Wearing Bikini for Husband Sin?

[12345678]

as you say I think it’s mostly about context: on the beach a bikini is fine and it’s on would-be tempted men to guard their thoughts - just as I might seeing men in only swimming shorts!

I don’t think we need to go down a huge puritan road or anything, but i think also as women (or as men for that matter) we also have our own duty to be mindful of the fact that we could inadvertently lead others to sins of lust, and I guess you could say from a sense of charity, try not to ‘make it worse’ by dressing in a way that we know many people find provocative - this goes generally and not just with bikinis.

fashions change and standards of modesty etc change too, that’s fine - but human nature changes much more glacially so we should be aware of that too

I’m sorry but if a person dresses immodestly knowingly, they can be responsible for leading others astray, or at least partially culpable. There is a difference in modesty between a modest one piece and a bikini, whether you realize it or not.

 

[LethalMouse]

You raise a valid point. Where do we draw the line? These are culturally subjective matters. Most conservative Catholics in North America seem to condemn the bikini and laud typical one piece suits… Yer Catholics in 1850 would have condemned as “no better than street walkers” a woman who wore the one piece suits modern conservatives consider “modest”. That which conservatives consider modest today was too scandalous for prostitutes no so long ago. So in another century if the secular norm is to swim in the nude, will conservative Catholics laud the “modest bikini”? I can see it.
I’m not offering any suggestions or advice one way or another… Just pointing out how subjective and relative these debates are.
My wife is a very conservative Pentecostal from the Dominican Republic. She’s extremely strict on some issues (alcohol for example), yet never thought twice about wearing a bikini… Doesn’t seem to be an issue in her cultural / religious background. I bet you would be very hard pressed to find a Brazilian, protestant or Catholic, who takes issue with a bikini either. For better or for worse we North American Catholics have inherited some of the Puritanism of our protestant neighbours. Again- I neither condemn nor condone the bikini… But it is subjective.

This! Lol, this is why I kind of don’t like my fellow catholics lol. Modesty is alot like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. And on top of it all if I were at the beach with my wife in hijab and a bunch of bikinis around I would be sad. If I see anything that might be “tempting” I look at what I have and smile… the hijab I look and bow my head as I actually am at risk of temptation.

The idea that he is just “showing her off” lol. Maybe he only wants tempted by her? Maybe he would have to never leave the house to not see another pretty girl? If his wife is overly modest… then he is always having to mental picture her when out.

I know men! How dare they! Lol… yeah well scientific fact they are visual, a bikini for your husband is like flowers for you… so basically if you went to the beach and every man had on a suit and had a bouquet of flowers, I woukd think it a good idea that your husband do so also.

Truth is anything short of hijab will be immodest or create immodest thoughts in another, you can’t control that… not to quite say free for all but I mean there is “slutty” like even a player is like “Nah bro shes too slutty” and there is reasonable for a time and place. A bikini at the beach? Sensible… wearing a bikini to the mall randomly? Ok maybe you are getting immodest a bit…

 

[AdamP88]

I didn’t want to get involved in this but I’m just gonna throw this out there: Bikini’s by their nature are not modest. Google, “origin of the bikini” and you’ll see that the idea was to show as much flesh as they could get away with. It’s also the case that they couldn’t get any of the models at the time to model it…so they had to use strippers as models.

I don’t buy that modesty is totally subjective. There are objective standards of modesty. I would say that one of the points of the bikini was to objectify women and cause men to lust after them.
What a husband and wife do in private is their business. But I wouldn’t be happy with my wife/sister/mother/daughter wearing a bikini. I also don’t see why any guy would want his wife to wear the bare minimum amount of clothes in public

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Is it a sin for someone to wear a bikini for her husband? Would it have to be only in his presence she is seen? (Asking for future reference.) Thanks and God bless!

Assuming that you are wearing the bikini at the beach in order to get a tan and/or look attractive for your husband, I don’t see why this would be a sin. Take it from me, scrupulosity is a burden that you don’t want to carry.

 

[twf]

I didn’t want to get involved in this but I’m just gonna throw this out there: Bikini’s by their nature are not modest. Google, “origin of the bikini” and you’ll see that the idea was to show as much flesh as they could get away with. It’s also the case that they couldn’t get any of the models at the time to model it…so they had to use strippers as models.

