Thongs on beaches, OnlyFans, Wap etc...is this where our society is heading?

[Paddy1989]

I live in Australia and so many women under 35 now are wearing thongs (known as gstring bikinis here) or those “half bum out” bikinis on the beach.
Personally, being of Europeans background and living in the climate/culture of Australia, my own standards of modesty have never been strict. If chest, and bum, and “front bum” (I didn’t know how to word it for a Catholic forum) are covered, this to me is modest.
But these new bikinis are too much even for me.

I must be getting old, because young women don’t even seem to perceive those bikinis as being sexual at all. It’s just “everyday” for them. Not to mention hygiene factors when they use public gym equipment or sit on stools at the beach, and then others get the “joy” of using it after them.

There were some stories here recently where women complained on news, current affairs programs etc, because they were wearing these at their apartment complex pools, and a security guard told then they must put something else to cover.
The security guard was Muslim and it is predominantly Muslims that say anything here in this regard, alot of other Australians just have a mindset of “if people don’t like it they should look away”.

Another “tragedy” seems to me the number of young women that are joining OnlyFans. It’s like there’s a mentality of “I can get so much money doing this so why work normal job” etc.
For me the tragedy isn’t so much what they are selling (this has existed since the beginning of time), the tragedy is more that it’s no longer being seen/recognised as porn/sex industry. It’s like things have become so normalized that people can no longer see things for what they are?

Even on Etsy of all places, the photos for some of the thing they are selling now are so “full on” and graphic.
Ok, if they feel the need to sell men’s pink lace g-string, but does everyone have to see a photo of “him” wearing it? I think you get the theme of what I am talking about. And these arn’t a one of. There’s a lot of these types of listings.

Is this just how society will be now?

Sensual and sexy doesn’t have to mean these things.

Am I just getting old?

I really enjoy this subject because it is asking how much does context matter. I mean what man or women would be happy to walk around in their underwear around in a public place or sit with friends and neighbours in their own own with just a thong and bra lol yet on the beach it’s socially acceptable. What i notice however is that while it is socially acceptable from a man’s perspective anyway the feelings of lust that is incited in him will just be the same.

Some even try to compare it to art of the naked body as the porn industry has done but such comparisons are rubbish as one is intended to incite lust while the other intends to portray the objective beauty of creation. What do these outfits do, why do we wear them? I actually find it comical, don’t you think we have gotten a bit ridiculous with all this? lol

 

[meltzerboy2]

I am not Catholic and don’t agree with the Catholic worldview on this matter. I’m not sure all Christian denominations agree either. Perhaps not considered Christian by all, but I remember one of the leaders of the Religious Science movement saying on his radio show, which I used to listen to, “Nothing wrong with a little healthy lust.” Just don’t allow it to become the be-all and end-all of your life and go wild. I think there is too much repression of sex among people, and the younger generation, to their credit, is not as up tight as many of us elders are. Extremes in either direction do psychological harm to people.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Perhaps not considered Christian by all, but I remember one of the leaders of the Religious Science movement saying on his radio show, which I used to listen to, “Nothing wrong with a little healthy lust.”

I think that’s just an error by definition. Lust is wrong and disordered by definition. Better to say “nothing wrong with a healthy desire” or a “healthy attraction.”

 

[Paddy1989]

I am not Catholic and don’t agree with the Catholic worldview on this matter. I’m not sure all Christian denominations agree either. Perhaps not considered Christian by all, but I remember one of the leaders of the Religious Science movement saying on his radio show, which I used to listen to, “nothing wrong with a little healthy lust.” Just don’t allow it to become the be-all and end-all of your life and go wild. I think there is too much repression of sex among people and the younger generation, to their credit, is not as up tight as many of us elders are. Extremes in either direction do psychological harm to people.

Such a statement wouldn’t at all be consistent with the Catholic world-view about the value and dignity of man, obviously this person doesn’t understand the definition of lust to then refer to it as healthy.

Also there is no such thing as just repression for it’s own sake, with EVERY repression comes an expression of something else, for example an alcoholic who represses his love for drink is expressing love for his wife. A woman who represses her lust of another man may be expressing love for her husband. What you merely see as repressing a merely animalisitic act we would see an expressing the value and dignity of the man and woman’s sexuality as something not merely to be used as a means in an of itself for our satisfaction. i would say it is the secularist who is repressing the natural inclinations to treat each others with love and respect and instead give in to the erratic desires that has created such a disordered society.

We are all sexual beings, what does our expressions of it tell us about ourselves and others?

 

[MNathaniel]

I am not Catholic

Ah. Well that does explain why you think this sentiment you heard on the radio is reasonable:

“nothing wrong with a little healthy lust.”

