Bikinis are immodest - why exactly?

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

‘might your priest be wrong?’ is not equal to ‘might your priest be a heretic?’ misrepresentation of credible assertions and questions has been a recurrent theme on this thread.

additionally, Marco mentioned his thoughts were also, “what a great body” and deemed his thoughts as lustful, though no big deal. your failure to consider his own description of his own lust in toto leads me to repeat this:
  • you have, every time, agreed with subjective experience that promotes your perspective and likewise consistently seem to have failed to consider objective reasoning (as expressed through Scripture and Catechism) especially as it opposes your practice. *
i’ll end with this:

…women imbued with a spirit of the Gospel can do so much to aid humanity in not falling”.
Pope John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem #1

it’s worth prayerful consideration, no?
 
monicatholic said:
LitCrit,

‘might your priest be wrong?’ is not equal to ‘might your priest be a heretic?’ misrepresentation of credible assertions and questions has been a recurrent theme on this thread.

‘Heretic’ was obviously the wrong word, but I couldn’t think of one that more precisely described ‘not being orhtodox or in line with church teaching or something like that’. I apologize.

additionally, Marco mentioned his thoughts were also, “what a great body” and deemed his thoughts as lustful, though no big deal. your failure to consider his own description of his own lust

I don’t believe he committed the sin of lust by thinking ‘she’s lovely’ and ‘what a great body’, which is why I wrote what I wrote.

in toto leads me to repeat this:
  • you have, every time, agreed with subjective experience that promotes your perspective and likewise consistently seem to have failed to consider objective reasoning (as expressed through Scripture and Catechism) especially as it opposes your practice. *
i’ll end with this:

…women imbued with a spirit of the Gospel can do so much to aid humanity in not falling”.
Pope John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem #1

it’s worth prayerful consideration, no?
Click to expand...
Certainly.

Thank you for the discussion and for wanting to end it.
 
whatevergirl said:
If a woman decides to wear a bikini…it shouldn’t be automatically assumed that she’s interested in taunting others into sin. I am not sure if wearing a bikini is always an act of seduction for many women. Some women, absolutely it is…I wore one when dating my husband, and I know that I wanted him to view me as sexy. I was also a lot younger than I am now, and thus learned that it was immodest of me to do that. I have since learned that is not a good perspective to have, from a modest Christian point of view. BUT…culturally, some women wear them because they don’t see anything wrong with it, and some cultures, women go topless on the beaches, and it’s just the norm.
Click to expand...
Immodesty does not reside merely in intention. There is objectivity to immodesty. The principles of modesty are clear: the form of the body is not to be noticeable and the body should be covered. The norm doesn’t matter. There is still objectively immodest clothing. The main parts of the body ought to be covered. The idea that “well they don’t intend it so it’s no big deal” shows a true lack of understanding of fallen human nature as well as lack of charity to others. Humanity, because of Original Sin, has a “downward bent” will so that even if someone knows what he should do his will is drawn toward evil and sin (which is why we all need grace). Concupiscence, the lust of the eyes, dwells in man and is always looking to be aroused. People experience attractions to each other and for men a major part of that is visual (whereas for most women it is more emotional and psychological). It doesn’t matter how old you are or what shape your body is in or the norm in society, the problem is within man. He is fallen and he is weak.

A woman, or man, who truly values their body - which is a temple of the Holy Spirit - would do everything to make sure (a) it wasn’t being objectivized, (b) that it wasn’t being abused and (c) it wasn’t causing another to sin. We can be abused by people looking at us for our bodies alone and without true respect for us - bikinis fall into this category. Every sacred and good is hidden until the proper time when it can be used properly: the Holy Eucharist is hidden in the tabernacle behind the veil, diamonds are hidden in the ground where they can be protected. A woman who covers herself shows she values herself as a person and that her body is so beautiful and good that she doesn’t want it to be abused or lusted after.

A bikini is objectively immodest.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Some words on modesty from Pope Pius XII:

“Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles (fashions) like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could only guess the impressions they make and the feelings they evoke (arouse) in those who see them.” (July 17, 1954.)

“O Christian mothers, if only you knew the future distress, peril and ill-restrained shame that you prepare for your sons and daughters by imprudently accustoming them to live barely clothed, and permitting them to lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves, and of the harm done to the little ones entrusted to you by Heaven to be reared in a Christian dignity and culture.”

