Bikinis are immodest - why exactly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Litcrit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Truly_Beloved said:
Then you aren’t wearing the typical American bikini. 😃 I would post a picture of one, but I can’t find just a suit – The photos all have women wearing them.

Would it be wrong to post a pic WITH a woman in one? If so, could you PM me a link of a typical American woman in a typical American bikini, so I can finally see what the fuss is about? I promise, I’m NOT a lesbian and will NOT be aroused by the pic. 🤷

Because bikinis are worn here in the US to elicit a response of attraction. A deliberate attempt to tempt a man to look at/fantasize about you sexually is immodest. Even though my swimsuit is modest for the beach, it is not modest for Mass.

Of course, different attire is proper for different situations. I don’t wear my PJs to church, either 🤷
I certainly don’t wear my swimsuit to be attractive to men, and don’t see how my tummy and back could do this to men anyway 🤷

I wish that were the case here! 😃
Click to expand...
Yeah, kids are just totally desexualized here 🤷 That’s actually great! I remember just wearing a speedo to the beach until my breasts started to grow, when I was 11 and started feeling weird about exposing them. I HATED having a wet, cold piece of fabric over my breasts, but I eventually got used to it. 🤷 NOT MY TUMMY TOO!!! It’s NOT sexual!
 
Truly_Beloved said:
Nope, no scars… And my husband is tall and thin, so he’s “attractive” by most people’s standards. It’s just a modesty thing. 😉

I didn’t imply your DH had a scar… juist said people here would assume that, as no one would ever think a tummy would be immodest :o

I spent most of my childhood outside the United States, so I know how odd some of these American notions may seem. :rotfl:
Click to expand...
Yes. Odd. :o
 
Em_in_FL said:
I don’t wear a bikini for this purpose… that’s not fair to assume everyone’s motivations are the same.
Click to expand...
Oh, Em, you know I wasn’t trying to ruffle any feathers. 🙂 I think the general tone in my posts so far is quite evident of that. I do apologize, though, for omitting the term “generally” in my statement. :o Litcrit did ask “generally,” so I assumed my answer would be taken in that context.

And if your bikini was solely composed of three small triangles and a few feet of string, then I would have to seriously question your motives. 😉 😃
SeekerJen said:
I love the color of that suit!
Click to expand...
It’s actually a little more “green” than the picture represents. Still pretty, though.
Litcrit said:
Yeah, kids are just totally desexualized here 🤷
Click to expand...
I really wish that were the case here. All age groups are over-sexualized here, it seems…
savienu said:
Probably pretty OT, but that is a really cute swimsuit! 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you! It was tough to find, let me tell you.
 
Truly_Beloved said:
Oh, Em, you know I wasn’t trying to ruffle any feathers. 🙂 I think the general tone in my posts so far is quite evident of that. I do apologize, though, for omitting the term “generally” in my statement. :o Litcrit did ask “generally,” so I assumed my answer would be taken in that context.

And if your bikini was solely composed of three small triangles and a few feet of string, then I would have to seriously question your motives. 😉 😃
Click to expand...
LOL, oh I know!.. I’m just playing the argumentative role in this thread! 😃 What kind of thread would it be if there weren’t a little jousting! 😛 😉
 
Litcrit said:
From another thread, but i got this was the general opinion: apparently bikinis are immodest to wear while swimming, at least among US Catholics.
Click to expand...
I’ve NEVER heard of that and I’m pretty sure I have a picture with my 7 girlfriends and I (all Catholic) in a bikini during a vacation!!! I wore a bikini until my early 30’s. Now all of the suits seem to be two-piece anyway (though the tops are more like tanktops - but I have two), but I don’t see what’s wrong with a two-piece. It’s the best way to get a good tan 🙂

PS - I’m from the US 😉
 
From the Catholic perspective, there is such a thing as modesty. It’s still in the dictionary. The only purpose for wearing a bikini is to get men sexually aroused. That’s it. This is not an opinion.

Further, Pope Benedict is very concerned about what he terms indifference. The idea that I’m OK and you’re OK and we’re all OK in whatever configuration we choose. Not so. There is right and there is wrong. For Catholics, this means modesty in word, dress and action. I know of no woman who wants to be seen in her underwear in public. She may wear whatever underwear suits her, but recently, paying money for a nonfunctional piece of a string clearly shows how messed up the thinking of the designers and the buyers really is.

For years in the 1960s, I kept hearing how much more “socially” advanced the Europeans were. Nonsense. They just got ahead of the US in the immodesty department.

God bless,
Ed
 
The whole idea of a bikini is to expose as much skin as possible. They are cut and designed to accentuate the female figure to an extreme form, and leave as little as possible to the imagination. Now why would anyone want to do that except to arouse the opposite sex? You keep asking why…that’s why! 😉
 
I’ll admit, I take a more European understanding of modesty in the sense that I don’t believe that just because something shows skin, it’s immodest.

I wear a bikini. It actually covers more than most tank tops I’ve seen (and my chest isn’t that small). I also love the feeling of water on my belly and the tan I get on my belly and back. I love that my belly doesn’t stay wet for long periods of time. And it looks good (in a non-sexual way). One pieces have the tendency to stretch too much on me and I don’t like that.

I don’t wear clothing with the intent to arouse men. I’m not going to hide behind layers of cloth because some men can’t keep their eyes to themselves. Seriously, I think there are plenty of women who wear bikinis without expecting to attract men (and I usually don’t).

