Is it a sin for women to wear bikinis?

[LittleSoldier]

I am not spouting opinion. Immodesty is a sin. If there is such a thing as a “modest bikini” I have yet to see one. Why can people not respect their bodies, instead of transforming themselves into mere objects of desire.

My apologies to everyone. I promised to not post in this thread again. I’ve already done so once, thereby breaking my promise. I take my promises seriously and never intend to break them; however, I see something going on here which is much more serious than a breaking of a promise.

What I see is judging. In your quote above you state "I have yet to see one. What you stated right there is important. Please bear with me as I try to explain.

CW, you say you are not casting stones but just “calling sin for what it is.” I say you are throwing stones, especially at Patrice. Immodesty is a sin. The Church teaches this. But you are judging every time you believe it is up to you to determine what constitutes immodesty. Here is an example:

In post #79 you stated the following:

“if you had the body for it”…hmmm this smacks of pride and worship of the creature over the creator.

That is casting a stone. It is an inferred insult. You don’t know how Patrice worships God. Zing!! That stone just hit Patrice on the shoulder.

In post #81 Patrice stated the following:

Its nothing about pride or worship, but honestly saying I’m out of shape and wanting to be in better shape is about God and taking care of my body that he created. Right now, I’m not there but I have a plan and I’m going to wear a nice cut swimsuit again when I reach my goal.

In post #83 you responded by saying:

SO you cans show off about what you did. It is a “llok at me” mentality. Like I said, pride and body worship.

(The bolding, italics, and underlining are mine.)

You are stating that you know why Patrice is trying to get into better shape (“SO you cans show off about what you did,)” even though she had stated that “wanting to be in better shape is about God and taking care of my body that he created.” You made an unfounded assumption.

IMHO you have decided that you are the one who can decide why another person does something. You are not omniscient; I don’t think you know Patrice personally, and for you to decide that you know why she does anything means that you are judging her.

Who made you in charge of what is modest and what isn’t? You have your opinion just like the rest of us and there’s nothing wrong with that. But you’ve gone beyond that - you are now telling Patrice why she is doing something and you really have absolutely no idea.

Thwack!!! There goes another stone you cast - this one has sharp edges and it hit her in the face.

As for me, in post #87 you stated the following in a response to a post I had written:

Not judgmental. I am calling sin for what it is. There is a difference between shaving, bathing, keeping fit, etc and wearing clothing that has but a single purpose: to show off the body. I f you want to dress like a stripper, that is up to you, but it can never be called anything other than immodest.

(The bolding, italics, and underlining are mine).

You are, at the very least, inferring that I want to dress like a stripper. Strippers may start off wearing an extremely skimpy bikini, but they then remove the bikini. That’s why they are called strippers. They also get paid for what they do. I have never claimed that I would remove my bikini in front of other people, for pay; the only people I would ever remove my clothes in front of would be female members of my family or my husband or possibly if someone is watching me and I am not aware of it. I am not a stripper. I know what stripper bars are. I have been in one of those bars and saw the clothes those women wear. They were extremely beautiful women physically, both in their general looks and in their physical condition. Men sit around and drink and put $20 bills in the backs of the women’s thongs. Do I consider that appropriate behavior for either the men or the women? No. But I am not going to judge them. For all I know one of those women has an extremely ill child and she has very little education and is doing what she can do to try to make enough money to keep her child alive and safe. It’s not my place to judge her.

You stated “it can never be called anything other than immodest.” Actually, it *can * be called something other than immodest. I have just proved that you are wrong in your statement. When I wore a bikini I admit I liked the way I looked. But I also like the way I look if I find a really nice outfit consisting of well-fitting jeans, a loose and heavy ski sweater, a nice parka, Inuit mukluks, a woven cap with braided ties, and mittens. And it has nothing to do with worshipping myself. It has to do with being happy that God has given me a body I can use (even with its many flaws I can do so much!) and has given me a few outfits that feel comfortable, keep me warm (or cool in the case of swimsuits) and are pretty. I’m not worshipping myself. God is infinitely greater than me and anything positive about me is because He has mercy, loves me, and created me in His image.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[The_Bucket]

No good Catholic can competitively swim or even develop the skill because to do so safely you have to be immodest. Didn’t you know that Patrice?

