Modesty in swimsuits

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosejmj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Confusing chaste marital sexual desire and good sex with sinful lust is like going up to a Medal of Honor winner and telling him that he is a serial killer.

It is like telling an Indycar driver that he is a reckless speeder.

It is like telling a race runner that he gets medals for cutting in line.

It is like telling a farmer that he is in the business of destroying the natural order of plant growth.

I could go on… 🙂

But my point is that this is not nitpicking, at least in Modern English.

Now, if we were speaking Old English or even Middle English, “lust” was more like any kind of desire, wish, or enthusiasm. “Lusti” usually meant something like hearty, lively, a pleasant person. So if the poster comes from certain dialectal areas, or if he is familiar with the word from, say, certain writers who ignore the modern distinction between desire and lust, he is posting in good faith.

But we cannot all be Humpty-Dumpty and make words mean only what we want them to mean.
 
Last edited:
The intent of the person wearing a swimsuit?

A) person wears a suit most would find sexy, but has no intent to evoke lust in others

B) person does the same but has the intent to evoke those feelings
 
If you really had unbridled sexual desire, you would be doing it with rocks and trees. So clearly, you understand some kind of distinction between ordered sexual desire and lust.

(If you really do have such a problem, you need to seek help from mental health folks and from physicians.)
 
Last edited:
Mintaka said:
But we cannot all be Humpty-Dumpty and make words mean only what we want them to mean
Click to expand...
The act of sex is a lustful carnal act whether two good Catholics do it or two X rated film stars. The only difference is the two good Catholics are married. I am not being obstinant, but I don’t see any distiction.
 
Oh, and as I have famously posted before, a lot of the old moral theology handbooks are not particularly worried about immodesty, even when done deliberately. There was a guy from 1900 who was of the opinion that even a stripper in a burlesque theatre was only committing a venial sin; it was not nearly as serious as a woman trying to catch a married man by acting sexy while fully clad, or a prostitute walking the street fully clad. (Because the men in the audience know they probably have no chance with the stripper, but the loose women are advertising seriously.)

Now, I am not saying we should all go ecdysiast! But the moral theologians were fully aware that telling a woman (or even a man) that an outfit is over the top is a very delicate operation, better reserved to friends or family. And wearing such an outfit is very rarely considered sinful, unless it goes along with loose behavior. It is often considered stupid or tasteless, but those are not sins.

And moral theologians do have a lot of advice to men and women on custody of the eyes, and behaving like a grownup. Kids who get excited easily were not be judged harshly, but they were supposed to be taught how to develop self-control. Self-control of all kinds is a basic Christian skill. (And yes, it has often been taught wrongly in the past, or kids have been given no guidance at all. But George Washington taught himself self-control from a Spanish Jesuit’s translated handbook, and he was living out in the wilderness waybacks.)

We can dress with moderation and set a good example, and we can give a word to the wise when people go too far. But we should not drive ourselves crazy by setting up as arbiters of fashion sins.
Nor can we justly attempt to prevent the existence of freely willed sins of lust by other people, by muffling ourselves up in an unreasonable way. Nobody can live anyone else’s life for him. Men are not helpless babies. Even teenage boys are not helpless. If we think a boy can learn to play intricate games of skill and strength, he can learn to ride out his hormones. And the same thing goes for girls.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t been swimming in years and even then I would only enter the water if there were no boats cruising past. I don’t like being in any state of undress unless I’m showering or going to bed.

But the reason your post caught my eye has to do with swimming practices of 150+ years ago. I’ve just finished reading a biography of Jane Austen, the English novelist who lived 1775-1816. In the coastal resort of Lyme Regis there were two ways a lady could “swim”. One, if one was not skilled at the practice, was to have an attendant carry you out to waist deep water and dip you in as often as you wished. Lady bathers had women as attendants it should be mentioned. The other method was what was called the “bathing hut”. This was a smallish wooden hut on wheels, into which a lady would enter, change into her swimwear, be rolled out into the water, splash about a bit while still inside, then signal that she was ready to be rolled back in. Dry off, change back into regular clothes, and exit the hut with no one any the wiser.

Of course, the swimsuits of that day and age were so heavy they were probably dangerous to be in once wet. lol
 
Mintaka said:
But George Washington taught himself self-control from a Spanish Jesuit’s translated handbook, and he was living out in the wilderness waybacks.)
Click to expand...
This concept of self control is another issue I have. I challenge any healthy heterosexual male to do something as innocent as walking from one end of a popular shopping mall to the other. The male will view women in tightly worn yoga pants, and very short shorts. If these incredibly beautiful views are right in front of me there is no self control. Thoughts just pop into my head. I know my friends say the same thing so I suspect this is true of most men.

I have fun with it, and I have innocently flirted occasionally. I think it is impossible for most men to not have lustfull, or amoress thoughts in this situation. We men have testosterone fueled thoughts, and we are very visually oriented. It’s how we are made.
 
