MIXED BATHING.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1390, 16 March 1912, Page 14

MIXED BATHING.

PROTEST BY METHODIST CONFERENCE. At the afternoon sitting of the Methodist Conference l in Melbourne on March 5, tho Itey. T. Adamson moved, in accordance, with notice: ■ "That in view of tho distinctly immoral conditions at present being created by tho practice of mixed bathing, this conference protests against the continuance of tho practice as at present prevailing, and urges upon tho Government the necessity of using-its powers to control municipal action in this matter." Ho said he was placed in a position by his circuit duties to understand tho set of conditions created by mixed bathing. On tho foreshores from Port Melbourne, through Albert Park, to St. Kilda, and beyond, o deplorable condition of things existed. Police officers who wero watching the bench very closely were powerless to prevent the evil. Residents of Beaconsfleld Parade—a residential area along the foreshore—had told him. and he had seen for himself, that on summer's evening thero was hideous , immorality along tho beach. That statement was not too strong. The association of men and i women under the existing conditions, was simply deplorable. Pcoplo had only to read their newspapers to find out what was going on. It was all very well to talk about the bathers being clad. The technicalities of the law were observed, but in point of fact tho custom of being properly dressed was evaded. Tho position along-the foreshore at Albert Park had Iwen so bad that no modest woman could bo associated with mixed bathing, and no man who had a remnant of respect for the opposite sex could give his adhesion to the practice. When he gave notice of his motion several members of conference stated that they had been associated with mixed bathing with their wives and daughters. He thought that if some of those who advocated mixed bathing could hear what was said about them they would bs startled. The Rev. R. Ditterich pointed out that mixed bathing was not evil in all circumstances. It was often carried on under very proper conditions. Families banded togethor, and against that kind of thing no objection could be urged, • Mr. Lewis thought the conference 1 should protest against "promiscuous bathing" only. The Rev. J. L. Green said ho had been astonished to see hundreds of men and women in tho water together. The municipalities of South Melbourne, Port Melbourne, and Middle Park ought to insist upon tho areas on which the women's sheds wero placed being closed to men. He had ecen men rush out of tho men's ehed3 to the ground in front of the I women's Bhed.i. The Rev. R. Ditterich said that some of the councils had already adopted regulations dealing with this aspect of the question. Tho Rev. A. T, Holden said there wns a danger of blaming a oustom as ■h. wholo which was only objectionr.blo in part. It would neither be fair nor right to say that mixed bathing wae in all instances associated with tho evils that j had been referred to. The Rev. Alexander M'Callura moved as an amendment that:— "In view of the fact that in connection with the practice of mixed bathing certain evil tendencies hnvo become manifest, we urge the Government to use its power to direct municipal notion so that the practice of mixed bathing may bo wit'oly controlled." Mr! Vi. H. Day saiil that country visitors to the seaside looked upon bathing as ono of their chief pleasures. As long as the bathers were properly dressed there could bo no possible liarm. His own experience of nampton was thnt bathing was carried on under ndmirable conditions during the week days. Indulgence in mixed bathing could not be prohibited. Ho admitted that the practico was not so pleasant on a Sunday, "when pcoplo flock to Hampton from here." (Loud laughter.) By "here" he meant Melbourne, not the conference. (Laughter, and near, hear.) Tho amendment was carried. The Rev. T, Adamson: Move will bo heard of tho subject if tho conditions we not tltored.