Honestly I appreciate your honesty.

And I hope that those Catholics who think there’s nothing ‘off’ about public nudity covered up with nothing but a bikini, read your words and realize that among those who agree about bikinis being okay (and among those who share our beaches) are men who think bikinis are okay because there’s “nothing wrong with a little healthy lust.”

As a woman, it grosses me out to think of such a man seeing me in the basically nude situation of bikini wearing in public.

Yes, I agree, such men will lust after a woman covered in a a burka too.

But it does make a difference, to me, whether I physically undress to my knickers for such a man. And in a public setting, I’m undressing for every man within eyesight.

Not ‘for’ them in the sense of intending them to look as my end goal; but knowing that inevitably, they will look – and I’m showing them something they have no right to see.

No thank you. My body does not exist to be exhibited nude for the gaze of males who think there’s “nothing wrong with a little healthy lust.”

 

[meltzerboy2]

The concept of repression I refer to is one of the very few things I still believe in Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

I understand the Catholic worldview on this subject. As a result, I think, too many Catholic women of the older generation have come to look at sex, even sexual relations with their own husband, as something necessary but not really desirable or pleasant. The Hollywood sex code of 1934 was advocated by the Church and parish priests. They fought against the largely Jewish-dominated Hollywood promotion of sex and violence on screen. They eventually lost the culture battle. Please understand, though, that I am not in favor of gratuitous sex and violence in film at every turn. But if in fun, as in Mae West’s films, or as an integral part of the plot, why not? Otherwise, just as in the case of crime and speakeasys resulting from prohibition, until the ban on liquor was lifted, people become self-loathing of their own body and neurotic, as Freud stated.

 

[meltzerboy2]

And you have every right to think that way. (I had also thought, based on your user name, that you were a male.)

I wonder whether those women who do expose themselves do so for men, or rather to liberate themselves sexually, that is, for their own pleasure. I have been told that women buy shoes essentially for themselves and NOT to please men. Could wearing a thong be similar?

 

[Paddy1989]

The concept of repression I refer to is one of the very few things I still believe in Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

I understand the Catholic worldview on this subject. As a result, I think, many women of the older generation have come to look at sex, even sexual relations with their own husband, as something necessary but not really desirable or pleasant. The Hollywood sex code of 1934 was advocated by the Church and parish priests. They fought against the largely Jewish-dominated Hollywood promotion of sex and violence on screen. They eventually lost the culture battle. I am not in favor of gratuitous sex and violence in film at every turn. But if in fun, as in Mae West’s films, or as an integral part of the plot, why not? Otherwise, just as in the case of crime and speakeasys resulting from prohibition, until the ban on liquor was lifted, people become self-loathing of their own body and neurotic, as Freud stated.

I would highly recommend since you already seem quite interested in the Catholic view on this which is admirable watch Fulton Sheen’s analysis on this

As i said what in whatever way we express our love toward something that should tell you what it means to us. Sex is much bigger and beautiful than what secular culture depicts. It isn’t just Catholicism that knows this, many faiths do especially those that have a good understanding of the relationship between body and soul. When i think of the sexual relationship as taught within the Catholic world-view i think Kama Sutra, when i think of sex as described in the secular culture i think Pornography, an industry where the most popular sub catergory in it is Rape porn, think about that, that isn’t normal.

 

[Paddy1989]

 

[meltzerboy2]

I’m not talking about pornography, which is indeed a dirty and exploitative business. I’m talking about beach wear of women (and men).

 

[otjm]

My daughters ahve a very strong sense of modesty.

One of them did a semester of study in France, and was able to tour around a bit, and totally unaware of certain matters, came upon a beach… I would repeat her comments about nude bathing, but they likely would not pass muster.

She has a particularly wicked sense of humor, much if not most of which was focused on other women of an age a good bit older than she, and the horror of displays on decidedly non-sexy anatomical changes.

And I will leave it at that.

 

[MNathaniel]

I wonder whether those women who do expose themselves do so for men, or rather to liberate themselves sexually, that is, for their own pleasure. I have been told that women buy shoes essentially for themselves and NOT to please men. Could wearing a thong be similar?

Yeah, that myth that sexualizing ourselves (sometimes phrased as “owning our sexuality”) is somehow ‘liberating’, I think that’s finally starting to fade away (and good riddance to it).

