Modest Swimwear

[CesarAugustus]

There’s a basic standard of dress for the Vatican. And that’s well and good. Nothing wrong with that. I’m fine with the dress code there.

But saying that it’s inherently immodest for garments to be cut X inches below the knee or that lapels should be Y inches in width (I know the document to which you’re referring to my friend) is nonsense. You can’t apply that kind of thing to the jungles of South America and Southeast Asia or the deserts of Africa. You’d have people dying of heatstroke.

There is nothing wrong with the body. Those who want to use culture “as an excuse” for immodest behavior and dress will surely have to deal with the Lord. The same goes for those who want to bring back Catharism and argue that the body has some kind of evil associated with it. You can be nude and be modest. And I don’t just mean in the privacy of one’s home or with one’s spouse.

These are exceptional situations, but again, I have read that there are solutions for warm or climates with lot of heat that don’t require small clothing. The standards of these documents are way better than the culturally approved (or sanctioned via media, education, etc) disregard for modesty in many places.

This doesn’t has to do with Cathars, Manichaeans, Gnostics, etc (yes I know about them, and one of their problems was their hatred against God’s creation, reducing it at the level of a work by a demiurge… and that expanded to their hatred for procreation among other things)

“What horrifies the Sodomites, like later the Manicheans and Albigensians … is marriage, the perpetuation of the flesh, “the work of the Demiurge” everything that the flesh contributes to the divine plan for man, flesh of which Christ was born…”

From the writings of Albert Frank-Duquesne.

Is bathing nude in the wild immodest? Is even swimming in the nude while in the back country immodest? **How about undressing at the doctor? **Our First Parents clothed themselves not because they were naked and their nakedness was immodest, but because they felt shame after their sin and tried to “cover up their shame.” The fallenness of our First Parents had nothing to do with sexuality. Their loss of innocence is shown well with that analogy. When we lost our innocence, we became lustful. Instead of seeing the naked body as a gift from God and pure, we turned it into a tool for our sin.

You are presenting exceptions, or less frequent situations. I’m not a Puritan. I only write about what I read about modesty, the Catechism, and I try to devise or think practical applications from that. I have read a lot of these threads. And not only in these forums. There isn’t a consensus. When presented with the last century writings by Cardinal and Popes, there are objections. Is a long debate. As an artist, and Graphic Designer, is a interesting topic. And I have to learn about it too for various reasons, among of them, work, and academic related reasons.

With all due respect, that’s not your problem! That is their problem. God knows when we lie to ourselves. We know when we lie to ourselves. Others cannot and they should not presume either. I will not presume that you are a liar and I hope you do not presume that I am one. Now, I may very well be a liar. But what is that to you? You are better off assuming that I am not so that you do not fall into the sin of judging your neighbor. If I am a liar, then that is my affair. Good for you for assuming that I am righteous and knowing only your sin instead of assuming that I am a great sinner and castigating me for lying to God and myself.

I live in a Country from South America. Modesty is not very common. Lack of modesty is encouraged in education, media, etc. I’m accustomed to see that. But, still is something to be worried.

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

Yep. My time in the Middle East is actually what makes me so against women being made to feel they must cover themselves completely. I was there in 100F heat and saw ‘men’ stroll around in t-shirts and shorts, while their poor wives were clad in barquas. All of this so as to avoid other men’s lust. Whereas I like the fact that the Catholic Church calls men out on that, and tells them that they are responsible for their own sexuality, as are women.

Just remember that not everyone does it because they “feel they must.” Some people cover more because they prefer to. Whether it is because they prefer not to bare those parts of their body, or because they think they look better that way, or because they want the sun protection, there are many reasons why women may choose to cover more than you like that are completely self motivated.

