Modesty in swimsuits

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosejmj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’ve been corrected on your use of the term “lust”. Definitions were provided earlier from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
-A fellow sinful wretch.
 
Lea101 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that some of the posts read like a guy casually talking to a bunch of other secular guys in a locker room, rather than on a Catholic forum where we’re expected to comply with Catholic teaching, and further on a thread where several posters think it’s sinful for women to even wear athletic one-piece swimsuits.

Posting about your personal sex life here is perceived as pretty gross, especially when you then state you don’t intend to follow Catholic teaching on sex. And add some LOLs to that.
 
Last edited:
People here express different opinions all the time. We have atheists, Muslims etc that disagree with basic Catholic values.

There is a difference between saying ‘I disagree with the teaching about lust and here’s why’ vs saying ‘ill never stop lusting till the day I die (paraphrased), I won’t stop doing xyz’

One shows a desire for conversation, another basically asserts they don’t intent to listen/learn but instead laugh about it. Yeah, so obviously if there’s no real purpose to a post besides general snarkiness, you get flagged.

It gets annoying but at least you learn how to actually engage in fruitful and mature discussions.
 
twf said:
You’ve been corrected on your use of the term “lust”. Definitions were provided earlier from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
-A fellow sinful wretch.
Click to expand...
Not really. The term lust was used as something the church says we ought not to do, but I don’t see any difference between lust and other euphemism members have used here.
Tis_Bearself said:
Posting about your personal sex life here is perceived as pretty gross, especially when you then state you don’t intend to follow Catholic teaching on sex. And add some LOLs to that.
Click to expand...
What is gross about normal human sexual relations? I am not bragging I’m being honest. I certainly did not use explicit terms or four letter words. I really have not understood the attitude I’m getting throughout this thread. Don’t any of you like sex? Does it shock you? How do you think any of you came to be here?

Sex is not just a chemical reaction as some here have called it. I am very surprised and turned off by the attitudes and censorship I’ve experienced here.
 
Dracarys said:
What is gross about normal human sexual relations? I am not bragging I’m being honest. I certainly did not use explicit terms or four letter words. I really have not understood the attitude I’m getting throughout this thread. Don’t any of you like sex? Does it shock you? How do you think any of you came to be here?
Click to expand...
Sex itself isn’t gross, I like sex very much, and it doesn’t shock me. That said, there are certain things that even though they’re not bad in and of themselves, we don’t talk about outside of a select few.

Again, I’m not offended, and I tend to be sympathetic to the argument that a lot of people on CAF need to lighten up. But it shouldn’t be too shocking that someone thought you were being slightly inappropriate.
 
Dracarys said:
What is gross about normal human sexual relations? I am not bragging I’m being honest
Click to expand...
This isn’t a relationship forum or Dr Ruth Westheimer’s sex advice forum. This is Catholic Answers. We’re here to discuss Catholic teaching. We’re not here to discuss your personal life, especially since you seem to be advocating “lust” as a fun activity rather than one of the Seven Deadly Sins, stated that you and your wife probably do stuff forbidden by the Church in the bedroom, and further stated that you run around eyeing up and flirting with other women as a recreational activity when you’re married. You aren’t living a Catholic life, you seem completely tone deaf as to what a Catholic life even entails, and you complain about the First Amendment when people who are trying to live life as good Catholics flag your posts.

I strongly suspect you aren’t posting in good faith.
 
Dracarys said:
Sexuality is a major Catholic teaching. Why are you uncomfortable with it?
Click to expand...
Why are you assuming I’m “uncomfortable with it” when I am noting that it is inappropriate material for this forum?

As for the “rhythm method of birth control”, nobody uses that any more for eons, but I don’t think you’re interested in any intelligent discussion of NFP.
You just seem to want to talk about how much you enjoy having sex, chatting up young women you aren’t married to, and other things that are all about you and your sex drive.

Not the purpose of the forum.

And that’s my last response to you as like I said, I suspect you’re trolling. Bye.
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn’t modesty standards stay the same?
I thought of the Church, should she change “with the times”.
 
MarthaSo said:
Why shouldn’t modesty standards stay the same?
I thought of the Church, should she change “with the times”.
Click to expand...
The virtue of modesty never changes, but what constitutes modesty can change in different contexts. What’s modest at the beach may not be modest at an audience with the Pope.
 
