Dhimmitude: Now coming to a gym near you
By Thoreau
Everybody is freaking out over Harvard announcing female-only gym hours in response to requests from Muslim students who don’t like showing skin and curves in front of men. What most people don’t realize is that the female-only gym phenomenon has been spreading across America since 1992. The fifth columnists spreading this Islamo-fascist threat are posing as Christian conservatives. Sneaky!
« « Guaranteed to leave the bottle, even if you rub it the right way | Main | Professor Kmiec’s Obama Endorsement Revisited » »
Comment by Leonard —
March 26, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
There is a categorical difference between Curves, a private enterprise taking no government money, and Harvard. Harvard accepts government money, scads of it. As a consequence, it is subject to all the strings attached. This includes title 9:
Now, men and women are different; IMO some official discrimination should be allowed between them. (Anyone for unisex bathrooms only on all Federal property?) And the USA does not guarantee sex equality as strongly as race equality; the Equal Rights Amendment never passed, and that was probably a good thing. And for that matter, title 9 is itself fudgeable, since it has to deal with this very problem. (Allowing women to join the football teams would be problematic in some way no matter what the policy was. As would allowing men to join the “women’s” field hockey team.) So I expect Harvard will be allowed to do it.
Nonetheless, conflating private and public is a mistake. It is perfectly sound ideologically to support a private practice even when you don’t think the state should be allowed to do anything analogous. The state, by it’s nature, is one-size-fits-all, and most things are too important to risk having the state screw them up.
Comment by diana —
March 26, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
You are mixing apples with oranges. If a private enterprise wants to market to women (or men) that’s kosher.
But one group has forced its puritanical will on an entire college community. This was tried by a group of Ortho Jews at Yale a while back, and failed.
The fact is, you can’t integrate a large number of Muslims into a modern society. Impossible.
I expect a horde of liberal-tarians to come ascending on me, with the usual abuse. Bring it on.
Comment by matthew hogan —
March 26, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
“Harvard accepts government money, scads of it.”
A good reason then, to stop the outflow of government money to such destinations.
Comment by matthew hogan —
March 26, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
“I expect a horde of liberal-tarians to come ascending on me, with the usual abuse. Bring it on. ”
It’s “descending” and no, it may just be intelligent humans of all ideological stripes.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 26, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Leonard and Matthew-
I agree that with money comes strings, and this is a good argument for reducing the flow and role of federal money. At the same time, I think wisdom cautions against using a “one drop rule” for federal money as a wedge to pry open enough room for any and every rule under the sun. Otherwise, any practical reduction in the role of the state will be impossible, because until that very last dollar is cut off the state gets full control.
Anyway, leaving aside issues of long term libertarian goals, I think a bit of pragmatism is possible. Leonard mentions bathrooms and locker rooms as an example where strict integration is not required. In locker rooms the sexes are segregated because they are in a state of undress. Now, at the gym people aren’t fully nude while exercising, but nudity isn’t the only reason why locker rooms are segregated. Most people would prefer not to strip down to just their underwear in the presence of the opposite sex, and so even those who leave their underwear on while changing will use the locker room.
Is there really that much difference between underwear and some skimpy gym attire or swimsuits? For some gym attire or swimsuits, the difference is more about style than square inches of skin. Yet for most people that stylistic difference is enough to make them comfortable exercising in the presence of the opposite sex. The key point here is that standards of modesty are about culture and psychology, not just objective measures of skin exposed.
If some people have a different standard of modesty, and would prefer that the opposite sex not see them in even loose shorts and a t-shirt, their concern is not so different in nature from the concern that justifies gender-segregated locker rooms. It might not be as common of a concern, but it’s very similar to the concern that justifies segregation in locker rooms, so I don’t see it as a big deal, if done in moderation. You can say that they’re being silly to not exercise in front of men while wearing a t-shirt and loose shorts, and I can say that it’s silly to be self-conscious in one’s underwear if you were just out on the treadmill a few minutes ago in a sports bra and tight shorts.
It’s also worth noting that gyms often have a bit of “separate but equal” outside the locker rooms, in exercise classes and intramural sports teams. Some of these classes and teams might be explicitly single-sex, and in other cases they might be marketed as such without strict enforcement of the rules (to sidestep legal hassles).
