Bikinis and Modesty - A Mother Responds to her Daughter

[Miriam_Westen]

Do you agree with this Mom?..
Bikinis are Culturally Modest? - Try to Avoid being an Object of Temptation this Summer - Share!
jceworld.blogspot.ca/2014/06/bikinis-are-culturally-modest-try-to.html
For More…
LIKE fb.com/catholicnewsworld

 

[PaulfromIowa]

video at the site: The Evolution of the swim suit:

youtube.com/watch?v=WJVHRJbgLz8

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Her swimsuits are beautiful. I think that some of them would be called immodest here, though. Not sure. Either way, they’re very attractive, very flattering, but not bikinis. I might ask my wife if she would like one as a summertime gift!

 

[phil19034]

Do you agree with this Mom?..
Bikinis are Culturally Modest? - Try to Avoid being an Object of Temptation this Summer - Share!
jceworld.blogspot.ca/2014/06/bikinis-are-culturally-modest-try-to.html
For More…
LIKE fb.com/catholicnewsworld

Overall, a good article. I wish more girls and women would wear the tankini or swim dress. To me, bikinis are more reveling than most bras and panties. I’ve never understood why some women don’t mind wearing a bikini in public, but don’t want people to see them in their underwear

 

[FrenzyJen]

That’s so funny!! I know who that girl is on paper but didn’t realize that it was her until she showed her swimsuits. I actually bought one a few weeks ago. Expensive but SO cute, and so worth it!! Fun fact: the young lady giving the speech is a former Power Ranger!!!

 

[SerbCath]

Overall, a good article. I wish more girls and women would wear the tankini or swim dress. To me, bikinis are more reveling than most bras and panties. I’ve never understood why some women don’t mind wearing a bikini in public, but don’t want people to see them in their underwear

The reason you don’t understand it is because it doesn’t make sense. There is no functionally significant difference between bikinis and underwear.

 

[twf]

To some extent it is culturally relative. The swimsuits on that particular page, why very modest compared to what most women in our society wear, would have gotten you stoned in first century Israel…and at the very least shunned even a mere century ago.

 

[Xantippe]

The reason you don’t understand it is because it doesn’t make sense. There is no functionally significant difference between bikinis and underwear.

Bikini bottoms are more opaque than panties.

 

[SerbCath]

Bikini bottoms are more opaque than panties.

Like I said–no functionally significant difference. If you have seen a woman in a bikini, you have seen her in her underwear. And it takes no imagination at all to know what she looks like naked.

 

[manualman]

…And it takes no imagination at all to know what she looks like naked.

And takes a lot of self discipline NOT to know what she looks like naked. More than most of us have!

 

[Xantippe]

Like I said–no functionally significant difference. If you have seen a woman in a bikini, you have seen her in her underwear. And it takes no imagination at all to know what she looks like naked.

If you wear cotton underpants into the pool, they turn see-through (hence the popularity of the wet t-shirt contest).

Bikini bottoms are functionally different than underpants–they don’t turn see-through when wet.

(Swim suits are very different than normal clothes. My mom once, in a fit of desperation, tried to send me to the pool in a ballet leotard. Come to find out, while leotards and one-piece swimsuits look identical when dry, the leotard is see-through when wet. Lesson learned.)

 

[Cariethra]

I’ve never understood why some women don’t mind wearing a bikini in public, but don’t want people to see them in their underwear

I am so glad I’m not the only one who thinks this. I mean I get the fabric side of it… but it still seems silly.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Overall, a good article. I wish more girls and women would wear the tankini or swim dress. To me, bikinis are more reveling than most bras and panties. I’ve never understood why some women don’t mind wearing a bikini in public, but don’t want people to see them in their underwear

Different context. If you see a woman in a bikini there is a good chance she wants to be seen, whereas if she’s in underwear she has an expectation of privacy.

 

[phil19034]

Different context. If you see a woman in a bikini there is a good chance she wants to be seen, whereas if she’s in underwear she has an expectation of privacy.

I understand that… (In terms of a peeping Toms, privacy expectation, etc). But if a woman is willing to walk around in her back hard in a bikini, why not in her underwear? Unless wet, they look the same.