Also, there is a big difference between a burka and a bikini, and a whole lot of middle ground. I doubt there are any Catholics on this board who think that the full sleeve, down to the ankle look is necessary for modesty. It is the issue of bikini vs. one piece, or cleavage/thighs showing vs. not that are the gray area for Catholics. My opinion on the bikini vs. two piece one is that a bikini strongly resembles underwear, and pretty much looks like you’ve just started to undress. I expect my dh to be able to handle that easily, by averting his eyes if necessary, and by simply looking a girl in the eye while he’s talking to her. He has commented to me in the past that it is uncomfortable to have to interact up close with people who are scantily clad, but he averts his eyes, and just avoids it as much as he can. Not ideal for sure, but he’s an adult with a strong moral fiber, and can handle it. My son, OTOH, is of an age where he probably doesn’t have the skill of avoiding it like my husband does. He also doesn’t have the maturity, and for the next few teen years, his hormones are likely to make it very difficult for him to just pretend that there isn’t an almost naked woman or girl in front of him, and avert his eyes/act like he doesn’t notice, compared to an adult married man. For that reason, I am more uncomfortable with my son coming face to face with girls’ belly buttons and below, etc… You can’t avoid all images of the body at the beach, and of course there are practical reasons why you might want a suit that is skin tight, or a two piece, such that the additional difficulty boys and men might have might be worth the benefits of wearing them. But given that there isn’t a practical reason to wear an actual bikini (as opposed to a one piece or a tankini), then the temptation it places in front of boys especially is not balanced by something positive. That’s where the immodesty comes from.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Well, that is not strictly true. A man must have a sexual attraction towards a woman in order to marry her. Otherwise, the conditions of marriage would not exist. So I suppose you mean inappropriate lust. In that case, the man’s lust was completely inappropriate as he was not my spouse, we were not in the marriage bed and he was clearly married to someone else!

1. There is no requirement for sexual attraction for marriage
2. As per the Catholic definition of lust there is no such thing as “appropriate lust”

 

[FrenzyJen]

I think everyone should just start being naked. All the time. It would take the sexuality out of it if you saw others grocery shopping naked, delivering mail naked, naked dinner parties, naked baseball, all the time like it was nothing.

The only cure is more of the problem!!

 

[Baby_Bach]

I cannot believe what people are saying on here about modesty. There is a standard of dress that we as *Catholics * should uphold. No we do not need to go around fully clothed and die of heatstroke, but there is something to be said of how we dress. This day and age our bodies are not respected, and looked at with lust and sin… and here we are making excuses for why we wear bikinis… Wearing something like a tank top with shorts is no biggie, but if these are shorts that are mini skirts/short shorts that is ***not ***ok, bikinis are ***not ***ok! The reason clothes should be x long, is to give us this an idea of what we should be wearing, to be modest. It does not matter if we are not flaunting around our bodies, we should not wear immodest dress. Period. It gets over a hundred were I’m at, and wearing a skirt that is just below the knee does not kill me… The Bucket, you say it is nonsense to have certain length requirements… I say no! Mary like standards here people. You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[CesarAugustus]

I cannot believe what people are saying on here about modesty. There is a standard of dress that we as *Catholics * should uphold. No we do not need to go around fully clothed and die of heatstroke, but there is something to be said of how we dress. This day and age our bodies are not respected, and looked at with lust and sin… and here we are making excuses for why we wear bikinis… Wearing something like a tank top with shorts is no biggie, but if these are shorts that are mini skirts/short shorts that is ***not ***ok, bikinis are ***not ***ok! The reason clothes should be x long, is to give us this an idea of what we should be wearing, to be modest. It does not matter if we are not flaunting around our bodies, we should not wear immodest dress. Period. It gets over a hundred were I’m at, and wearing a skirt that is just below the knee does not kill me… The Bucket, you say it is nonsense to have certain length requirements… I say no! Mary like standards here people. You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

Well said!

 

[Galbin]

There is nothing wrong with people dressing and covering up as they desire. Conversely, people should be free to wear swimwear on the beach if they so desire. I only broughtup the burqua idea as someone posted a picture of a burkini.

As for worrying about seeing someone in a bikini on the beach, well that is why most ppl cover up with wraps once they leave the sea or sunloungers.

We never once heard the Pope or any priest preach against bikinis, or any item of clothing. It is not for us to tell others how to dress.

 

[CesarAugustus]

There is nothing wrong with people dressing and covering up as they desire. Conversely, people should be free to wear swimwear on the beach if they so desire. I only broughtup the burqua idea as someone posted a picture of a burkini.

As for worrying about seeing someone in a bikini on the beach, well that is why most ppl cover up with wraps once they leave the sea or sunloungers.

We never once heard the Pope or any priest preach against bikinis, or any item of clothing. It is not for us to tell others how to dress.

Are you sure?

A Bishop were I live, preached a lot against immodesty in clothing.

I have read writings about modesty by Popes, cardinals and priests, for example:

“The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts. If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up. O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making of yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians.”

