high. If everyone is doing it, they don't get singled out.

It sounds like the policy is flexible, so I'd guess something like changing in/out of swim trunks out in the locker room would happen. Something like that wouldn't be inconvenient and still mostly does what they're hoping to do with the policy.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I think that's where the inclusivity part comes in. If a few kids want to do that, I'd say the chances of them catching flak for it is pretty high. If everyone is doing it, they don't get singled out.

It sounds like the policy is flexible, so I'd guess something like changing in/out of swim trunks out in the locker room would happen. Something like that wouldn't be inconvenient and still mostly does what they're hoping to do with the policy.

Which then means that it accomplishes nothing. Naked butts still all over the place.

As anybody notes what has to change is vetting coaches and checks and balances and all security level check, vulnerability checks etc being done. To help minimize chances of predation by coaches. What also needs to occur is zero tolerance for locker room bullying.

I don't know either that somebody would be "catching flak" just for not stripping for the showers. A better chance hardly even notices or considers it noteworthy. But again, its limiting the amount of flak and bullying that occurs, whether people are naked or have clothes on. The bullying is the issue that can be addressed, regardless of state of undress. Seems like the elephant in the room is bullying. So address that.

 

[McDNicks17]

Which then means that it accomplishes nothing. Naked butts still all over the place.

As anybody notes what has to change is vetting coaches and checks and balances and all security level check, vulnerability checks etc being done. To help minimize chances of predation by coaches. What also needs to occur is zero tolerance for locker room bullying.

It means the kid are naked for about 95% less time than they would otherwise.


That should be the goal, but that sounds easier said than done. Most of the predators are getting caught years later, so they wouldn't have anything on their records. And to me, the easiest way to curb locker room bullying is reduce one of the main sources of it like they're trying to do with the policy.