Modesty in swimsuits

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosejmj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JMMJ said:
if a guy can’t keep his head out of the gutter, then the beach isn’t probably the best place for him. Maybe the zoo, instead? Oh wait, the animals walk around naked there
Click to expand...
mrsdizzyd said:
Men practice custody of the eyes. If you just can’t manage to stop objectifying women in swimwear consider foregoing the beach or the pool
Click to expand...
Tis_Bearself said:
You’re hardly a “little one” if you’re big enough to be feeling lust when you look at a woman in a swimsuit.

Take responsibility for your own moral character and your own sins.
Click to expand...
I have to say ladies, are these really the Christian attitudes we are to have? It’s okay for women to wear whatever they want while men just have to be told to look away and if he does look, because it is in a man’s human nature to notice a scadily dressed woman, he is considered an animal?

You know most women that wear bikinis to the beach or public pool are not wearing them because they are afraid of drowning in a one piece modest suit. If they are in an immodest bikini or even an immodest one piece, it is because of fashion reasons not safety or even swimming reasons.

Women dressing for the pool or beach also need to consider also the mom who would like to take her pre-teen sons to the public pool or the beach but is afraid to because she has to worry about what they may see. Many moms work hard to teach their sons custody of the eyes but she can’t be on top of them every second saying, “look away” or “don’t look at her”. Should we tell those moms to keep their young boys with their lack of control to stay at home? What about the young teen male who has to go to the public pool to practice swimming so he can earn his scout merit badges? Do we just tell them stay home because if you look at a woman in a bikini and lustful thoughts come to your mind you are nothing but an animal?

I don’t think these are the attitudes we as Catholic Christian women are to have?

While it is true that men need to practice custody of their eyes and avoid tempting situations, the beach and public pool are not just filled with men, there are youth there also. I think we all know how hard it is to get an image out of our mind once it is there.

We as women are responsible for what we wear and whether or not it causes another human being to fall.
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
Why were clothing standards different? Because we hadn’t been brainwashed by consumer culture and the sexual revolution?
Click to expand...
I went for a five mile walk this morning and I wore a short sleeved t shirt and cropped cargo style pants. In St Pio’s time, this was certainly not the norm, but is it scandalous or indecent?
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
I have to say ladies, are these really the Christian attitudes we are to have?
Click to expand...
Yes. The woman dressing immodestly in public - and that’s by the general public standard of immodesty for her time, not 100 years ago or in Padre Pio’s alleged statements - is committing a sin, whether any man happens to look at her with lust or not. Maybe none of the men find her attractive, maybe all of them practice custody of the eyes. She still sinned, by being immodest.

She did NOT sin because Joe Schmoe happened to look at her and feel lust. Joe may be the type of man who feels lust when he sees a woman showing an ankle. If the sin was “she made Joe feel lust” then she would be guilty even if she was dressed appropriately to go visit the Pope in person.

Joe Schmoe likewise ocmmitted the sin of lust if he did not immediately practice custody of his eyes.
If he then proceeded to blame the woman, he’s just like Adam. “I sinned because the woman made me.” God didn’t buy that argument.
And neither do I.

Especially when we have a person in this thread claiming that any woman who doesn’t follow Padre Pio’s modesty standards from 100 years ago is driving men to sin. By that standard, we have female saints and beati who have driven men to sin. We have sisters and senior citizens from my city who are driving men to sin on a regular basis. My 75-year-old mother was driving men to sin every time she wore her one-piece athletic swimsuit to swim in the mixed-gender gym pool.

It gets ridiculous fast.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
She did NOT sin because Joe Schmoe happened to look at her and feel lust.
Click to expand...
Tis_Bearself said:
Joe Schmoe likewise ocmmitted the sin of lust if he did not immediately practice custody of his eyes.
Click to expand...
Joe Schmoe may be an 11, 12, 13… year old boy and then yes if she contributes to his feeling lust because he notices her, then yes she is sinning.
 
Last edited:
It matters not if Joe is 12 or 92. What matters is whether the woman is truly dressing immodestly in public. By generally accepted church standards of her time.

Otherwise the Church would make us all wear burkas. Because a 12-year-old boy might be looking.

I’m out of this thread. Modesty discussions always leave the bounds of rational thought in a big hurry and this one is no exception. It’s completely pointless to even try to discuss. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
No, not exactly. The point is that a 13 year old boy is a bundle of hormones and it may not make any difference what the woman is wearing - whether it’s a string bikini, an athletic one piece or a tshirt and shorts.

What are we advocating for here? The burka?
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
It matters not if Joe is 12 or 92. What matters is whether the woman is truly dressing immodestly in public. By generally accepted church standards of her time.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how different time standards came about in this thread, but the point of the thread from the OP was immodest swimwwear today and it does matter because Christ said our actions matter and it is a sin to cause another person to stumble.
 
DeniseNY said:
No, not exactly. The point is that a 13 year old boy is a bundle of hormones and it may not make any difference what the woman is wearing - whether it’s a string bikini, an athletic one piece or a tshirt and shorts.