Pius XII to Catholic Young Women’s Groups of Italy

 

[The_Bucket]

I cannot believe what people are saying on here about modesty. There is a standard of dress that we as *Catholics * should uphold. No we do not need to go around fully clothed and die of heatstroke, but there is something to be said of how we dress. This day and age our bodies are not respected, and looked at with lust and sin… and here we are making excuses for why we wear bikinis… Wearing something like a tank top with shorts is no biggie, but if these are shorts that are mini skirts/short shorts that is ***not ***ok, bikinis are ***not ***ok! The reason clothes should be x long, is to give us this an idea of what we should be wearing, to be modest. It does not matter if we are not flaunting around our bodies, we should not wear immodest dress. Period. It gets over a hundred were I’m at, and wearing a skirt that is just below the knee does not kill me…

I’m guessing you’d also be offended by women sprinters/marathoners wearing what basically amounts to the same coverage as unsuggestive underwear. Trust me, I’m not endorsing the highly sexualized culture in which we live. I’m simply saying that it’s probably better to address our own modesty, of action, of thought and yes, of dress, instead of making assumptions and broad generalizations. You can’t just categorically say “bikinis/two piece bathing suits are immodest.” There are plenty of two piece suits that have sports bra like coverage up top and normal coverage on the bottom.

And so, so much attention to women! What about men wearing briefs/speedos in a non-racing situation? I mean, that’s pretty immodest, yes? Or maybe it’s just what people wear and no one thinks much of it.

My point is that modesty is not about simply covering up, it’s about not advertising your sexuality for the whole world. One can be quite immodest while wearing an oversized sweatsuit. Another person could be modest while stark naked. Again, the Church’s decision not to make sweeping rules and instead point out how a well-formed conscience is a good guide as to whether something is or is not modest… in dress and action.

The Church is specific when she needs to be. She is specific, for instance, about the end result of the marital act. She leaves the roadmap open to judgment on the part of Her faithful. She is specific about requirements to pray and serve other people, but leaves the path wide to allow for our individual charisms to shine.

As is the case with other threads, once again here we see personal proclivities and sensitivities taking the place of Church teaching. I’m not advocating for people to wear g-strings and strut around. (Women OR men) I’m saying that it’s best to stick to the words of the Catechism, which refer us to allowing the Spirit and well-formed consciences to dictate our practices, as opposed to making overly broad and sweeping declarations.

The Bucket, you say it is nonsense to have certain length requirements… I say no! Mary like standards here people. You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

Mary-like standards indeed; in how we present ourselves in all ways.

 

[Bluesprite333]

We are never meant to feel lust towards our spouses. Desire? Yes. Strong desire? Yes! But never lust. Lust is about me, whereas desire is about “us.” Lust is my wanting to use someone for pleasure without regard for that other person. It’s about objectification.

Objectification and lust is way more than simply thinking “dang, babe, you are looking hot” or “Um… we need to go to a private room right now.” It’s about denying the fact that the other person is, well, a person, and is simply an instrument for your pleasure be it physical or simply looking. It strips away the dignity of the other.

Sexual attraction is normal and desire for one’s spouse is good. Lust is not because lust is inherently selfish and it is greatly damaging to relationships.

I agree! I think this sums up the difference between lust and desire nicely.

 

[thewanderer]

I am disappointed at the harsh reaction to the bathing suit shown in the OP. So it’s not everyone’s cup of tea - big deal. It isn’t any worse looking than plenty of other things we see on the beach every day. In particular, anyone who doesn’t want women to be judged for wearing non-covering bathing suits, certainly shouldn’t judge women for making the opposite choice. I have gone to the beach wearing a suit that most people would consider “Amish” (as my dh and I joke), and I am self conscious about it, because I know how much people judge. But I chose to wear that suit anyway, because I firmly believe it was the best of the options available to me. Frankly, it ticks me off that I would be judged for it, especially by people who generally share my values. I have never picked on someone for wearing swimwear that I thought was too skimpy. **Why should someone be picked on for covering more than average? **Since it is wrong to criticize women who wear short skirts in dark alleys (because of course, assault is never the fault of the victim), then why is it that when women make a choice to cover more, they STILL end up having to defend their choices and their reasons? Ugh.

I don’t know if this has been addressed (haven’t finished reading the thread) but it didn’t sound to me as though people were attacking the first swimsuit because of its coverage, but rather because they thought it was ugly. They proceeded to try and offer alternatives to the OP that fit her particular standards of coverage in a swimsuit. There is nothing wrong with believing a particular article of clothing is ugly and just because you find a particular swimsuit with good coverage ugly does not mean you are criticizing the swimsuit because of its coverage. Just something to think about.

 

[Galbin]

Are you sure?

A Bishop were I live, preached a lot against immodesty in clothing.