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

In the summer I like to feel the sun on my body. Perhaps you can’t understand this because men generally walk around topless when they are at the beach or by (or in) a swimming pool. The sun feels good. It really feels good to a person with a back injury - I can’t express how much better I feel physically when the sun is shining on my bare back. It’s wonderful medicine and it’s absolutely free. So there are reasons women wear bikinis that have absolutely nothing to do with inciting lustful thoughts in men.

But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” [John 8:7, NAB]

Are you without fault? Are any of us without fault? Why insult and judge another person? Here is another scripture passage which is appropriate:

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. [Matthew 7:1-5, NAB]

I mean absolutely no disrespect to you, CW. I believe you are a good person. You are my brother in Christ. And Patrice is my sister in Christ. I also believe that you have crossed the line. I’ve been told several times in threads on various forums on CAF that we should admonish our Christian neighbors and to do so is a sign of Christian charity. I have been admonished several times and each time I thought about whether I had really done something wrong. I never want to make Jesus sad. Each time I was admonished I came to the conclusion that I had been admonished correctly. I’m very happy that some people here on CAF took the time to tell me what I was doing. I apologized each time.

I have a feeling you won’t accept any of this. But as God and His Church are the most important things in my life, I feel I must tell you this. I hope that you understand that I am doing this because I care about you and also because I must defend someone I feel has been wronged.

Pax vobiscum, my brother in Christ.

 

[PatriceA]

No good Catholic can competitively swim or even develop the skill because to do so safely you have to be immodest. Didn’t you know that Patrice?

So that’s why I didn’t get to compete in Beijing in 2008! And here I thought it was because I just couldn’t swim fast.

 

[edwest2]

Fer cryin’ out loud. If I was a woman who decided on my own version of modesty, I’m in danger of becoming a Muslim or Amish or draw attention to myself? Wow. No logic there.

It Does Not Matter How Many Examples Get Shown. And I think if a young woman is stupid enough to expose herself in such a way then somebody should make an issue out of it.

Catholics – and this is Catholic Answers – should say Enough Is Enough. I’m tired of running across photos of young women with nothing behind them but a piece of string. Do they have a mom or dad? Or what about the stupid Abecrombie and Fich catalog that showed people wearing nothing on the cover of a clothing catalog? Wake up people. Someone posted here not long ago about legal casual nudity in their state.

A small and aggressive group wants to see people, especially young women, walk around almost completely naked. In the meantime, I’m reminded of pre-war Europe where there was a group that did exactly that.

Wake up. Don’t fall for stupid nonsense masquerading as fear. Islamist thinking, my foot.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PatriceA]

Fer cryin’ out loud. If I was a woman who decided on my own version of modesty, I’m in danger of becoming a Muslim or Amish or draw attention to myself? Wow. No logic there.

It Does Not Matter How Many Examples Get Shown. And I think if a young woman is stupid enough to expose herself in such a way then somebody should make an issue out of it.

Catholics – and this is Catholic Answers – should say Enough Is Enough. I’m tired of running across photos of young women with nothing behind them but a piece of string. Do they have a mom or dad? Or what about the stupid Abecrombie and Fich catalog that showed people wearing nothing on the cover of a clothing catalog? Wake up people. Someone posted here not long ago about legal casual nudity in their state.

A small and aggressive group wants to see people, especially young women, walk around almost completely naked. In the meantime, I’m reminded of pre-war Europe where there was a group that did exactly that.

Wake up. Don’t fall for stupid nonsense masquerading as fear. Islamist thinking, my foot.