Anyone who says every woman who wears a bikini for the mere purpose of arousal needs to stop judging. You don’t know the motives of every woman on this board or in the world. Some of us are of different cultures and backgrounds and may have a different interpretation of modesty than others. For me, I don’t believe the mere exposure of skin counts. I believe modesty is much more an attitude than how much is too much.
 
sanctamaria17 said:
I wear a bikini. It actually covers more than most tank tops I’ve seen (and my chest isn’t that small).
Click to expand...
See, I wouldn’t call a swimsuit that provides that kind of coverage a bikini, as I explained above. “Bikini” has a very specific meaning where I am from. It doesn’t mean a simple two-piece suit; it means an extremely skimpy suit which is designed to show off the body. So, it seems we are working off regional definitions which are getting in the way of understanding.
 
No, it’s small, it’s not a regular two piece. When I mean covers more, I mean it doesn’t draw attention to cleavage:o . My belly is exposed, as is my back. It’s not attached by string and is a bathing suit, not meant for sexual arousal.
 
Immodesty is defined as dressing in a way with the intention to incite lust. Not you, not me can make this judgment for other women who wear them. Now, if a woman is wearing an overly skimpy, string bikini, then yes, that’s over the line. No one here can make sweeping generalizations that a bikini’s sole intention is to incite lust.

Back in the day, this was considered “risque.”
 
SanctaMaria,

i asked you in a different thread to post a pic of something you consider to be both a bikini AND modest because-- and i was honest about this-- I think they’re mutually exclusive.

instead, you’ve described the attributes of bikini wearing-- like tanning. but if a gal isn’t wearing a bikini and exposing her belly, why does she need a good tan on her belly?

all that aside. in peace and goodwill, i’d like you to reconsider this complaint:
some men can’t keep their eyes to themselves
Click to expand...
.

Sancta, when i go out in public, even peeping Toms are no longer violating any privacy if they’re looking at me. what i expose in public is for public visual consumption.

i think it’s unfair-- hypocritical even-- to blame a man for looking at a womam who’s delivering plenty to see.

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love.

The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

finally, you wrote this:
Anyone who says every woman who wears a bikini for the mere purpose of arousal needs to stop judging.
Click to expand...
OK, I’ll agree it’s bad to judge this is women’s motives. but when women find out their actions have predictable results (male arousal) shouldn’t they change their behavior?
 
sanctamaria17 said:
I’ll admit, I take a more European understanding of modesty in the sense that I don’t believe that just because something shows skin, it’s immodest.

I wear a bikini. It actually covers more than most tank tops I’ve seen (and my chest isn’t that small). I also love the feeling of water on my belly and the tan I get on my belly and back. I love that my belly doesn’t stay wet for long periods of time. And it looks good (in a non-sexual way). One pieces have the tendency to stretch too much on me and I don’t like that.

I don’t wear clothing with the intent to arouse men. I’m not going to hide behind layers of cloth because some men can’t keep their eyes to themselves. Seriously, I think there are plenty of women who wear bikinis without expecting to attract men (and I usually don’t).

Anyone who says every woman who wears a bikini for the mere purpose of arousal needs to stop judging. You don’t know the motives of every woman on this board or in the world. Some of us are of different cultures and backgrounds and may have a different interpretation of modesty than others. For me, I don’t believe the mere exposure of skin counts. I believe modesty is much more an attitude than how much is too much.
Click to expand...
I have seen this cultural differences comment many times on other boards. The point remains. Male arousal occurs, intended or not, when the female exposes as much skin as possible.

God bless,
Ed
 
I think that it’s good to point out that one-pieces and tankini’s can be immodest too. It’s so difficult to find a tankini or one-piece that’s cute, but not super low cut. It seems as if the companies assume that if you’re younger you want to expose as much skin as possible! As far as swimsuits (or anything I wear, for that matter) if I’m not sure if it’s modest or not I just don’t buy it, or I make it modest by wearing something else with it. I don’t wear bikini’s and don’t plan on wearing them. Also regarding the getting a better tan comments, you also risk getting skin cancer on your stomach and back more. I have a good family friend who got melanoma skin cancer on her stomach and it spread too fast for them so save her, and she was 30 with two young children. (Anyway there are a lot of great spray tan’s available now.)
 
So what about those girls playing beach volleyball in the Olmpics?

I wonder how many guys in the stands could even tell ya what the score is?
 
The bikinis whose pictures were posted here are just impractical. You can’t swim well in them, so I wouldn’t wear one of those.

But I’d also call a two-piece with a bit different design and a bit more material, making it more practical, a bikini.

The only difference between a one-piece and a two-piece, modesty-wise, is that a two-piece exposes one’s stomach and back. I fail to see why a stomach and a back are sexual and would be sexually arousing. I saw my mother and grandmother wear two-piece swimsuits all my life and I guess I just see that as the proper beach ‘uniform’.

If a boy sees his mother, grandmother, aunts and sisters in swimsuits all his life, he’s not going to be immediately aroused just because he sees a girl in a bikini.

I don’t understand the logic behing the equation ‘expose more skin, anywhere’ = ‘men get more aroused’. Why would my stomach and back arouse anyone? If I shave my head, revealing more skin on my head, would I be tempting anyone to sin?

True, you wouldn’t wear your underwear out in public, but neither would you wear your PJs, however little revealing they are. It’s a question of socially acceptable clothes, not modesty. There is underwear that looks like a one-piece, there are negligees that are like dresses, and I wouldn’t wear any of those out, although they cover more skin than a two-piece swimsuit. But a swimsuit is socially acceptable at a beach, underwear is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top