Bikinis are immodest - why exactly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Litcrit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monicatholic,

I’ll admit, I do not have any pictures currently, but I’ll try to find some (my own camera is at school and I generally do not ask for my picture to be taken. I don’t like my pictures, lol). Or would you just like a picture of the suit? Make of it what you will.

Also, it’s not the look of a tan I like as the feel, although the look isn’t too bad either. It’s the feeling of the sun on my skin. Now, I wouldn’t ever strip naked to get that feeling, but still. When I’m on the beach in my bathing suit, I don’t feel that my body is something to be ashamed of. I rather appreciate that God made me the way I am, despite any physical flaws (and I have a few, lol).

Seriously, men do not treat me any differently when I’m in a bikini than when I’m in jeans and a long sleeved shirt. They look me in the eye and treat me like a sister.

So if a man gets aroused a woman should do something about it? I understand that argument, but I also know that this is used to oppress women in the Middle East. In Iran, a woman’s ankle is thought to arouse men (and I’m not exaggerating, I’ve read personal accounts by Iranian women). And yes, culture is important. There are some countries where women are expected to be modest and pure but the only clothing is meant to cover the bare essentials (and yes, women are topless too). There are naked men and women painted in churches in Europe. Catholic churches! That people attend Mass in! I guess men avoid going to Mass in those churches?

I have never seen a man lose complete control due to what a woman is wearing.

As for skin cancer, I do wear sun screen and limit exposure. But if I wanted to completely eliminate the possibility, I’d have to stay inside forever. For me, that’s not an option. I like being outside:) Also, I know many people who’ve had it and it was more on their faces, in areas where people typically forget to sun screen.

Haha, Bama Rider! Exactly what I was thinking!
 
I have been known to walk for half an hour to the beach just to have an isolated spot for myself. Just the sea, the sun, and me. That’s my ideal. If there’s the slightest chance of finding a secluded spot, I’ll go to great lengths to find it and use it.

If I’m only wearing a bikini to excite lust and for no other purpose (like enjoying the sea and the sun on my skin), wouldn’t I seek out those men? Wouldn’t I go to a crowded beach?

It just doesn’t make sense to make a sweeping generalization on why women wear two-piece swimsuits. 🤷
 
There seems to be a focus in this thread that it is entirely the woman’s responsibility to “help” the men not lust. I don’t think that does justice to either gender, personally. Am I supposed to believe that men are so weak and lustful that seeing a little skin will lead them to sin? I understand the concept of temptation, and I do think it’s important for women to be modest. But standards of modesty are different for everyone. Some people think breastfeeding in public is immodest; am I supposed to not feed my child when he is hungry because some pig finds it arousing? I think it can be the same with swimsuits. While yes, there are women who dress immodestly on purpose to attract the looks of men, there are many more who don’t.
 
Two-piece swimsuits are not necessarily immodest. Full cups might well be more modest than tank tops.

Overall, unless it’s really skimpy or contains eye-catching devices, I generally fail to find it more immodest than much of the things which are worn these days, especially blouses with lots of cleavage, which were considered fine already several decades ago.
 
Litcrit said:
I have been known to walk for half an hour to the beach just to have an isolated spot for myself. Just the sea, the sun, and me. That’s my ideal. If there’s the slightest chance of finding a secluded spot, I’ll go to great lengths to find it and use it.

If I’m only wearing a bikini to excite lust and for no other purpose (like enjoying the sea and the sun on my skin), wouldn’t I seek out those men? Wouldn’t I go to a crowded beach?

It just doesn’t make sense to make a sweeping generalization on why women wear two-piece swimsuits. 🤷
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!!!
 
“Belly buttons are the window to the womb”

If only someone had told my ob/gyn that - so much easier!

Thank you, thank you to whoever posted that - it made me laugh so much! 🙂 🙂 🙂

On topic - I don’t see that anyone has the right to tell another person what to wear. We can educate and inform, “how about thinking about it this way”, but trying to control someone else’s conscience is inappropriate for adults.
 
I suppose the point of the ladies in the flapper swimsuits was to provoke a group response of “how ridiculous!!!” Consider: by our scoffing at their fashion, we may be displaying a certain amount of ungodly pride. How far above all that silliness we are!!

