It seems like a pretty good idea, swimwear that doesn’t get wet, as noted in the Frank Anthony Kickstarter campaign (the comments about the design are after the technology descriptions),
We were tired of having to change shorts every time you leave the beach, having car seats soaked and not being able to go from the beach to a restaurant. We decided to look at different topical applications for use but shortly found out they changed the texture of the fabric and had no way of being used on garments. We decided to scrap the idea and look for the perfect alternative. We found the leading textile manufacturer who specializes in high performance nanotechnology fabrics operating out of Switzerland, and focused extensively on creating the most visually appealing and scientifically advanced pair of swim shorts in the world.
The technical description leaves a little to be desired, from the campaign page,
The fabric we use has a hydrophobic nanostructure inside the actual fabric itself, making it breathable and completely safe for use. We are currently the only swimwear company on the market using this hydrophobic nanotechnology fabric. This fabric has proven to drastically reduce dry-times by up to 95% in contrast to regular 100% polyester swim shorts.
The shorts are manufactured in Italy with Swiss Fabric.
What is Swiss fabric? There are synthetics, cotton, linen, etc. There’s even a ‘dotted Swiss’ but that’s a sheer cotton. Perhaps the writer meant Swiss-made fabric. As for the “hydrophobic nanostructure [i.e., water-repelling like a lotus leaf],” does this mean some Swiss manufacturer has developed a new technique? This is possible, Teijin, a Japanese multinational, claimed they’d produced a fabric having nanoscale properties that were carried over to the macroscale in a July 19, 2010 about a fabric based on the nanostructures found on a Morpho butterfly’s wing.
Getting back to the swimshorts, they can be washed (how do you clean something with water when it repels water?),
Yes, they should be washed with like colours and there is no need to iron or dry clean them. The Hydrophobic Nanotechnology is not affected by any form of washing and will not deteriorate.
I found a possible answer to the ‘washing question from the comments section of this Kickstarter campaign,
… our shorts are made up of billions of nanoscale whisker like barriers preventing any water based liquid from absorption. When the shorts are fully submerged underwater you will see a silver appearance on the exterior. This is [sic] the air bubbles the nanotechnology is creating around the garment protecting it from the water surrounding the short. When you come out of the water, the most our users will experience are droplets on the exterior of the short, there will be no actual water absorbed within the fabric itself due to it’s nano structure. We’ve found this makes our shorts dry on average 95% faster then any other swim short on the market using polyester or nylon. I hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for your support!
So, the shorts do get wet but dry very, very quickly.
There is a May 23, 2014 article by Amanda Kooser for CNET.com which features an interview with Franky Shaw, CEO (chief executive officer) of the start-up company producing the swim shorts,
“We have created a unique polyester blend that incorporates hydrophobic nanotechnology within the fabric, making it completely free of any hazardous effects topical nanotechnology coatings may possess. With the nanotechnology inside the fabric preventing all water-based substances from absorption, you are able to freely wash our shorts just like any other clothing item, without the fear of reducing its hydrophobic capabilities,” says Shaw.
Interestingly, while this news is making a bit of splash and is being featured on a number of site along with pictures, no one is including this Lexis design,
[downloaded from http://www.frankanthonyshorts.com/collections/all]
I’m trying to imagine who’d wear this with an image placed so the model appears to be staring into his (the wearer’s) crotch, mouth held invitingly open.
Given the May 23, 2014 killings in Isla Vista, California (you can find an accounting of this extended killing spree in a May 25, 2014 article in the National Post), the Lexis design provides an unexpected (I don’t usually see this sort of thing in nanotechnology-enabled product marketing) example of the pervasive nature of the disrespect offered to women.
From a May 25, 2014 essay by Katie McDonough on Salon.com, Note: Links have been removed,
We don’t yet know much about the six innocent women and men who were killed in Isla Vista, California late Friday night [May 23, 2014], but we have come to know a few things about the man who is alleged to have murdered them. Hours before he is believed to have fatally stabbed and shot six people and wounded 13 others in that coastal college town, Elliot Rodger filmed a video of himself — palm trees behind him, the glow of an orange sun highlighting his young face — and vowed to get “revenge against humanity.”
There’s a lot more in the video, and the 140-page “manifesto” he left in his apartment. Rodger felt victimized by women, whom he appeared to desire and loathe simultaneously. He expressed anger and resentment toward other men, often because of their relationships with women. …
It would be irresponsible to lay this violence at the feet of the men’s rights activists with whom Rodger seemed to find support for his rage. Rodger is alleged to have murdered six women and men. No amount of Internet vitriol — no unfulfilled threats of violence — can equal that. But it also denies reality to pretend that Rodger’s sense of masculine entitlement and views about women didn’t matter or somehow existed in a vacuum. The horror of Rodger’s alleged crimes is unique, but the distorted way he understood himself as a man and the violence with which he discussed women — the bleak and dehumanizing way he judged them — is not. Just as we examine our culture of guns once again in the wake of yet another mass shooting, we must also examine our culture of misogyny and toxic masculinity, which devalues both women’s and men’s lives and worth, and inflicts real and daily harm. We must examine the dangerous normative values that treat women as less than human, and that make them — according to Elliot Rodger — deserving of death. [emphasis mine]
McDonough’s May 27, 2014 posting about Rodger has a title that allows me to take my commentary on the Lexis design from one of mere bad taste to an indication of something far more disturbing, “Rebecca Solnit on Elliot Rodger: “He fits into a culture of rage,” “a culture that considers women tools and playthings and property.” Getting back to Lexis, she’s on a pair of swim shorts where she looks as if she’s perpetually ready to perform a sexual act. She is at once a tool, a plaything, and a piece of property.
This is a Canadian (based in Toronto, Ontario according to the Kickstarter page) company and their Frank Anthony swim short Kickstarter campaign is doing well having achieved over $20,000 in pledges towards at $10,000 goal and with 26 days left.
Final questions, did the model know how her image was going to be used? Is the company getting orders for the Lexis design? If so, how many? And, why in God’s name hasn’t the company removed that design from its marketing collateral and from production?
I think that bit in McDonough’s essay where she notes that both men’s and women’s lives are devalued by misogyny and objectification is in that category of observations that is least understood by the people who most need it. I offer my sympathies to all those affected by the killings and injuries in Isla Vista.