From the Catechism:

521 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.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

If nakedness and bikinis are not immodest, if they do not violate the idea of “refusing to unveil what should remain hidden”, then I do not know what does.

What sad does in which we live when even Catholics would consider nakedness and bikinis modest. Lord Jesus, have mercy on us all.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
strugglingalong said:
Immodesty does not reside merely in intention. There is objectivity to immodesty. The principles of modesty are clear: the form of the body is not to be noticeable and the body should be covered. The norm doesn’t matter. There is still objectively immodest clothing. The main parts of the body ought to be covered. The idea that “well they don’t intend it so it’s no big deal” shows a true lack of understanding of fallen human nature as well as lack of charity to others. Humanity, because of Original Sin, has a “downward bent” will so that even if someone knows what he should do his will is drawn toward evil and sin (which is why we all need grace). Concupiscence, the lust of the eyes, dwells in man and is always looking to be aroused. People experience attractions to each other and for men a major part of that is visual (whereas for most women it is more emotional and psychological). It doesn’t matter how old you are or what shape your body is in or the norm in society, the problem is within man. He is fallen and he is weak.

A woman, or man, who truly values their body - which is a temple of the Holy Spirit - would do everything to make sure (a) it wasn’t being objectivized, (b) that it wasn’t being abused and (c) it wasn’t causing another to sin. We can be abused by people looking at us for our bodies alone and without true respect for us - bikinis fall into this category. Every sacred and good is hidden until the proper time when it can be used properly: the Holy Eucharist is hidden in the tabernacle behind the veil, diamonds are hidden in the ground where they can be protected. A woman who covers herself shows she values herself as a person and that her body is so beautiful and good that she doesn’t want it to be abused or lusted after.

A bikini is objectively immodest.

Pax Christi tecum.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’m following all of your post except the bolded phrase. What do you mean by that? Does that mean that a dress that is fitted at the waist, thus defining a woman’s curved shape, is immodest? I get such conflicting messages on this issue that I need to clarify them. Many of us have figures that can only be rendered unnoticeable by the use of binding tape and clothing such as a chador.
 
SeekerJen said:
Okay, I’m following all of your post except the bolded phrase. What do you mean by that? Does that mean that a dress that is fitted at the waist, thus defining a woman’s curved shape, is immodest? I get such conflicting messages on this issue that I need to clarify them. Many of us have figures that can only be rendered unnoticeable by the use of binding tape and clothing such as a chador.
Click to expand...
Hiding the form means, generally, not wearing clothing that is form fitting - so a top that clings would be immodest because the form of the body is made known even though the body is clothed. Sometimes clothing that is not tight and form fitting still reveals some shape but the idea is to hide the form of the chest and the behind areas primarily.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
SeekerJen said:
I get such conflicting messages on this issue that I need to clarify them.
Click to expand...
Read the Catechism, listen to your conscience and if you’re still in doubt ask your Priest/Confessor.

You will find lots of differing opinions on this and other Catholic forums. If you’ve done the above, there is room for us all.

In my opinion, as even Sisters in religious orders have ties around their waist or form fitting skirts and tailored jackets I don’t think showing your waist is an issue.

Before anyone jumps in - I know they’re not wearing them to show off their waists!
Pax
Karen
 
Fran65 said:
Read the Catechism, listen to your conscience and if you’re still in doubt ask your Priest/Confessor.

You will find lots of differing opinions on this and other Catholic forums. If you’ve done the above, there is room for us all.

In my opinion, as even Sisters in religious orders have ties around their waist or form fitting skirts and tailored jackets I don’t think showing your waist is an issue.

Before anyone jumps in - I know they’re not wearing them to show off their waists!
Pax
Karen
Click to expand...
I think the issue is with other parts of the female anatomy.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
strugglingalong said:
Hiding the form means, generally, not wearing clothing that is form fitting - so a top that clings would be immodest because the form of the body is made known even though the body is clothed. Sometimes clothing that is not tight and form fitting still reveals some shape but the idea is to hide the form of the chest and the behind areas primarily.

Pax Christi tecum.
Click to expand...
So would you advocate that women only wear baggy clothing? Most dresses, blouses and suits are tailored to fit the body closely (not necessarily tightly, but to avoid a sloppy look). Do men really consider well-tailored clothing to be indecent and immodest?
 