Society tells them that is ok to walk around in a bikini but not underwear. But as a man, both are “eye catching” and often bikinis (especially string bikinis) show more breast and potentially more of the area women wax…

 

[Anglewannabe]

The reason you don’t understand it is because it doesn’t make sense. There is no functionally significant difference between bikinis and underwear.

The difference is one is waterproof and the other isn’t. In high school I was too embarrassed to say ‘bra’ so I always referred to it as my ‘non-waterproof bikini top’

 

[Anglewannabe]

I personally think that some one pieces are designed to be sexy. The reason I like the 2 piece is because it makes using the washroom easier. I remember being at a beach and going into the woods and having to be topless to take care of business.

The problem with tankinis is they offer NO support and a bikini top offers better support. I think a well designed 2 piece is much better but they don’t make them modest

 

[fpt]

The wearing of the bikini in summer for swimming in the ocean or in the swimming pool, or for a sunbathing on the beach is not, by nature, a sinful action for the woman. There is no presumption of sin. The simple fact of saying or of believing the contrary is not linked to the catholic doctrine. *A big work of purification of mentalities, of intelligences, of believes and of views is necessary and has to be done. The american culture of some catholics on this topic is very particular!!!
*
As catholic lay person, morally speaking, we can not and we do not have to support:

The Mormon doctrine and the Mormon practice about the bikini;
The Catharist doctrine and the Catharist practice about the bikini;
The Jansenist doctrine and the Jansenist practice about the bikini;
The Puritan doctrine and the Puritan practice about the bikini;
The Victorian doctrine and the Victorian practice about the bikini;
The Muslim doctrine and the Muslim practice about the bikini;
The Jewish doctrine and the Jewish practice about the bikini;
The Protestant Evangelical doctrine and the Practices of Protestant Evangelics about the bikini;
The doctrines of “the born again” and the practice of the “born again” about the bikini;
The doctrine of the SSPX and her friends and / or of sedevacantists, and the practice of the SSPX and her friends and / or of sedevacantists about the bikini;
The doctrines of some catholic lay persons, very activist on the web, who are using “catholic” false documents about the bikini;

…

ETC.

Are you waiting a official document from the Holy See with the Pope’s signature , with the pontifical infallibility, explaining that, per se and morally speaking, the wearing of the bikini for a woman is *always *morally wrong, thus it is, by nature, sinful? If yes, you do not understand the catholicism and the catholicity. In this situation , you need to read the catechism and co with a “truly catholic interpreter”.

Today, no catholic has the power and the competence of stating that the wearing of bikini for a woman is, by nature, a sinful action. There is no presumption of sin. The simple fact of saying the contrary is a big symptom of……!!!

In my humble opinion, even the pope cannot, because** his competence is limited by the respect Natural law and by the will of God. *The competence of his competence coming from the natural law and coming from the divine law: competence and incompetence!!! *

You can wait long time, a such document will be never written and published by the Pope. I am a 99, 999999% sure.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I understand that… (In terms of a peeping Toms, privacy expectation, etc). But if a woman is willing to walk around in her back hard in a bikini, why not in her underwear? Unless wet, they look the same.

Society tells them that is ok to walk around in a bikini but not underwear. But as a man, both are “eye catching” and often bikinis (especially string bikinis) show more breast and potentially more of the area women wax…

Men might be an open book but the inner machinations of the female mind must remain an enigma. I admit I really don’t understand the underwear as outerwear or wearing bright neon colors while wanting to be ignored.

 

[naomily]

Men might be an open book but the inner machinations of the female mind must remain an enigma. I admit I really don’t understand the underwear as outerwear or wearing bright neon colors while wanting to be ignored.

Perhaps certain clothes bring women self-confidence. Wearing an outfit that makes you feel attractive and competent does not mean you automatically want every Tom, Dick, and Harry staring at or approaching you.

There is no such thing as the female mind. Women are rational creatures the same as men as if you don’t understand the actions of one, I suggest you speak to her rather than denigrate an entire sex.

 

[Rau]

I suppose speedos are the same as men’s underwear too? Is seeing men’s thighs when they go swimming a problem?