We often use the argument of the downward spiral in other discussions. Why is it not evident here?
There seems to be a focus in this thread that it is entirely the woman’s responsibility to “help” the men not lust. I don’t think that does justice to either gender, personally.
Click to expand...
***Helping ***a man not to lust is dissimilar than it being entirely responsibile to keep another from lusting. It is every persons’ responsibility to help others avoid sin. St. Paul tells us to ***not tempt the weaker brethern. *** in Catholic vernacular, we say we shouldn’t be ***an occasion of sin ***to others.

… so I did a search, hoping to find something of a two piece that might qualify as modest. I did, sort of. – it was on the Nike site, (but it won’t be copied and pasted) the suit inclued 2 pieces-- the top like a running tank cut rib high and the bottoms were boy cut. ***compared ***to bikinis, it’s less overtly sexually provocative.

but in my search, (outside of the two pieces that were tankinis-- in which tops covered the midrfiff, which is not the suit in question) there were bikinis. lots of them.

do a search on bikini (images) and see what comes up. women in two piece bathing suits, posing, arching, stretching, straining forward to highlight their cleavage, turning away to show off their behinds. if this suit is not intended to be sexually provocative, what is?

why would i want to argue for anything that might be remotely associated with these fashions? how could I argue that sexual arousal is not my personal intent when by putting on a bikini, my intent is subjugated to my action?

i’m glad LitCrit, that you would walk a half mile for a secluded spot-- but this topic came up discussing the parish pool party-- which will hardly be a secluded spot.

it’s a grace that you are content with the body that God gave you. that is His desire-- that we love what He created. but that love should be coupled with the virtue of modesty-- as the catechism defines it-- not as I define it.

modesty also requires us to not flaunt other gifts from God-- intelligence, virtue, etc. we shouldn’t flaunt our bodies either.

but should we hide them? the burkah was introduced as a point of argument- . God expects us to use the gifts he gave us in confident and humble ways. refusal to use one’s intelligence, refusal to display interior virtues, refusal to show ones identity, which is first recognized in appearance is wrong, too.

as is often the case, a good argument dissipates into a choice of either/ or– an unnecessary binary option:
either either I hate my body and cover it under a sack, o
r i love my body and display most of it to the world.

the catholic view (as is always the catholic view-- encompassing the universality of truths) is the best one. I love my body AND I protect some of the mystery of this person. we do it within the framework of cultural mores-- today, in this culture, I needn’t dress like a pilgrim. but I’d best be careful to not collapse to the current loss of standard.

this has been helpful for me. it’s good for me to revisit the “why’s” of my perspectives. thank you.
 
monicatholic said:
do a search on bikini (images) and see what comes up. women in two piece bathing suits, posing, arching, stretching, straining forward to highlight their cleavage, turning away to show off their behinds. if this suit is not intended to be sexually provocative, what is?
Click to expand...
Anything can be skewed as sexual - especially advertising and that’s a WHOLE different topic. Look up nylons, skirt, bra, panty, etc… and you’ll get some of the same poses. Heck, look up BMW and woman and the poses are really there. What about that shampoo commercial from Herbal Essences? That’s a pretty-much reinacted orgasm, but is shampoo immodest? The list could go on and on…

(this is not directed to monicatholic… just some general thoughts)
I just can’t agree with some on the board that make generalizations about anyone’s intentions (comfort, tan, sun, sex, water, etc…) based on a bathing suit — especially since nobody can agree on what constitutes a bikini.

This is one of those “agree to disagree” items. It’s fine to point out what one believes for themselves, but to start projecting other people’s motivations is ignorant.
 
Truth, if I had the body to wear a bikini, I would. I don’t, so I don’t. I asked my 24 yr old son, “do you think women wear bikinis on the beach to attract men?” And within a second he said, “Yes, of course”.

I haven’t been to the beach during season in almost 25 yrs. I have this fear that
(a)–Hancock will come by and throw me back in
(b)–I’ll end up hanging upside down from a wench
(c)–on the cover of Fisherman’s Monthly during the Marlin Tournament

I think it is equally disgusting for women and men who are “fat”…and I am…to wear skimpy bathing suits and/or skimpy clothes for that matter.