Definitely, I’ve heard women make such defiant statements in public. But even most of those women usually secretly confess discomfort with it when they talk to me privately. They may not understand why they feel so uncomfortable and upset with so much of what they’re doing (because they’re trying to live out these grand feminist narratives they’ve been taught to believe in, and they think they’re supposed to feel happy and empowered by [XYZ]). But even while wearing bikinis – they hate bikini season. And even while sleeping around – they hate sleeping around. It sometimes takes a lot of sincere conversation (and trust) before they tell you that, though. And they may need help learning to articulate it, because they’ve never been taught the language or ideas that align with their actual, intuitive feelings and sense of their own dignity. Rather, they’ve been taught twisted or partial ideas of ‘dignity’ and ‘empowerment’, and catastrophically emaciated ideas of the maximum possible they can hope for in their relationships with men (and with their own bodies). This thread could tangent though into a list of all the ways women are underserved by modern western culture though, so I’ll just leave it here.

PS Wearing pretty shoes is not comparable to going out in public in your underwear.

 

[Paddy1989]

I’m not talking about pornography, which is indeed a dirty and exploitative business. I’m talking about beach wear of women (and men).

Pornography is merely man’s expression of lust, it cannot satisfy him so he digs deeper and deeper, his emotions like a spring worn out over and over becomes desensitized, things that were once taboo and would shock us now cause us to barely flinch, all leading us down a rabbit hole that never gives us what we truly seek.

All immodesty is like this, it used to be bathing suits, now it’s g strings in public. As a man who used to take enjoyment in it as i would of used women for my own enjoyment my old selfish self would have celebrated this however now after expressing my love for God and the truth of our value and dignity i just feel pity as we are indoctrinating a new generation with values that may hinder their chances of having truly loving relationships. Such ego centrism can’t continue forever. We are not wired to behave this way, it’s self destructive, we are rejecting man’s intrinsic value and dignity endowed by our creator

 

[meltzerboy2]

Might sexual display or teasing not be a double-edged sword: liberating for some women, enslaving for others?

 

[MNathaniel]

Might sexual display or teasing not be a double-edged sword: liberating for some women, enslaving for others?

Nope.

Lust does not liberate. It enslaves.

Freedom from lust is what liberation looks like.

Also, “sexual display” could be perfectly proper: like wearing a pretty (and modest) dress. That displays my sex: female.

If you mean twerking or stripping though, no. Participation in those behaviours only weaves a tangled web that enslaves. Slavery to lust is not freedom – for anyone.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I think young men will always look at young women (or other young men). Again, not talking about pornography but on the beach. What is so wrong with that behavior? Let’s call it attraction or desire rather than lust. Most will grow up in time, settle down, find a loving relationship. It has always been so and it always will. It’s human nature, and not a bad thing, in my view.

 

[Paddy1989]

I think young men will always look at young women (or other young men). Again, not talking about pornography but on the beach. What is so wrong with that behavior? Let’s call it attraction or desire rather than lust. Most will grow up in time, settle down, find a loving relationship. It has always been so and it always will. It’s human nature, and not a bad thing, in my view.

There is NOTHING wrong with looking at the beauty of others in admiration of creation, we naturally notice it, sexual attraction is NORMAL, there is something wrong however with inciting lust. I would recommend you find out the difference as i don’t think you see a difference which is why there may be some confusion. Lust de-values the person as to be merely being the object of another pleasure for the sake of pleasure itself. In the end it reduces the person to merely being a thing of the others enjoyment

 

[meltzerboy2]

Do you think most young people look at the opposite sex (on the beach) “in admiration of creation,” or do they look with physical desire? Let’s be realistic. Even if they do not lust after another’s body, they also don’t have some kind of spiritual experience. It’s a SEXUAL experience, and there is NOTHING wrong with it, in my view.

 

[Paddy1989]

Do you think most young people look at the opposite sex (on the beach) “in admiration of creation,” or do they look with physical desire? Let’s be realistic. Even if they do not lust after another’s body, they also don’t have some kind of spiritual experience. It’s a SEXUAL experience, and there is NOTHING wrong with it, in my view.

It’s a two way street, someone may be dressed modestly yet someone else who may have lust in their heart may still look at them lustfully. Similarly someone who may struggle with lust and desire purity may become enticed through the actions and appearances of another. We have a responsibility to love each other as we do affect each other which is why the Saints have had such an impact on the world. I do think you still don’t fully understand the difference between Sexual attraction and lust based on your description of it, this is where you seem to be getting confused

To put it simply the desire of lust seduces us to pursue the other for our own enjoyment compared to the admiration of someones attraction. We can admire someones beauty through our sexual attraction and still have a very keen sense of their value and dignity in how we treat them, in fact from a man’s perspective we tend to try and make ourselves worth of it. Lust does not care for the person, who he or she is, what is important is replicating and intensifying the pleasure their appearance or behaviour gives us, nothing more

 

[AlNg]

Did Jesus say that you are not supposed to worry about the clothing you put on?
Matthew 6: 25