- May 7, 2012
- 8,209
- 17,372
I agree completely. The problem is that a rule was put in place that was left so wide open to interpretation that it has become a joke.I mean, technically the rule is being followed.
But if it looks like a bare belly, then even if she's technically covered by clothes, is she really? If a boy's uniform is a skin-tone top with a six-pack painted on, then technically he's wearing enough clothes, but also, is he?
An existential question for our times.
I never saw this rule as a way to protect younger kids from being over sexualized or to make cheer more family friendly for the under 10 population, because if that had been the intention from the start then there would have been no vagueness to it. This just gave uniform companies and gyms a boost to their revenue because once it went into place, new uniforms had to be purchased or existing ones needed to be modified.