SpeedoForum.org

Jace - Im a little confused. What exactly does that involve seeing? The outline of the penis through the speedo?

Alex

wierd... lol

personally... unless it's a (very!) dark coloured speedo, i expect to see penis. if not... something is terribly wrong. hahaha.

Never heard that before either but I love it.

I only really have one when I'm at least half hard and being cut I think it looks pretty hot.

Here is a pic that I thought of when I read your post Jace.

Time to bump that guy's bump...

VPL is about showing a bit of detail. That guy is showing lots more than detail.

Jace! You could claim discrimination if your employer doesn't fire females for the same behavior. Here's a bit of humor I penned a while back about how guys are mistreated:

Labor leaders report a trend by employers to allegedly create a barrier to employment which appears to be an unlawful attempt to control the dress and/or behavio rof certain of their employees. To wit, the employers prohibit erections on or about the bodies of swimming pool attendants and/or lifeguards wearing Speedo® swim trunks, hereinafter referred to as Speedos.

Although the employer may require the wearing of a uniform or costume such as a Speedo®, he must provide them to the employee at no cost, and furthermore, must show a reasonable business need in order to enforce a dress code. The employer shall provide in writing what standards the employee must meet. Such standards must apply equally to male and female employees regardless of age, race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation. In fact, the Americans With Disabilities Act would also apply if the employee claims the size, shape, or appearance of his/her penis constitutes a real or believed disability.

Neither federal nor state labor codes contain a definition of what constitutes an erection, provide a standard for the determination of whether an erection does or does not exist, provide direction for the measurement thereof, or provide a suitable method of mitigation should an employee allegedly sustain an erection while on duty.

Neither is there a stated time limit within which an allegedly erect employee must come into compliance if in fact such a code did exist.

An employer in such an instance would be hard-pressed to sustain disciplinary action against or discharge the employee. If the employee protests his discharge as being unlawful, the burden of proof falls on the employer to prove that the employee maliciously and with forethought became erect with intent to harm the well being of the employer.

It further appears that an attempt by an employer to require the wearing of an athletic supporter in concert with the Speedo would constitute unlawful restraint. Such a move would call for an immediate release of the detainee.

Persons who experience a problem due to wearing a Speedo on the job should contact their local chapter of the Society for the Protection of Speedo Wearers in America (SPSWA) or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for legal assistance.