With regard to Curves, my main point in mentioning it was that there’s a revealed preference for female-only exercise in the general population, one that goes beyond Muslim women. This suggests that even if Muslim students are the most vocal proponents of female-only gym hours, other students might take advantages. This downplays the “dhimmitude” concerns.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 26, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
One more thing about Curves gym:
I admit to knowing very little about their finances and business dealings, but can we be sure that they (or any other large company) would fare well under a “one drop” rule for public funds? So many companies get federal contracts or favors from local government, it wouldn’t shock me if we could find “one drop” somewhere along the line. Maybe a franchise developer got a favor from a city government? Maybe they or a subsidiary run a gym on federal property somewhere? Maybe they accepted funds to participate in some sort of “health awareness program” or whatever?
It’s entirely possible that they haven’t accepted any public funds (and it so, great). I’m not offering this speculation as an accusation. In a big enough country with a big enough list of laws a big enough company will probably wind up on the receiving end of some sort of public sector benefit at some point. It’s just a common fact of life. I don’t think that “one drop” should justify regulatory micromanagement. But I also know that in any discussion where a business’s practices get criticism of any sort, somebody will eventually find some public sector favor that the company received and say “As long as they’re receiving [insert benefit here] they should [insert commenter’s value preferences here].” So I want to take it off the table because if that criticism can be applied to everybody then it gets kind of boring. At the very least, the size of the benefit and the relation to the practice in question should be considered.
Comment by B —
March 26, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
I seem to recall a women-only workout area (so designated at all hours) at the student athletic center when I was at Georgia Tech (c. late 1990s) and it being no big deal at all. I don’t even know what the impetus was for it–though I think not wanting to ogled by sex-starved engineering students while working up a sweat seemed reasonable enough to me at the time. And still does.
Methinks the outrage has a great deal to do with the fact that it was Muslim women who requested this…
Comment by Derek Copold —
March 26, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
This suggests that even if Muslim students are the most vocal proponents of female-only gym hours, other students might take advantages.
Would you have the same reaction if it turned out that Southern Baptists were behind this? Or the SSPX people? More likely, assuming that Harvard would even listen to these groups, let alone act on their request, we’d see posts mocking the “fundies” for their backwards beliefs.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 26, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Actually, Derek, I think the request is silly. But I think the shrill responses are even sillier. So I mock the silliest party in the dispute.
Comment by KWK —
March 26, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
B,
If Georgia Tech had a single-sex area in an otherwise fully accessible gym, that is not terribly problematic, so I can see why no one made a fuss. Shutting off access to an entire gym facility is a different matter, however. “Separate but equal” sometimes does work (cf. the locker room issue); “separate and unequal” remains the problem.
My initial reaction to this whole thing was mostly outrage at the gender discrimination. But I realized that still leaves unaddressed the (sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant) sexual harassment endured by women at such venues. I think a much better solution would have been to actually enforce the campus regulations and/or local laws that have got to be in place already regarding sexually inappropriate public behavior. That avoids the legally dubious measure of treating all men as the problem, while still attempting to address the legitimate concerns of the gym’s female patrons.
What this doesn’t resolve, however, is the Muslim women’s concerns. The more general problems being faced by the women on campus can be resolved in various ways without placing an “undue burden” on anybody (apart from the sex-starved engineers—they’re just SOL); however, if the Muslims truly require an entire facility to be segregated, rather than a smaller area (as was apparently the case at Ga. Tech), then IMO their concerns cannot be reasonably accommodated.
Does that mean my outrage is only because it was Muslims who were the primary champions of this arrangement? Hardly. The motivations behind the overly burdensome gender discrimination are irrelevant. Conversely, if a not unduly burdensome solution is found, then the religious motivations of its proponents is likewise irrelevant.
As an aside, perhaps this whole brouhaha could have been avoided if Harvard’s Rec Department had spun it differently:
“Due to scheduling changes, the gym will now open at 10AM instead of 8AM on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We apologize for the inconvenience. However, to alleviate some of the overcrowding during our new normal operating hours, we will we offer special women’s fitness programs during the times we would normally be closed (how does 8AM to 10AM on Tuesday and Thursday sound to you ladies?).”