SeekerJen said:
So would you advocate that women only wear baggy clothing? Most dresses, blouses and suits are tailored to fit the body closely (not necessarily tightly, but to avoid a sloppy look). Do men really consider well-tailored clothing to be indecent and immodest?
Click to expand...
If the form of the chest and of the behind are clear then it’s immodest and can be a cause of temptation. Trust me, I’ve seen women wear tight fitting tops that aren’t low cut and you can make out the whole form of the chest. That’s not modest. It’s not an issue of being well-tailored. It’s an issue of the shape and form of these areas being clear to the eye.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
But, men have a responsibility to look elsewhere. Women should have responsibility to carry themselves modestly, but if a man can’t control where he looks…then, he needs to find a way to change that also. I don’t like that this thread has gone into how it’s mainly a woman’s responsiblity to wear a potato sack in order to keep men from sinning. Men have a responsibility to control themselves too. WOMEN DO AS WELL. It’s just not a one way thing, though…that’s all I am saying. Bikinis are a far cry from a modest tee shirt that is somewhat form fitting.
 
i have to agree, whatevergirl, that strugglingalong’s arguments are different from the overall pro-modesty perspective offered on this thread.

it confirms every charge of “you want women covered from head to toe” that has been made.
 
whatevergirl said:
But, men have a responsibility to look elsewhere. Women should have responsibility to carry themselves modestly, but if a man can’t control where he looks…then, he needs to find a way to change that also. I don’t like that this thread has gone into how it’s mainly a woman’s responsiblity to wear a potato sack in order to keep men from sinning. Men have a responsibility to control themselves too. WOMEN DO AS WELL. It’s just not a one way thing, though…that’s all I am saying. Bikinis are a far cry from a modest tee shirt that is somewhat form fitting.
Click to expand...
Agreed the responsibility goes both ways.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Didn’t Adam blame Eve, too?😃

:ouch:

sorry, had to add a little humor into this thread:)
 
monicatholic said:
i have to agree, whatevergirl, that strugglingalong’s arguments are different from the overall pro-modesty perspective offered on this thread.

it confirms every charge of “you want women covered from head to toe” that has been made.
Click to expand...
Yes, the horrible idea that women should be covered to protect them from being lusted after and to protect men from falling into sin - a view that used to be believed without question. Maybe we don’t take Our Lady’s words at Fatima seriously enough that many fashions would be created that offend Our Lord very much.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
whatevergirl said:
well…that was easy!🙂 Ok, good, glad we are on the same page.
Click to expand...
Yes, we agree on responsibility. However men are attracted in a different way than women and that needs to be taken into consideration with each person’s responsibility.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
But, didn’t people dress much more modestly, long sleeve, long dresses, in the classical and renaissance era? It would seem that there was as much lust in those time periods, than now…maybe even more so. Adultery, lust, fornication…these were things that St Paul talked about. If the women of Biblical times were dressing much more modestly than today, then maybe clothing is not as much of the culprit as one thinks.
 
whatevergirl said:
But, didn’t people dress much more modestly, long sleeve, long dresses, in the classical and renaissance era? It would seem that there was as much lust in those time periods, than now…maybe even more so. Adultery, lust, fornication…these were things that St Paul talked about. If the women of Biblical times were dressing much more modestly than today, then maybe clothing is not as much of the culprit as one thinks.
Click to expand...
Do you know how much was happening then? No one denies that sins of the flesh can happen regardless of dress but the question is how much is dress playing into it. I’d argue there is a lot going on now, similar to the pagan Roman era. However when the Church was at its zenith I think it wasn’t as bad but no one denies it can exist. But that doesn’t mean modesty goes away.

This issue bothers me because as a man when I go to the beach it’s a huge occasion of sin because women’s bodies are everywhere in bikinis. I know how it is for men. While sins of the flesh can occur no matter what since it is in the heart of man, there is no need to make it worse by making people tempted.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
I’ll stick with Pius XII, thanks.

“Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles (fashions) like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could only guess the impressions they make and the feelings they evoke (arouse) in those who see them.” (July 17, 1954.)

“O Christian mothers, if only you knew the future distress, peril and ill-restrained shame that you prepare for your sons and daughters by imprudently accustoming them to live barely clothed, and permitting them to lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves, and of the harm done to the little ones entrusted to you by Heaven to be reared in a Christian dignity and culture.”

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top