What are we advocating for here? The burka?
Click to expand...
No we are not advocating for the burka. There are a lot of pretty modest swimsuits out there today that are not frumpy or grumpy that can be chosen but I guess the thought is we don’t have to dress modest because adult men can just be told, “don’t look and if you do you are an animal, stay away from the beach or pool” and young boys, even younger than 13, are going to look no matter what because they are just a bundle of hormones and it doesn’t matter what impression we make. ??

Really?? and then we women can just wear whatever we want and we have no responsibility in our choices at all.
 
Last edited:
fide said:
The question I think a woman ought to ask herself is, concerning her choice of public dress, does she want to lead men into temptations, which can result in sinful thoughts and/or deeds in them?
Click to expand...
I think this is a good point. For example: In regards to bathing suits, what is an individual girl/woman’s motivation regarding wearing a string bikini which does not provide much support? Or what is a man’s motivation wearing tight briefs or trunks?
  • Is it just because everyone else is doing it?
  • Or is it to look sexy and catch a man’s/woman’s eye?
NOTE: I do understand a bikini top using the same logic as a man being topless. However, I do not understand the logic of brief bottoms (men or women) when not performing competitive diving (diving board). Esp now that competitive swimmers typically use swim shorts or swim pants.

NOTE 2: Now that swim shirts are being used more, I personally fail to understand why some refuse to wear them for modesty reasons. My son and I wear them all the time and I do my best to have my daughter wear them too. They are not only good protection from the sun, but they are great for modesty too. Two birds with one stone.
 
Last edited:
No one is saying that. What is being disputed is the notion that women should dress like women did 100 years ago in order to be considered “modest”.

And the point about you g boys us that they are likely to find any female form suggestive, regardless of what she’s wearing. So how does a woman address that?
 
DeniseNY said:
No one is saying that. What is being disputed is the notion that women should dress like women did 100 years ago in order to be considered “modest”.
Click to expand...
That was not the original question when the posters starting calling men animals. The original question was:

“I have recently been looking at swimsuits for the summer. I am a little confused about the modesty standards though. I have always been told bikinis are immodest and I agree some of them are…”

She doesn’t say anything about 100 years ago.
DeniseNY said:
And the point about you g boys us that they are likely to find any female form suggestive, regardless of what she’s wearing. So how does a woman address that?
Click to expand...
While it is true that young boys will find the female form suggestive in other clothing, in answering the original question, it doesn’t take away a woman’s responsibility in a public beach or pool to dress so as not to cause another person to fall into sin, young or old.

and to answer what about other clothing, yes, we should ask ourselves as women when we dress in the morning, will the way I dress cause another person to fall into sin.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
and to answer what about other clothing, yes, we should ask ourselves as women when we dress in the morning, will the way I dress cause another person to fall into sin.
Click to expand...
And what if someone finds bare elbows, calves, or ankles suggestive? Should women not leave the house because a bare ankle may cause someone to sin?
 
Last edited:
DeniseNY said:
And the point about you g boys us that they are likely to find any female form suggestive, regardless of what she’s wearing. So how does a woman address that?
Click to expand...
I would make the below argument. But before I do, I’m going to define two terms just for use in my argument. I am not defining these terms for world wise usage, only within my argument.
  • Beautiful / handsome : attractive in a chaste way.
  • Sexy : attractive in an unchaste way.
I’m also not going to define where the line between Beautiful/Handsome and Sexy are. While there is an objective difference between the two, the line between them is somewhat subjective.

Now, with all that stated, here is my argument:
  • If a woman is dressed in a beautiful way (or man in a handsome way), it is 100% NOT her/his fault if another has sinful/lustful thoughts about her/him.
  • However, if dressed in a sexy way, then she/he shares in the fault if another has sinful/lustful thoughts about her/him. I’m not going to say the fault is 50-50, but they do share in the fault if dressed in a sexy way.
The way I see it today, is that we no longer have societal agreement regarding the difference between beautiful/handsome and sexy, as secular society uses both words interchangeably.

God bless
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
The way I see it today, is that we no longer have societal agreement regarding the difference between beautiful and sexy, as secular society uses both words interchangeably
Click to expand...
That’s a huge part of the problem. There is no one universal definition. A lot is in the eye of the beholder
 
Moral relativism is never the answer.

Clothing​

Entry to the Vatican Museums, the Sistine Chapel, St. Peter’s Basilica and the Vatican Gardens is permitted only to appropriately dressed visitors.
Low cut or sleeveless clothing, shorts, miniskirts and hats are not allowed.
 
So if I walk anther five miles tomorrow and wear a sleeveless top, I’m sinning?
 
DeniseNY said:
And what if someone finds bare elbows, calves, or ankles suggestive? Should women not leave the house because a bare ankle may cause someone to sin?
Click to expand...
So, now you are getting carried away and have left the original question. Probably because you already know what are the right and wrong answers in the original posters question but are choosing to go into extremes.

God bless
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top