Comment by Brian —
March 26, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
nonetheless, I agree with Derek re: mockery is called for!
Comment by Thoreau —
March 26, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
KWK-
Everybody’s making this about gender discrimination, but we all agree that locker rooms and other places where people are undressed should be segregated for the sake of modesty. What if a significant number of the people that the gym exists to serve have a standard of modesty that regards exercise attire the way other people would regard walking around in their underwear?
I think it’s kind of a silly worry, but OTOH I also realize that there’s nothing terribly rational about modesty standards. A guy who has no problem using the gym’s pool in his Speedo might feel weird walking about in his boxers. A woman who’s comfortable exercising in front of men in her sports bra and tight shorts might feel weird standing in front of them in some other bra and underwear, even if nearly the same amount of skin was covered. Gymnasiums of all sorts (public, private, university, commercial, whatever) generally embrace that somewhat strange standard of modesty, saying that you can wear skimpy swimsuits and exercise attire in exercise areas but you shouldn’t walk around in your underwear in front of the opposite sex.
If gyms have no problem accomodating that somewhat irrational standard of modesty, why not set aside a few hours a week if a significant number of their clients have a different standard of modesty? Yes, it’s a gym at a university that receives federal funds, and it may be (for all I know) that the law as written leaves no leeway on that matter. And if that’s the case, well, I know what the libertarian ideological solution is, and I know what various other ideologies prescribe. But I also think that if we leave aside law for a moment and ask whether it makes sense, well, gyms already base their rules on a standard of modesty that doesn’t make much sense. Why not set aside a few hours a week for other standards of modesty?
BTW, although I think that our standards of modesty are irrational, I subscribe to them nonetheless. For whatever psychological reason, I’d feel weird standing in the gym in just boxers in front of a strange woman in her underwear, but I have no problem wearing swim trunks in the pool while on the other side of the pool window a woman in skimpy exercise attire runs on the treadmill. It makes no sense, but that’s how it is. And if a gym sets aside a few hours a week for somebody else’s nonsense, so be it, even if that means I can’t use it.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 26, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
You know, looking at what I just wrote, and thinking about what Derek said, I realize that modesty standards are all kind of arbitrary and silly. Would I have mocked Christians calling for segregated exercise hours? Maybe. I’m glad I didn’t, though. Thinking about this more, I don’t know whether I should just mock all modesty standards or toss my hands up and say “Eh, whatever.”
I think I’ll take the second approach. I just have more important things to worry about than women who don’t want to wear shorts in front of me.
I will, however, mock anybody who thinks that simple accomodation of arbitrary modesty standards is a sign of dhimmitude.
Comment by Leonard —
March 26, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Thoreau, I tend to like the idea of a one-dollar rule in govt spending. (”One-drop” is the old rule for race; I’d prefer not to mix the two concepts since they are entirely different things, and furthermore “one-drop” is offensive and stupid. Hence “one-dollar”.) The thing is, zero is a nice, bright line. Whereas I cannot see any other place to draw a bright line. Further, a bright line drawn at zero means everyone at low numbers — one, two, etc… maybe up to several thousand dollars for a larger institution — has a clear incentive to get off the govt teat. Accepting even a slight level of oversight is not worth it. Whereas if you draw a line at any other number, then the institution still has the incentive to take as much govt money as it can. Thus truly independent institutions would be rare as hen’s teeth.
No, I have no information as to whether Curves does or does not accept any government money. I think for the purposes of clarity in this discussion, though, we might as well assume they do. Otherwise, we’d just have to hypothesize some other chain that does. (Smurves?) But in the absence of any info to the contrary, Curves is fine.
Comment by KWK —
March 26, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Thoreau,
I completely agree that our standards of modesty are in many cases quite arbitrary. Further, I think the Islamic standards of modesty provide quite effective solutions to some gender-related problems that plague our society, and though the enforcement of those standards obviously creates problems of its own, they deserve some modicum of respect in a pluralistic society. But arbitrary modesty standards that require, say, separate locker facilities still allow for equal locker facilities. The segregated gym is more akin to not just giving women their own locker room, but kicking everyone out of the men’s locker room and giving it to the women too.