God bless,
Ed

I don’t think anyone in this thread is arguing in favor of those type of outfits. I know I’m certainly not! All I said was I’d like to have a nice cut of a tankini or bikini.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think anyone in this thread is arguing in favor of those type of outfits. I know I’m certainly not! All I said was I’d like to have a nice cut of a tankini or bikini.

Look on the bright side-when you end up in eternal hellfire at least you’ll be dressed for the heat.

 

[Ponyguy]

Look on the bright side-when you end up in eternal hellfire at least you’ll be dressed for the heat.

Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.

And The Big Guy, I hear, is “The Hanging Judge.”

 

[LittleSoldier]

It is unfortunate that people ignore Church teaching and accuse people of only having opinions. This is wrong. Yes, some so-called bikinis are little more than a few pieces of string and less than a handkerchief worth of material.

I was there when the mini-skirt was introduced (1960s). It was a scandal. Period. Got that? People complained but the intelligentsia, the fashion designers, and champions of what they claim about the First Amendment were all against us.

No. I don’t understand. I was there, too. It was not a scandal. There were much more important things going on at that time than women having the nerve to show their knees. And that reminds me. Has anyone really looked at a human knee? I mean, really close up? I can’t see how anyone could think it is attractive. It’s a complicated joint with a patella. That’s all. It helps us bend our leg. I started Catholic school in the sixties and our uniforms were not required to cover our knees.

I believe in the early sixties something called the “Cuban Missile Crisis” was occurring, although I was very young and don’t remember much about it. My memory of history is rather poor, but wasn’t something called the Vietnam War warming up? If we go on to the seventies we have Watergate and a president who resigned in disgrace.

Freedom of Expression was the Same Excuse they used to say TOPLESS GO-GO BARS were OK. Freedom of expression. That’s why STRIPPER quietly changed to EXOTIC DANCER over the last 10 years.

That doesn’t make sense, Ed. If “Freedom of Expression” is so important (and it is) why was the name changed from “TOPLESS GO-GO BARS” to “EXOTIC DANCER”? The name would have remained the same. Your argument is fallacious. I’m still learning logic but I think I can write this up as a syllogism:

Premise 1: Stripper bars used to be called “TOPLESS GO-GO BARS.”
Premise 2: The excuse was that it was OK because of freedom of speech.
Conclusion: Ergo, the name of stripper bars was changed to “EXOTIC DANCER.”

Is this what you are saying? I want to be sure I understand.

It is very important for people to realize that the Playboy Philosophy was designed to make people think that casual nudity and casual sex were all OK. And they ran a lot of high-brow articles, and interviews with “important” people to let people know that the modern man (back in the 1960s) should embrace the Playboy Philosophy, and Here We Are Today.

Is that why we’re in such a mess? How do you know all this? Can you recommend some books, articles, etc. on the “Playboy Philosophy”? It sounds very interesting to me and I would like to read up on it. Thanks!

So - should women walk around on public beaches mostly naked? The answer is no.

I think your argument is extremely simplistic (although you have some valid points IMHO) and I doubt very much it is even logical. I’m not an expert on fallacies, but maybe somebody here can define where this argument is fallacious.

Are you still saying that beautiful women shouldn’t run around on the beach in their underwear? If you responded to my question about if it’s OK for women who aren’t beautiful to run around on the beach in their underwear I missed it.

Would you please answer my question again or give me the post number? Thank you very much.

God bless,
Ed

Pax vobiscum.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So that’s why I didn’t get to compete in Beijing in 2008! And here I thought it was because I just couldn’t swim fast.

I thought it was because I can’t dive.

Now after all this time I realize it’s really because my burqua got in the way. Have you ever tried to dive while wearing a burqua?