I have read writings about modesty by Popes, cardinals and priests, for example:

Yes, but there is a world of difference between a lady wearing an push up bra coupled with a low cut top versus a woman wearing a regular bikini on the beach. Also, I should have clarified my statement: I personally never once heard a priest talk about bikinis. I have attended mass in Canada, the UK and various parts of Europe, so surely it should have come up somewhere if it were so important.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Yes, but there is a world of difference between a lady wearing an push up bra coupled with a low cut top versus a woman wearing a regular bikini on the beach. Also, I should have clarified my statement: I personally never once heard a priest talk about bikinis. I have attended mass in Canada, the UK and various parts of Europe, so surely it should have come up somewhere if it were so important.

Sadly, various Priests don’t speak frequently about these topics.

It doesn’t matter if is “popular” to preach about something or not. If some Catholics don’t tend to speak about something, that doesn’t diminish their importance. What matters, is that there is Doctrine, Magisterium, about various subjects.

There are very important topics that aren’t spoken enough about today (6th and 9th Commandment topics, for example), that makes these lack importance? No.

 

[Galbin]

Sadly, various Priests don’t speak frequently about these topics.

It doesn’t matter if is “popular” to preach about something or not. If some Catholics don’t tend to speak about something, that doesn’t diminish their importance. What matters, is that there is Doctrine, Magisterium, about various subjects.

There are very important topics that aren’t spoken enough about today (6th and 9th Commandment topics, for example), that makes these lack importance? No.

If the Catholic Church doesn’t speak much about a topic it does indeed lead me to conclude that they don’t consider it to be very important. After all, I have heard wonderful sermons on abortion, and many would consider that to be an “unpopular” topic.

The 6th commandment forbids adultery, and I am not sure what wearing bikinis has to do with that. The 9th Commandment seems more relevant indeed, but we must recognise that there is a difference between a man noticing a woman is attractive and him lusting after her. I am not a lesbian, but I notice that a woman is attractive or if she has an attractive body. Does that mean I go home and lust after her? No it absolutely does not! Similarly, I can notice an attractive man but I do not give it even a thought once the man is gone, and there are no sexual feelings ascribed to it. I certainly do not go home dreaming about him instead of my husband!

 

[CesarAugustus]

If the Catholic Church doesn’t speak much about a topic it does indeed lead me to conclude that they don’t consider it to be very important. After all, I have heard wonderful sermons on abortion, and many would consider that to be an “unpopular” topic.

The 6th commandment forbids adultery, and I am not sure what wearing bikinis has to do with that. The 9th Commandment seems more relevant indeed, but we must recognise that there is a difference between a man noticing a woman is attractive and him lusting after her. I am not a lesbian, but I notice that a woman is attractive or if she has an attractive body. Does that mean I go home and lust after her? No it absolutely does not! Similarly, I can notice an attractive man but I do not give it even a thought once the man is gone, and there are no sexual feelings ascribed to it. I certainly do not go home dreaming about him instead of my husband!

Since some years ago, some Catholics have lessened the focus on various topics. If you want to check the importance of something, consult Moral Theology manuals, the Catechism, writings of Saints, the Magisterium, etc. It doesn’t matter if Priests or laypeople speak about them or not. The official doctrine is already written.

The 6th Commandment covers various things:

IN BRIEF

2392 “Love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being” (FC 11).

2393 By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other. Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.

2394 Christ is the model of chastity. Every baptized person is called to lead a chaste life, each according to his particular state of life.

2395 Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2397 The covenant which spouses have freely entered into entails faithful love. It imposes on them the obligation to keep their marriage indissoluble.

2398 Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God’s fatherhood.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

Read more in:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

About lust and sexual attraction, that was already adressed in previous posts.

 

[Galbin]

I’m not sure you are understanding what I am saying re: noticing an attractive person versus coveting them. I am aware of that document, but thank you anyway.

 

[CesarAugustus]

I’m not sure you are understanding what I am saying re: noticing an attractive person versus coveting them . I am aware of that document, but thank you anyway.

Here is something about the topic:

• by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;

• by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;[sup]313[/sup]

- by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;[sup]314[/sup]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a9.htm

 

[Galbin]

Here is something about the topic:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a9.htm

What exactly are you saying here? That noticing a woman has a pretty face is a sin even if you are not even remotely in any minor way attracted to them?

 

[CesarAugustus]

What exactly are you saying here? That noticing a woman has a pretty face is a sin even if you are not even remotely in any minor way attracted to them?

I’m not saying that, read again the part in bold. It speaks about impure thoughts and lust.

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m not saying that, read again the part in bold. It speaks about impure thoughts and lust.

I think it kind of circles back to a variation of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” How complicit is Person A with regard to Person B’s impure thoughts? Whether Person A wears a bikini or a full body bathrobe, Person B may or may not have impure thoughts.

How can one be not complicit with what goes on in another’s head?