We're snooping your pages.  We're creeping your posts.  We're sharing your stuff.
We will not discriminate.  (Although we will often poke fun.)


Millions of dollars spent to ensure you remain insecure if you belong to a gym

This Snoop is about a phenomenon that most folks who go to gyms have probably been unwittingly witnessing, even if they haven't yet remarked on it.  The idea that gyms (well, more like "healthy clubs") are more and more retrofitting their locker rooms to cater to privacy – as if being isolated is somehow a "higher privilege" and "value."

It's a light perspective piece from the New York Times focusing on the millions and millions of dollars being spent by mid- to higher-priced "fitness clubs" to create a more private experience in their locker rooms.  The agenda is to send the way of the dodo group showers, rows of lockers and simplified set-ups.

The agenda?  To pamper those with body insecurity.  Which on the surface seems quite benign and even savvy.  However, it left us at The Snoop to wonder: if we set up the gym to affirm insecurity, how effective will it be in developing confidence?  

When we gain comforting privacy, do we forfeit building confidence?

When we gain comforting privacy, do we forfeit building confidence?

Certainly the social structures of locker room set-ups  – based on ideas that man has used for literally millennia (as imperfect and occasionally stomach churning as they can be) – must hold some value towards personal psychological development of positive body image, confidence and peace?  Yet, to gain profit, gyms are now actually attempting to cater to the opposite standpoint; specifically, to encourage body insecurity and social discomfort to such a degree that they can make more money by providing "privacy services."  

Which seems a rip-off to us. But then again, we aren't the ones pulling in those dollars, now are we?