My problem is that the entire facility is off-limits to men, even if it is for a fraction of the day; I have already said that if instead it were a fraction of the facility for the entire day, I would have no problems. In fact, I would encourage such a policy in order to make physical fitness more broadly appealing to those who would not otherwise avail themselves of the gym facilities. You may not mind if someone else is accommodated at your expense; however, if they can be accommodated at no one’s expense, that is surely better, isn’t it? The worst that happens is that during peak times, some of the men in the 80% of the gym that remains open to them may have to learn how to share (gasp!) some of the fitness equipment.
I think your plea for accommodation for two distinct but equally arbitrary standards of modesty is all well and good; my issue is simply with the way in which that accommodation is accomplished. If I drag my sorry butt out of bed in order to get to the gym at 8 AM on Tuesday and Thursday (my current schedule, oddly enough), I imagine that I would be irate if I were turned away at the door because I am a man.
OTOH, if I am ever confronted with such a scenario, I suppose I do always have another option: while in grad school, I heard a (perhaps apocryphal) story of a faculty search committee that liked one particular male candidate, but they decided not to hire him because they wanted more gender diversity in the department. When he was told of this decision, his retort was to say, with an entirely straight face, “But I am a woman!”
Quite a brilliant bit of PC-jitsu, in my opinion… after all, the committee couldn’t very well question his gender self-identification without committing the impardonable sin of intolerance.
And so he was hired.
Comment by Leonard —
March 26, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
As for the general aspects of this thing — sure, I think it is very likely a lot of women would like to be able to exercise outside of the male gaze. That’s something I think colleges should want to cater to. Of course, once we’ve established the principle — that colleges can discriminate by sex — the question is how far can it go?
Comment by Fraud Guy —
March 26, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
So, would equal access be covered if Harvard allowed a “male-only” period at the gym, for those men who would prefer modesty (or any other reason)?
Comment by Jennifer —
March 26, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
I agree that modesty standards are arbitrary to an extent, but I sympathize more with the argument that it’s wrong to discriminate against an entire gender to help people conform to a standard of modesty much stricter than that of society at large. This strikes me as being akin to kicking men out of the pool or off the beach for a few hours each day, so women can swim without having to be seen in bathing suits considered perfectly modest by our standards.
And “gym clothes” doesn’t have to mean “shorts and a T-shirt.” If these women don’t want men looking at their bare legs and arms, they can wear long-sleeved, long-legged, baggy sweatsuits.
Comment by Eric Scharf —
March 27, 2008 @ 12:34 am
It’s all about weighing marginal costs. My pool got so crowded that I decided to put my eyes out so I could swim during the ladies-only sessions and not compromise their modesty.
I’ve saved a bundle on porn, too.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 27, 2008 @ 12:41 am
KWK-
Your concern doesn’t really bug me too much. Leonard’s concern seems more significant to me.
Yeah, we’d all like a gym schedule that exactly matches our own. Perfect fairness would probably mean that we divvy up the machines between male, female and co-ed areas so that everything is equal at all times. But, you know, I just can’t get too worked up if I can’t always go to the gym exactly when I want. Yes, I’m aware that a similar argument could be raised against almost any form of discrimination, but I just can’t work up too much righteous indignation over having to slightly modify my gym schedule because they’re trying to juggle several different and rather irrational standards among their clients. I dunno, maybe I’m a bad classical liberal, but I just can’t get my outrage juices flowing over this. Once I figured out just how arbitrary these modesty standards are, and that accommodation of modesty standards is one of those practical things we do so that people can coexist, I just got more mellow about it.
Of course, for 2 years I swam at a gym with very irregular lap swim hours. So maybe that’s why it’s hard for me to feel the cosmic injustice of a male Harvard student having slightly fewer hours of gym time.
Leonard’s concern is more significant: Given that gender segregation is OK when accommodating arbitrary standards of modesty, how far does it go? If a Harvard kid needs to reschedule his use of the weight room, well, life’s hard, kid. But the slippery slope issue is more significant.