Last edited:
CelticWarlord said:
I don’t like being in any state of undress unless I’m showering or going to bed.
Click to expand...
Why? When I was a young guy I had six pack abs and I enjoyed displaying them to young ladies. Now I don’t look as good, but I am not ashamed of not having a shirt. I assume by your name your a male.
 
Last edited:
Having a thought cross someone’s mind is no big deal.

Dwelling upon a thought, deliberately encouraging such thoughts, and deliberately creating and developing intricate fantasies and plans? That is where things get sinful.

Trying frantically to un-think a thought is counterproductive. But treating that thought as unimportant is what makes intrusive thoughts go away. You don’t dwell on everything else you see during the day, and every other sensation that they make you feel. You pay attention when things happen, and then they usually pass from your mind.

So yeah, if you dwell on that guy who cut you on the road, you might develop it into sinful wrath. Or you might report the dangerous driver to the police, if it was bad enough. Or you might just let yourself get on with life. A rational adult chooses one of the last two, not the first one.

All temptations to the Seven Deadlies have similar remedies.
 
Last edited:
There is a lot of leeway between husband and wife, but it is hardly “anything goes.” It is obviously forbidden to purposefully cause your wife serious wounds, or internal injuries, or diseases (and the same goes for her).

It is forbidden for either spouse to seriously enslave the other, or to engage in any kind of conduct that goes against ordinary human decency or dignity. There is a line between play and hate. (Or self-hate.)

And yes, there are also rules about which sexual acts are fair and healthy, and which are not. The Church tries to leave this stuff to common sense, but you can research it if interested. But reading about Theology of the Body will probably give you the principles.
 
Last edited:
If you lived far enough out in the country, or if you were not of high social class, there was such a thing as skinnydipping. But Jane Austen was a woman of the gentry, or at least the high middle class.

Men also had bulky swimming suits, which was why men did a lot of skinnydipping. At Oxford, well into the twentieth century, there was a spot in the river called “Parson’s Pleasure” which was reserved for naked swimming. (Parson’s because many guys were theology students studying to be Anglican clergy.)

One of the UK priests was just reminiscing about this, but it comes into Sayers’ novel Gaudy Night. The place was closed in 1991, and they no longer allow swimming or diving of any kind. (Instead of turning it into a public clothed swimming hole, which would make sense.)

History has a lot of weird byways.
 
Last edited:
Wow I was just notified that a series of my posts were “flagged” by the community. If I offended or shocked someone please have the courage to tell me you have a problem. I don’t bite.

I guess if I want to learn anything on this topic I’ll have to go elsewhere. I made every effort to keep it G rated, but I have been censored out iof existence. Thanks to those who tried. Apparently I have still shocked some members and that is enough to delete my posts.

Maybe I don’t belong here.
 
Dracarys said:
Now I don’t look as good, but I am not ashamed of not having a shirt.
Click to expand...
I’m just a very, very private and secluded person. I’ve been a weight lifter all my life so have always been fit. And, despite a torn and arthritic shoulder, continue with what I can do in that. But my body is my own and I have no wish to reveal it to anyone but my wife for any reason. It’s not a matter of shame but of what I choose as being appropriate to my desire for modesty. I’ll wear shorts and t-shirt as soon as the weather gets warm but I find the sight of men who disrobe further than that to be unpleasant and undignified. But that’s just me and don’t expect anyone else to follow suit.
 
Last edited:
It could be about your casual attitude about causing lust, or you committing sexual sin with your wife (‘not that I’ll stop’), or you lusting over women without guilt.

This is a Catholic forum so it’s not a surprise why these comments may not be appropriate. I don’t know if you actually broke rules though.

Most people here are eager to share if one shows genuine interest vs someone who isn’t planning on changing. So yeah, if you’re the latter, maybe there’s another way to go about expressing your views
 
Last edited:
LawyersGunsAndMoney said:
You definitely have to keep it super g-rated around here. People are pretty quick to throw flags…sometimes unreasonably so, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
So moderators just delete posts based on a complaint? Do they at least read the “offending” posts? How can anyone learn anything on sensitive topics?
 
Your posts are still here, but flagged. You just have to click. Did your posts get deleted, which I didn’t see yet?

My posts here get deleted too. Although I wish moderators would tell why an action has been taken so people would know exactly what not to do.
 
Last edited:
Years ago I got an infraction for “contempt for Catholicism”… broke my heart, and my appeal to the moderator did not remove that black mark. Sometimes people read your posts in a completely different way from what you intended…
I don’t think CAF has infractions anymore, but maybe it does.
 
Lea101 said:
This is a Catholic forum so it’s not a surprise why these comments may not be appropriate. I don’t know if you actually broke rules though.
Click to expand...
So tell me I am a sinfull wretch don’t censor and delete me. Yes it still is my opinion that most anything goes between husband and wife. If I am wrong give me a list. Is this forum about learning or for protecting overly sensitive members?

Plus, how about having a sense of humor? Being uptight just turns people off.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top