So I guess my son is right, we wear clothes to get noticed. Hmmm…I’ll have to think about that some more.🤷
 
And now a word from the Great Northwest: Beaches here are not for swimming, and if it’s hot on the beach, evacuate;) 'cause that ain’t weather. But cities are hot, and swimming at a pool or river means a long walk down concrete.
Therefore here is my:twocents: for my part of the world:
Beachwear: close-fitting wool or acrylic top, surfwear, clogs or surf socks, glowstick to signal for help if washed out. No swimming.
River and lake: Close-fitting, lightweight shorts and bodysuit, or old-style two-piece with pleated swimskirt and a minicape, are comfortable and fairly safe. Anything baggier is dangerous – it acts like a sail. If someone is staring at you, move away. Go with a friend, and bring a push-button alarm to signal Coast Guard if need be, unless you are experienced in whitewater activities. Children need floaties.
Public pool: Swimwear from before 1970 is probably modest enough.
If you have your own pool, you can do what you want in it, I would guess.
 
Anything can be skewed as sexual - especially advertising and that’s a WHOLE different topic. Look up nylons, skirt, bra, panty, etc… and you’ll get some of the same poses. Heck, look up BMW and woman and the poses are really there. What about that shampoo commercial from Herbal Essences? That’s a pretty-much reinacted orgasm, but is shampoo immodest? The list could go on and on…
Click to expand...
OK. fair enough.
I just can’t agree with some on the board that make generalizations about anyone’s intentions (comfort, tan, sun, sex, water, etc…) based on a bathing suit — especially since nobody can agree on what constitutes a bikini.
Click to expand...
to this I repeat. the ***intent ***of bikini wearing ***is subjugated to the the result ***of bikini wearing. I’ve made no guess or judgment why a woman would wear a bikini, because the result is what’s at issue. and the result is that men easily construe (or misconstrue as it were) the intent to be sexual arousal because their response IS sexual arousal.
 
Here’s a wiki article about bikini’s–maybe not the best source but interesting
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini

<<Catholic countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy banned the bikini. Decency leagues pressured Hollywood to keep bikinis from being featured in Hollywood movies. One writer described it as a “two piece bathing suit which reveals everything about a girl except for her mother’s maiden name.” Movie star Esther Williams once said: “A bikini is a thoughtless act.” Brigitte Bardot helped popularize the bikini in Europe in the 1950s, but the United States took longer to adopt it. Modern Girl magazine wrote in 1957, “It is hardly necessary to waste words over the so-called bikini since it is inconceivable that any girl with tact and decency would ever wear such a thing.”

In 1951 bikinis were banned from the Miss World Contest following the crowning of Miss Sweden in a bikini and subsequent protests with a number of countries threatening to withdraw. In 1957, however, Brigitte Bardot’s bikini in And God Created Woman created a market for the swimwear in the US, and in 1960, Brian Hyland’s pop song “Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini” inspired a bikini-buying spree.[6] By 1963, the movie Beach Party, starring Annette Funicello (emphatically not in a bikini, by mentor Walt Disney’s personal request) and Frankie Avalon, led a wave of films that made the bikini a pop-culture symbol.

The sex appeal of the apparel prompted numerous film and television productions as much as public morals>>

just as a thought 🙂
 
OK, so what I think I understand is that a bikini (but maybe not any two-piece swimsuit?) is immodest because of its sexual connotations in the minds of most men?

That makes it purely cultural. If there is not such a connotation in a culture and if boys don’t think that a woman is swimming in a two-piece just to allure them (which they don’t in my culture, as a two-piece is just normal beachwear on most women, young or old, ‘hot’ or not), then a two-piece (or bikini?) is not inherently evil.

No one has replied why exposing one’s stomach and back should be viewed as sexually enticing? If it’s not, then a ‘two-piece’ is not inherently evil, but a ‘bikini’ is, being culturally marked as in its original essence and intent sexually alluring?
 
I’m currently living in a predominently muslim country, that has freedom of religion and Shariah dress codes for muslim women only.

At the beach, the muslim women cover their hair with vails, wear long sleave shirts down to their thighs, and leggings covering their ankles. Some women visiting from Saudi Arabia go swimming in burkas with only their eyes showing.