I guess I’ll worry about the next step, not this step. I think the gym issue is an extension of the perfectly legitimate sex segregation that happens in locker rooms. The issue of principle is entangled with a more mundane issue, and so compromise seems OK (at least up to some point). I’ll wait for a context where there’s less reason to compromise.
Comment by Jennifer —
March 27, 2008 @ 8:29 am
I think the gym issue is an extension of the perfectly legitimate sex segregation that happens in locker rooms. The issue of principle is entangled with a more mundane issue, and so compromise seems OK (at least up to some point).
But as has been pointed out already, same-sex locker rooms doesn’t mean one sex is entirely denied the use of a locker room so the other one can have it. Suppose the men wanted men-only hours because they felt it was immodest to have to look at sexy women while they’re working out?
I think the ones who should compromise here are the overly modest women–if you don’t want men looking at your arms and legs, wear a sweatsuit rather than shorts and a T-shirt.
Comment by dhex —
March 27, 2008 @ 10:40 am
i may be in the severe minority here, but i neither think it’s particularly silly nor particularly offensive.
then again, i don’t go to hahvahd so yeah.
Suppose the men wanted men-only hours because they felt it was immodest to have to look at sexy women while they’re working out?
insert david barton gym joke here.
[then insert “insert” joke here]
triple play!
Comment by mds —
March 27, 2008 @ 10:43 am
Slightly fewer hours of gym time at the Quad gym. See, crazily enough, Harvard has more than one gymnasium, and these special hours are only for one of them. Male Harvard students can always head to Malkin Athletic Center (the primary recreational facility), or to Hemenway Gym. So although it’s still somewhat oppressive for the historically underprivileged male students, it’s merely less convenient for those men living nearest QRAC to work out during those times, not impossible.
And regardless of whom the request came from, since it’s “women only” hours rather than “Muslim women only” hours, it’s probably on somewhat firmer legal footing.
Anyway, what I’m really upset about is the way Astrophysics keeps reserving the Quad gym floor from noon to 2. Lousy stargazing scientists. Help help, I’m being repressed.
(Also, dhex wins by sheer recursion.)
Comment by Thoreau —
March 27, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Regarding unfairness:
Like I said, to me this is about accommodating different modesty standards, so it’s hard to get too upset over it. Now, I recognize that the people with the non-standard modesty concerns here happen to be female, so that means some inherent inequity in access. To me, that’s not really a problem. If instead of categorizing people by gender we categorize them by their modesty requirements, then this is a fair arrangement. A small fraction of the community gets exclusive use for a small fraction of the time.
Well, other women get to use it then too. Is it strictly fair that those women get it during that time? I dunno. I have better things to worry about than making sure every Harvard student gets equal hours on every piece of equipment in every gym. I do guarantee that some Harvard students are very aggrieved over this, and I leave it to Harvard’s administrators to find some compromise that minimizes the amount of whining they have to put up with. It’s one of the few things that academic administrators know how to get right….about 50% of the time anyway.
The bigger issue here is the one raised by Leonard, and I don’t know how to respond to that. I’ll need to think about it.
As to Jennifer’s point: You do make a good point. As I recall there are Islamic “burkinis” that are basically full-body swimsuits. Surely there must be some halal exercise clothes for women. If the number of groups with different modesty requirements continues to grow, maybe it makes sense to tell people to either cover up or stop exercising.
Comment by Jennifer —
March 27, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
As I think about this more, it strieks me as the flip side of the same vile coin that forces Saudi women into those dreadful abayas: men in Sharia countries say “it is the responsibility of women to prevent me from having lustful thoughts about them; this is not MY problem, it’s the WOMEN who have to make an effort to solve it, by dressing up like a laundry pile wherever they go, because Allah forbid we men be expected to control our own damned impulses.”
And at Harvard, it’s women saying “we don’t want men looking at our arms and legs. This is OUR problem, but THEY have to make an effort to solve it by not being allowed in the gym, because Allah forbid we women be expected to cover with a sweatsuit those body parts we don’t want other people staring at.”
It’s YOUR problem, ladies. YOU deal with it.
Comment by captured shadow —
March 27, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
I worry about the slippery slope arguments on this one and agree with Jennifer.