Did you know that Barbie now wears a burqua?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229760/Its-Barbie-burka-World-famous-doll-gets-makeover-hammer-50th-anniversary.html

Pax vobiscum.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The Church has no fashions and will not conform her sense of modesty to what the world deems acceptable. The last official decree on the subject set the standards for female modesty to be tops that go no further than 2 fingers width from the collar bone all the way around the neck. Sleeves to the elbow. And skirts covering the knees whilst standing or sitting.

Those are your standards as Catholics ladies, until otherwise noted.

And I think that rules out 1 piece suits too!

All I the posts I see from the angry bikini defending women may as well just say, “Whatever! I do what I want!” Or, “I will not serve.”

Yes, some men are weak, and some men have no sense of sin at all. So be charitable in your dress!

Please provide appropriate documentation. All you’ve provided in your first paragraph is an unfounded assertion. Thank you.

Does the Catholic Church allow women to go to the beach and swim at all? Are we supposed to wear burquas? Wet suits in 120 degree weather? What are we supposed to do? We’re being told we can’t wear bikinis (I don’t wear one anyway) but now we can’t wear one-piece swimsuits either? When I swim (and I swim every single chance I get!) I wear a one-piece high-back tank suit. This isn’t appropriate? This isn’t modest??? Oy vey!!

What about the rest of our clothes? No tank tops in the summer? No shorts or skorts? I am very sorry but I have had a terrible problem with hot flashes for the last ten years and if I have to wear clothes that meet the standard you have written I will literally faint. I can’t do it. So that means I’ll just have to stay at home all the time and not go to Mass or Confession. That really doesn’t seem fair. In fact, it seems unduly cruel.

I really take issue with your fourth paragraph. First of all, I haven’t seen any angry “bikini defending women” in this thread. Anger is a harsh word. I’m only somewhat miffed. And I find it personally insulting and very hurtful when someone decides that a post I have written "may just as well say “Whatever! I do what I want!” Or, “I will not serve.” The reason I find that insulting and hurtful is that I accept the authority of the Magisterium. To imply that those of us who have worn bikinis in the past or wear them now are renegade Catholics or Cafeteria Catholics seems uncharitable to me and I’m surprised you even made that statement.

Why did you have to go and say that? Catholics want to love and serve God. I’d die for Him, gladly. That just wan’t nice at all. Really.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[The_Bucket]

What’s so funny is that modesty of dress is dependent on culture; it’s modesty of spirit that is universal. Imagine the Church arguing that Ethiopian Catholic women being compelled to wear extensive coverings or Western style dresses as outlined in the aforementioned 1956 piece.

Who would argue that women of tribal Africa are being immodest by Catholic standards even though they aren’t Catholic when walking around barechested?

Times do change. Fashion changes. Definitions of modesty of dress do change. As I wrote before, pants, even dress pants were considered not just informal but actually immodest on women here in the West for quite some time despite covering the body just fine. Would anyone today argue that such pants are immodest?

No one is arguing that there aren’t limits to act and dress based on societal norms that cross the line to the point where you can’t say “oh but I’m modest of spirit and heart.” But simple two piece bathing suits are far from that line.

 

[edwest2]

I guess I’ll have to start the Respect for Women Movement

God bless,
Ed

 

[turtle18]

I guess the question I have for all of you who say it is not immodest to wear a bikini—PLEASE, PLEASE tell me what are your examples are of immodest dress, then? Would it be something with cleavage? A miniskirt? Fishnet tights? What?

I really, really would like a sincere answer to this.

 

[utah_rose]

In all due respect, I disagree with you. I am a woman and I am telling you most women wear bikinis out of pride and vanity, both of which are sins. It is uncharitable to wear bikinis around men. Modesty is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Bikinis are not modest, not now, not ever. Do you honestly think the Holy Spirit wants you to go around wearing clothing that highlights your breast and butt and leaves you 90% naked?

You can swim in a one piece just fine.

I agree, Turtle 18. There are plenty of nice one piece suits or modest two piece suits on the market, that lets you be in fashion an not an occasion of sin.