This is on the same beach along side western women on holiday in bikinis. In general, the muslim men look down at the sand when a western woman passes by. They take responsibility for their own arousal.

At the same time, a 12 year old school girl was recently raped. An imam here took this occassion to state that the uniforms for girls were “too sexy”…these uniforms look like old nun outfits. Long vails covering the hair and neck and upper torso, long sleeves, and long skirts down to the floor. He was advocating the adoption of the burka here.

All my clothes that seemed perfectly modest in Miami, seems wholely inappropriate here. And I find myself adding layers of T-shirst and jackets to everything.

Modesty ***is *** cultural.
 
Here are my two cents:thumbsup:

A sexy woman is a sexy woman. Bikini, two piece, one piece, or tank top and board shorts…she WILL incite lust.

**So women need to take into account when they purchase/wear clothing their own personal “assets”. If she has been blessed with ample cleavage then a low cut top is not appropriate. If she has a great pair of legs then maybe knee length board shorts would be appropriate beach wear?

But there are women who have the body type that almost needs a two piece bikini (not all strings…no one needs that, lol) but the shape of a swim suit can do so much to enhance or detract from our own features.

So one woman can look modest in a regular bikini while another needs a one piece or shorts. But no matter what a woman wears to the beach/pool, there will be some man who is attracted to her “type” and if he doesn’t take responsibility for himself there will be lust:shrug:

**
 
Feanaro_s_Wife said:
Here are my two cents:thumbsup:

A sexy woman is a sexy woman. Bikini, two piece, one piece, or tank top and board shorts…she WILL incite lust.

**So women need to take into account when they purchase/wear clothing their own personal “assets”. If she has been blessed with ample cleavage then a low cut top is not appropriate. If she has a great pair of legs then maybe knee length board shorts would be appropriate beach wear?

But there are women who have the body type that almost needs a two piece bikini (not all strings…no one needs that, lol) but the shape of a swim suit can do so much to enhance or detract from our own features.

So one woman can look modest in a regular bikini while another needs a one piece or shorts. But no matter what a woman wears to the beach/pool, there will be some man who is attracted to her “type” and if he doesn’t take responsibility for himself there will be lust:shrug:

**
Click to expand...
👍 Thank you! Great response!
 
monicatholic said:
I’ve made no guess or judgment why a woman would wear a bikini
Click to expand...
Well noted. That’s why I put
(this is not directed to monicatholic… just some general thoughts)
Click to expand...
I will say that I would say misconstrued IMHO to those guys who consider the intent as a way to sway them in some way. I mean, give me a break. It’s a pretty cocky guy who thinks my bathing suit is picked out for THEM. 🙂

I’ve seen some “naughty” one-pieces out there too, but I’d hate to open that can of woms!
 
I have a tankini with shorts now that is great, but everything else I have is a bikini.

I am tall and all the one piece suits I would find would pull down in the front so far that I was afraid to lean over, and the leg holes were so high that I felt uncomfortable. I felt a lot better with my back and stomach exposed than other things spilling out.
 
the beach volley ball players clearly seem to intend to dress for the game, without intent to incite lust.

***does that make tham any more dressed??? ***

no.

i don’t care what her intent, that gal’s behind is still midframe. if you photographed my behind midframe-- unless I was home, i assure you’d find it covered more than that.

again, intent is not the issue.

if each individual is responsible for his/ her own lustful thoughts, what do you make of this warning, “take care not to tempt your weaker brethern?”

if each indiviual is singularly responsible for his or her own lust, how is it possible to tempt another to sin? under the general assumptions posted here, it would be impossible to tempt another to sin.

if an individual is singularly responsible for his or her own temptation to lust (or any sin for that matter) choosing good friends would not be important.

intent is not at issue. the result is. in our culture, men are tempted to lust when they see a barely dressed women. how could i not consider that when choosing my fashoins? as a Catholic woman, how could i not feel a responsibility to that??

note: as for the Muslim men who look downward when passing a bikini-clad woman-- most Muslim men seem far more disciplined in Islam than are Christian men disciplined in Christianity. also as far as I know, public oggling is frowned upon (illegal even) in many Muslim countries. it’s a favorite pass time here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top