Lea101 said:
40.png
phil19034:
The religious man doesn’t want any girls/women lusted after while the non-religious man picks and chooses which women can be lusted after and who can’t be
Click to expand...
I wasn’t really referring to that, but rather more liberal men wouldn’t see a problem with certain clothing (e.g. Pants, skinny jeans, running shorts) because they see it as normal. While some religious men who have that weird filter on and find that certain things are immodest.

So it’s not that they’re okay with sexy outfits, but rather they don’t find it sexy in the first place. I’m not talking about universally sexy clothing, but stuff like the swimsuits shown here, shorts and so on.

Edited to add: not referring to all religious men, but those who are obsessive about avoiding lust. If you’re walking around viewing women as temptations, you’re more likely to zoom in on certain things that you wouldn’t if you’re thinking about something else.
Click to expand...
yeah, I wouldn’t objectively consider those to be immodest.

SOME can be when they are SUPER TIGHT, but in general no.

The biggest issue I have is the trend to wear tights as pants, esp the Brazilian Workout Leggings.

There was a girl working at our local Wawa today who was wearing all black Brazilian workout leggings (look them up if you don’t know what they are)

I really don’t see the reason why someone needs to wear pants so tight that they naturally give a wedgie
 
Do you dress as Our Lady did as a first century Middle Eastern Lady? Never showing your ankles or arms… head covered at all times?
What very conservative traditionalist Catholics declare “modest” is often the standards of the early 20th century West, but even that would have been wildly provocative in the first century - or for that matter the modern Middle East.
 
The church does change with the times. E.g. Vatican II.

Not every change is terrible! Additionally, this is the Catholic Church, aka universal. We have different modesty standards in different countries
 
I can wear a light sundress with mid sleeve at the beach, in fact there are swimwear like this that would be just as appropriate in front of the Pope. It’s not a shocking truth that we can just cover up our bodies the most we can, light fabric ad color in hot weather , outside on all occasions. Unfortunately the worlds wisdom seems to want to cause a lot of confusion on this modern issue.
 
Last edited:
This would be closer to Muslims’ beliefs regarding modesty. Hence the burkinis.

Your idea of modesty may get you into serious trouble in a different country, too. That’s what we mean by different contexts

I can wear running shorts (or even longer shorts) during my workout and it’s all fine and dandy. But if I wear such an outfit to Mass, it would be immodest.

Note that modesty/immodesty isn’t always about the amount of skin, but also the appropriateness of your outfit. Wearing a neon lime suit or even your sundress rat a funeral would be immodest (on top of being rude) because it would be inappropriate, even though one is covered.
 
Last edited:
i can workout in that same grey dress i had in my head with capri tights under… also would be appropriate at a funeral. Skin showing matters Leah. And ofcourse I wouldn’t pick line green at a funeral, a bit irrelevant.

I don’t need to wear shorts to work out nor do i need to conform to do what a lot of women are doing these days which is wear brightly colored spandex bras and tights to exercise in. I once’s searched on amazon for leggings and i felt like I was looking through a penthouse website with how the clothes were modeled and gear being advertised as “sexy”. . I can wear a long grey light patterned tunic shirt dress with capri tights that i can pretty much get away with anywhere. Church, Pope, work, exercise,beach… the common denominator is not tight and no skin showing.Simple living. And this will be my last post on this issue. As mentioned, the world tries to make it complicated, it’s not, it’s quite simple.
 
Last edited:
Look up the Catechism definition of lust. You are thinking of the secular definition of it.
 
And again, a sun dress would have been condemned as the attire of harlots in first century Israel. Standards of modesty do change. You just proved it. :). But your general point remains valid.
 
MarthaSo said:
i can workout in that same grey dress i had in my head with capri tights under… also would be appropriate at a funeral. Skin showing matters Leah. And ofcourse I wouldn’t pick line green at a funeral, a bit irrelevant
Click to expand...
It is relevant. Modesty is more than the amount of skin shown. You can exercise with a grey dress on if you want. I don’t know how this dress looks, so I won’t dwell on this imaginary scenario. I’m sure you dress according to the situation anyway, instead of actually using the same outfit for exercise and a funeral. As in, you have more than one outfit that is.

Catechism says 2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top