I would also say that one piece suits with a plunging neckline can be as problematic as a bikini.

These would be occasions of sin. Men think differently than we do, so we should not be taking a chance of being the object of lustful thoughts because of our dress.

 

[Miss_Linda]

I guess I’ll have to start the Respect for Women Movement

God bless,
Ed

You understand the core of the issue, Mr. West. Modesty protects the dignity of a woman. It is not repressive or oppressive. It liberates from, as Catechism 2523 states: “the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.” Catechism 2524: “Modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man.”

 

[edwest2]

What I don’t understand is why the National Organization for Women who said that women should not be treated as sex objects in the late 1970s, ignores the ridiculous and dysfunctional sexualization of women in the media today?

Desperate Housewives?
Grey’s Anatomy?
Daytime Soaps?

Seriously, all the “women should wear whatever they want” types - why are you posting here? If everything is always changing, then what’s the point?

I’m staying away from the beach since I saw bikinis gradually turn into virtually nothing. This is what a Godless society wants. I’m staying off the beach for good.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PatriceA]

What I don’t understand is why the National Organization for Women who said that women should not be treated as sex objects in the late 1970s, ignores the ridiculous and dysfunctional sexualization of women in the media today?

Desperate Housewives?
Grey’s Anatomy?
Daytime Soaps?

Seriously, all the “women should wear whatever they want” types - why are you posting here? If everything is always changing, then what’s the point?

I’m staying away from the beach since I saw bikinis gradually turn into virtually nothing. This is what a Godless society wants. I’m staying off the beach for good.

God bless,
Ed

I post here because I’m Catholic and like to talk to other Catholics. I didn’t know I had to pass some kind of test to post here.

 

[estesbob]

What I don’t understand is why the National Organization for Women who said that women should not be treated as sex objects in the late 1970s, ignores the ridiculous and dysfunctional sexualization of women in the media today?

Desperate Housewives?
Grey’s Anatomy?
Daytime Soaps?

Seriously, all the “women should wear whatever they want” types - why are you posting here? If everything is always changing, then what’s the point?

I’m staying away from the beach since I saw bikinis gradually turn into virtually nothing. This is what a Godless society wants. I’m staying off the beach for good.

God bless,
Ed

I spend about a Month a year in Mexcio and a lot of that time on the beach. it is very, very sad down there because of, I guess, poverty a lot of the women on the beach can only afford a half a bathing suit!

 

[BobObob]

For this thread, it is important for one to remember that mere exposure of the human body is not evil per se. John Paul II said:

"Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty…Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness…Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful …Shamelessness [just like shame and modesty] is a function of the interior of a person.’

—Karol Cardinal Woytyla [Pope John Paul ll ] in Love and Responsibility

I think the important part of the above portion is “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person.”

Ultimately, the morality of one’s partial nudity (wearing bikinis), or even full nudity for that matter, depends on the culture, situation, and one’s intent.

I think that wearing a bikini at a location, such as a beach, where many women tend to wear bikinis isn’t a sin so long as that person doesn’t have the wrong intent (such as arousing lust in others to gain attention). Also, I think public locations where people will expose more skin should be places others don’t nee to go. If it does arouse lust in a particular man, then that man has a moral obligation to avoid locations, such as beaches, where that sort of clothing is to be expected in that culture, and thus the sin would be on him for putting himself in harms way by visiting locations he doesn’t need to visit.

It is interesting to note that men in cultures in Africa where women commonly are topless in public typically don’t lust when they see a woman’s breasts, while people in the US, a country that is very puritanical in this regard, seem to have more problems with pornography than people in less puritanical cultures.

It may be a sin for women to wear bikinis, but not necessarily. Wearing a bikini in a grocery store would be a sin because it isn’t expected there is most cultures (and it may incite lust in the US), but wearing a bikini on a beach isn’t IMHO.