HISTORICAL TREASURE: To swim or not to swim … that was the question

By Linda Patrick
Special to the Tribune-Star

TERRE HAUTE June 28, 2008 08:33 pm

— Now that the hot days of summer are here, what better way to cool off than to head for the nearest beach or neighborhood swimming pool? This week’s historic treasures are examples of Victorian swimwear. Actual swimming was considered much too athletic for ladies, so a typical “swim” was just a brief dip in the water with ladies on one side of the beach and men on the other. Modesty was the rule; it was considered proper to keep the skin white and untouched by the sun.
Women wore dark, knee-length, puffed-sleeved dresses of wool or heavy flannel. Weights were sewn into the hem to keep the skirt from floating up. The dress was worn over bloomers or drawers. Long dark stockings, lace-up bathing slippers and a fancy cap completed the ensemble. Lest someone should catch a glimpse of the female form, after the “swim” little horse-drawn cabanas were driven out into the water to pick up the bathers. Later, hoods were added to the contraption to allow the lady to emerge from the water unseen.
Coverage was required for men as well, though not as extreme as for women. Going bare-chested was frowned upon, so a boxy, tank-style top was worn with long, blousy, mid-calf pants. The “Bathing Suit Regulations” published in May of 1917 stated that men’s suits “had to be worn with a skirt or have at least a skirt effect. The skirt had to be worn outside of the trunks.” The other alternative was to wear flannel knee pants with a vest. Change came gradually. But the first “modern” swim trunks were cumbersome; Jantzen’s first prototype weighed 9 lbs. when fully soaked and had the unfortunate tendency of slipping down in the water!
Over time the public’s concern with nudity passed and swimwear fashions became more revealing. So, as you head out the door for the beach, be sure to take a good sunscreen along, there’s a lot more skin visible these days.