If women are uncomfortable in exercising in front of men, what about whites that are uncomfortable eating in front of blacks. Can we have segregated restaurants on the same principle?
Curves is private, so can exclude men? Can I open a grocery store where women are not allowed? Is everyone ok with that?
Comment by dhex —
March 27, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
And at Harvard, it’s women saying “we don’t want men looking at our arms and legs. This is OUR problem, but THEY have to make an effort to solve it by not being allowed in the gym, because Allah forbid we women be expected to cover with a sweatsuit those body parts we don’t want other people staring at.”
no, not really.
comfort is comfort. they pursued a request, and it was granted. it’s not particularly pushy - we’re talking a few hours here and there - and with the considerable amount of gym space, as mentioned above, it doesn’t seem like much of an imposition.
here’s another angle to pursue: does harvard offer kosher meal options? or vegetarian options?
this is far closer to that than some kind of “we’re a bunch of pussies” thing.
Comment by Jennifer —
March 27, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
here’s another angle to pursue: does harvard offer kosher meal options? or vegetarian options?
That analogy only applies if you ask “Does Harvard offer kosher meals whilst denying cafeteria access to anyone who does NOT eat kosher?” This isn’t about “comfort,” this is about exclusion. If those pompous, self-centered, “the world must cater to my needs” fools believe their legs and arms are so delectable no man can look at them without going nuts, they can damned well wear sweatpants.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 27, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Eh, lots of campuses have multiple eateries. What if there was a special eatery that only offered kosher food at certain times of the week, akin to one of the gyms (but not the only gym) offering female-only access a few hours per week?
What if Harvard decided to go after the crucial Megan McArdle demographic and only offer vegan cuisine in one of its eateries? (See, I can combine threads!)
Comment by Jennifer —
March 28, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Eh, lots of campuses have multiple eateries. What if there was a special eatery that only offered kosher food at certain times of the week, akin to one of the gyms (but not the only gym) offering female-only access a few hours per week?
Still not the same thing. You can eat and enjoy kosher food even if you are not religiously obligated to do so–I personally wouldn’t mind a big ol’ pile of lox and cream cheese on a bagel right now. And I’m still against the idea “I have standards of modesty more stringent than the societal norm, but instead of ME being the one who must adjust to this, OTHERS must be forced to adjust to this instead.”
If I don’t want men seeing what I look like in shorts and a T-shirt, I’ll wear long sleeves and pants rather than insist “I have the RIGHT to wear shorts without men’s eyes upon me, so the men have to leave.”
Comment by Gene Callahan —
March 28, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Diana wrote:
“But one group has forced its puritanical will on an entire college community.”
No, Miss Oatmeal-for-brains, that would be the case if Moslems got a rule enacted which didn’t allow any mixed sex workouts for other groups. They are just asking for a chance to follow their own rules.
“The fact is, you can’t integrate a large number of Muslims into a modern society. Impossible.”
Probably what’s impossible is to find a working neural connection in the skull of the author of that sentence. I live just off Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. There are scads of Moslems here — integrated just fine. My kids go to school with them, they attend birthday parties together, I shop at their stores.
Lest I seem a little harsh on Diana, remember: these are just the kind of sentiments that paved the way for the Holocaust, and a Moslem Holocaust is just what many of the wingnuts want.
Comment by matthew hogan —
March 28, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
“Lest I seem a little harsh on Diana, remember: these are just the kind of sentiments that paved the way for the Holocaust, and a Moslem Holocaust is just what many of the wingnuts want.”
A little harsh, the moderates just want them behind barbed wire.
Comment by Jennifer —
March 29, 2008 @ 11:18 am
They are just asking for a chance to follow their own rules.
No, they’re demanding the chance to force their own rules on others, by declaring an entire gym off-limits to those whose bits are of the “dangly” rather than “tucked-away” variety. As I’ve said umpteen times in this thread, if a woman doesn’t want men seeing her arms, legs or bodily curves when she works out, there’s plenty of gym-clothing options that will keep her sufficiently covered up and shapeless. To hell with the idea “I am the one who has problems with modern modesty standards, so you are the one who must modify your behavior to make me comfortable.”