I don’t buy that modesty is totally subjective. There are objective standards of modesty. I would say that one of the points of the bikini was to objectify women and cause men to lust after them.
What a husband and wife do in private is their business. But I wouldn’t be happy with my wife/sister/mother/daughter wearing a bikini. I also don’t see why any guy would want his wife to wear the bare minimum amount of clothes in public

Who defines objective modesty? As I noted earlier, for the vast majority of Church history, virtually every Catholic authority would have condemned as gravely immodest the “modest” one piece swimsuits lauded on this thread. Women showing their legs? Women showing their arms? Vile! Scandalous! The work of Satan himself! The “objective” standard of the average devout Catholic has already changed…thus rendering your argument invalid.
Of course if you are to argue that a bikini is subjectively immodest and a one piece subjectively modest for 21st century Western culture, you may have a point.

 

[estesbob]

No.

 

[on_the_hill]

Still waiting for someone to comment that she should never marry such an unworthy man in the first place…

 

[Vico]

Who defines objective modesty? As I noted earlier, for the vast majority of Church history, virtually every Catholic authority would have condemned as gravely immodest the “modest” one piece swimsuits lauded on this thread. Women showing their legs? Women showing their arms? Vile! Scandalous! The work of Satan himself! The “objective” standard of the average devout Catholic has already changed…thus rendering your argument invalid.
Of course if you are to argue that a bikini is subjectively immodest and a one piece subjectively modest for 21st century Western culture, you may have a point.

What people as a group are accustomed to makes a difference, in what they will be scandalized by, so at times and places, there will be different objective (vs. subjective) standard for the group.

The small two piece was introduced to the west in 1932 by the designer Heim, the “Atome”, but to compete, Réard redesigned the bikini in 1946 to be even smaller. These exposed the navel. They had to hire a nude dancer to model the original bikini in 1946, with an almost entirely exposed backside.

 

[AdamP88]

Who defines objective modesty? As I noted earlier, for the vast majority of Church history, virtually every Catholic authority would have condemned as gravely immodest the “modest” one piece swimsuits lauded on this thread. Women showing their legs? Women showing their arms? Vile! Scandalous! The work of Satan himself! The “objective” standard of the average devout Catholic has already changed…thus rendering your argument invalid.
Of course if you are to argue that a bikini is subjectively immodest and a one piece subjectively modest for 21st century Western culture, you may have a point.

Well there must be some basic objective standard, otherwise you could argue that if in 100 years the fashion was to go around with body paint instead of clothing, then subjectively it would be ok to do that as that would be the “new standard”.

I would admit that there is an element of subjectivity to it. But I still think there is an objective standard that does not change. I would say a one piece swimsuit is modest for swimming but not a bikini. Same as I would say that tight speedos are not modest for a guy.

 

[SusanneT]

Surely there is an objective standard in that we are commanded to cover our nakedness, now I admit what is “nakedness” is subjective but by definition it must mean covering something and that must include (I would think) genitals at the very least !!

But perhaps more important is motivation. Surely to wear something to draw attention to your self which you intend to excite lustful feelings in others, or which you could reasonably expect would have that effect, must be a sin.

My personal view is that though a modestly cut one-piece is acceptable, for swimming (though not as casual wear !) a bikini is more brief, not for comfort or practicality, but simply to show more flesh.

 

[jtauke]

Good grief, there’s nothing wrong with wearing a bikini…

 

[Murmurs]

I think the operative words here are ‘for husband’.

I understand the feelings of plenty of people that bikinis are immodest (that’s undeniable, certainly looking at the context of their design history, which was partly to be immodest. And while fashions and concepts of modesty change, we are all also maybe under a sort of obligation not to be inherently immodest or invite sin by how we dress or behave, as far as is reasonably possible. (Still, if someone can’t control their eyes, that’s at least as much their problem as mine!).

But - in the grand scheme of things and especially today, there can’t be said to be anything particularly scandalous about wearing a bikini (like it or not). Some of the cultures to adopt the bikini as de rigueur beachwear, were pretty Catholic ones, in fact.

I think the real tension is between a wife wearing what she would most like to wear (whatever it might be), and pleasing her husband in what is ultimately a rather small way, by wearing a bikini as opposed to any other sort of swimwear. I think unless it’s thoroughly morally objectionable, one should be guided by and informed by one’s spouse (that goes in both directions).

I can’t see anything inherently wrong in wearing a bikini anyway (unless it makes the wearer very unhappy) but particularly not if one’s husband asks or suggests, and it’s context-appropriate (no bikinis to Mass even if it’s for some reason being held on the beach!!)

