Sava Stoisavljevic, herself an elegant dresser, imposed the new rule, “I heard many comments from spectators and coaches. … There is dress code in many different sports, and we decided to establish our rules as well.”
… Players who are in violation of the new rules will receive several verbal and written warnings before being forced to leave the competition if they still refuse to comply. Stoisavljevis said they had noticed a lot of improper clothing during tournaments and decided something needed to be done.
The New York Times elaborates:
Headgear, except for religious reasons, is not allowed. Players must be “free of body odor.” Clothing should be free of holes and have “a pulled-together, harmonious, complete look.” And only jewelry “coordinated to the outfit may be worn.”
This is especially strange since the event is sponsored by a company that makes lipstick. Surely, a rule that restricts the wearing of perfume and jewelry will also restrict the wearing of lipstick. Has the lipstick company been informed of this rule? Will they withdraw their sponsorship?
And sweaters and other low cut tops? Do they have a visable cleavage measurmemt that is a function of breast and cup size? The absurdity of this entire misguided effort is clear. I suspect one of the women might go to the ECHR for a ruling.
I would say in this case the sponsor care and as such they can set a dress code. Professional dress usually falls in the suit and tie/dress to business casual range. That entails clothing that doesn’t show cleavage, shorts, t-shirts, etc.
When someone asks questions like you did, it shows the unwillingness to debate the issue in any serious manner. Or I can assume you would be perfectly happy if a woman showed up in a string bikini to play her match. Since I doubt that, I can take your questions as an attempt to avoid discussing appropriate dress.
Personally, it isn’t a given that I’d be happy with a female opponent in a string bikini. Depends on the player. Maya C. never. Most women are more distracting to me in c-o-c-k-t-a-i-l dresses and nice perfume. That doesn’t even require significant cleavage. Of course, as with everything involving women, they have the ultimate power. All they have to do is say no. I doubt a sponsor will pay for top women’s tournaments when top women refuse to knuckle under.
This topic is so completely inappropriate, the mind boggles that it has been allowed to stand, even after complaints have been registered. All this topic accomplishes is to allow Sam Sloan to sit back and enjoy what he has started. All of you should be ashamed of yourselves for perpetuating this nonsense.
@sawmiller.
I think it is ridiculous for a dress code to be imposed as it has been. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant as it is a clear chess news issue in both chess and main stream press. Sam Sloan raised it here as the legitmate news/issue it is in the world of chess. What has followed is reasoned discussion (some tongue in cheek) regarding some of the logical absurdities of dress codes in general and this one specifically. Don’t forget, it was the ECU that created the cleavage test and two button rule.
So, Tim, this is less about Sam and more about your perceptions/values. You seem to be becoming increasingly Puritianesque in your old age.
Many pro and amatuer sports teams and organizations have guidelines for on and off court dress and appearance.
The NBA regulates the appearance of players on the bench when they are not suited up for game. Other sports leagues also do this. Haven’t you ever been in an airport when a pro or college sports team goes through the room?
Do lawyers appear in tank-tops, shorts and sandals in the court room or even in the court house? Symphony players appear on stage in Mu-Mu’s? Your child’s teacher in a bathing suit?
The wording may not be exactly right but if the wording was the other direction to just a general statement that some official can abritary determine professional appearance, you would be complaining about that.
Silly, silly, Silly. There are “dress codes” in many places. This one appears silly on its face; made by silly people for what appear to be personal sensibilities of the rule makers and not due to sponsor complaints. The question begs–Who are the authorized cleavage and button enforcers? Foolish, foolish, foolish.
How do you know what the sponsor wants or does not want?
I know when you are being serious (and it is greatly appreciated) and when you are just hurling bombs for the sure joy of it (and sometimes it is funny and sometimes it is just tedious).
Perhaps you should volunteer so no great injustice occurs.