 

[jeanrand]

This has become quite the interesting topic. While I can’t stand a hajib, there is a basis to it - the man never wears one - it is inherently sexist. Now, with a bikini, I think there are modesty concerns, but no true sin in wearing one. A g-string? Ewww. But a normal, sold everywhere, bikini? Unless either husband or wife is actively trying to get attention, no harm.

 

[Mintaka]

You know, it’s actually not the case that all Catholic moral teachers from the old days have condemned women showing skin.

St. Francis de Sales lived in a time when women showed a LOT of bosom. He just advised men and women living in the world to wear a moderate version of whatever was in style, and to act modestly in company but in an urbane way.

I was reading an interesting old book series, The Casuist, which collected magazine articles dealing with cases that priests might run across at Confession. They gave the theoretical case of a woman who is highly attractive, who tends to dress only a shade on the immodest side but in a way reasonable in her time and place, but who gets lots of guff because she’s gorgeous and does this.

The Casuist, Vol. IV, 1912. “V. Scandal by Immodesty in Dress.”

There’s a lot of interesting discussion of whether the theoretical Miss “Claudia” causes scandal by going to Mass dressed just a little off, and about what “causing scandal” actually means, and whether she’s sinning, since she isn’t purposefully leading men astray. (“Causing scandal” has a technical meaning that’s sort of like “purposefully laying a trap for people by sinning, or by appearing to be sinning.”) The priest has to encourage Claudia to dress a little more modestly, while not being so hard on her as to discourage her. It also points out strongly that the young men of the parish have themselves to blame if they let their eyes wander, even if Claudia’s not helping matters. Claudia may have a sin against charity by providing indirect scandal, but that’s about it. As for the way she dresses, it’s a venial sin at most.

The priest adds that:

"Immodesty in dress, at least off the stage* or outside of masked balls**, will hardly ever amount to more than a venial sin. The custom of the country must be considered.

“Physical charm is more alluring than dress, and yet no one is obliged to destroy their beauty because others take scandal at it.”

• Nasty costumes on stage are well-lit and provide a bad example for hundreds at once. It may also be a reference to burlesque shows, fan-dancing strippers, etc., which were more widely available than porn under the laws of 1912.

** Masked balls could be totally okay, but were often used as an excuse for groping and sexual invitations, because there was a lack of easy identification and accountability. So a man or woman who wore an immodest outfit to a masked ball back then was pretty much advertising himself/herself as interested in doing sexually edgy stuff.

 

[LeahTherese]

You know, it’s actually not the case that all Catholic moral teachers from the old days have condemned women showing skin.

St. Francis de Sales lived in a time when women showed a LOT of bosom. He just advised men and women living in the world to wear a moderate version of whatever was in style, and to act modestly in company but in an urbane way.

I was reading an interesting old book series, The Casuist, which collected magazine articles dealing with cases that priests might run across at Confession. They gave the theoretical case of a woman who is highly attractive, who tends to dress only a shade on the immodest side but in a way reasonable in her time and place, but who gets lots of guff because she’s gorgeous and does this.

The Casuist, Vol. IV, 1912. “V. Scandal by Immodesty in Dress.”

There’s a lot of interesting discussion of whether the theoretical Miss “Claudia” causes scandal by going to Mass dressed just a little off, and about what “causing scandal” actually means, and whether she’s sinning, since she isn’t purposefully leading men astray. (“Causing scandal” has a technical meaning that’s sort of like “purposefully laying a trap for people by sinning, or by appearing to be sinning.”) The priest has to encourage Claudia to dress a little more modestly, while not being so hard on her as to discourage her. It also points out strongly that the young men of the parish have themselves to blame if they let their eyes wander, even if Claudia’s not helping matters. Claudia may have a sin against charity by providing indirect scandal, but that’s about it. As for the way she dresses, it’s a venial sin at most.

The priest adds that:

• Nasty costumes on stage are well-lit and provide a bad example for hundreds at once. It may also be a reference to burlesque shows, fan-dancing strippers, etc., which were more widely available than porn under the laws of 1912.

** Masked balls could be totally okay, but were often used as an excuse for groping and sexual invitations, because there was a lack of easy identification and accountability. So a man or woman who wore an immodest outfit to a masked ball back then was pretty much advertising himself/herself as interested in doing sexually edgy stuff.

That’s very, very interesting Thank you (and I think I agree with it)