Would Holy Mary wear a swimsuit?

[Steve_Andersen]

UKcatholicGuy:

Can you imagine the Blessed Virgin Mary wearing a bikini or even a one-piece swim suit?

Why do so many women / young girls not see how immodest a swimsuit is? It wasn’t even 50 years ago that men and women were not allowed to swim together. At a country club I work at, there is an old pool that is now out of use. I asked what it was for and I was told that it was the old women’s swimming pool. You see, when the club was built in the 1930s, women and men would not swim together because swimming requires immodest dress.

Any thoughts?

Fortunately times change

Christianity is one of the few religions without dietary or dress codes

I like to think that we’re smart enough to realize that mere fashion is no reflection on one’s moral state

Lucifer was beautiful remember?

Don’t judge a book by its cover and all that

And yes if Mary were here to day and on the beach I’m sure she would wear a bathing suit

She wore a robe 2000 years ago because that was the fashion then and it was the best outfit in that climate before showers and air-conditioning and bug spray

 

[Katie1723]

News #2: It’s women who wear things, but it’s guys who see and it’s their choice what to imagine in their minds. It’s an awful shift of the burden to make women responsible for men fantasising about them.

I agree! It isn’t the things a person wears so much as it is the person looking at them and how they interpret that. Put the blame on where it belongs…the person looking…not the person being looked at!

 

[biswrest]

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

-The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII

If a man needs a woman to wear sleeves on there dress because of fear they might lust, i would have to say they have issues. Men should be able to look at woman and see the beauty that God created them as. To the pure all things are pure.

 

[BlindSheep]

You willl think I’m an awful prude, but I feel wearing revealing clothing shows a lack of self respect and respect for the sacredness of sex and of marriage. I didn’t always feel this way. As a teen I would actually go topless in public, but then, I was a neo-pagan too. Now I won’t wear skirts shorter than knee length, pants or sleeveless tops. I just don’t feel like it’s right to flaunt my sexuality to men other than my husband. With swimwear, I wear a one piece with a skirt, but even in that I really don’t feel comfortable. I wish they still had separate pools for men and women!

 

[fix]

Steve Andersen:

Fortunately times change

Does that mean truth changes with time?

 

[mercygate]

Katie1723:

News #2: It’s women who wear things, but it’s guys who see and it’s their choice what to imagine in their minds. It’s an awful shift of the burden to make women responsible for men fantasising about them.

I agree! It isn’t the things a person wears so much as it is the person looking at them and how they interpret that. Put the blame on where it belongs…the person looking…not the person being looked at!

Balderdash!

Ladies: are we not called to bear one another’s burdens? The eye is the gateway of lust for men – and the good Lord made 'em that way. I’m a great believer in helping men to bear that burden by dressing and acting sensibly.

I believe it is incredibly disingenuous for a woman to wear a string bikini, knowing the effect it has on men, and then taunt with, “Eye of the beholder!” Aren’t we all on the same team?

 

[fix]

mercygate:

Balderdash!

Ladies: are we not called to bear one another’s burdens? The eye is the gateway of lust for men – and the good Lord made 'em that way. I’m a great believer in helping men to bear that burden by dressing and acting sensibly.

I believe it is incredibly disingenuous for a woman to wear a string bikini, knowing the effect it has on men, and then taunt with, “Eye of the beholder!” Aren’t we all on the same team?

Well said. We never should be the occasion for another to sin. It is wrong to say it is all the others problem. That is the exact opposite of the what the Christian attitude should be.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I guess then that my life-long aspiration to start an all-Catholic nudist colony is out of the question then?

 

[Prometheum_x]

UKcatholicGuy:

Here are some quotes from Our Church on modesty:

"To say that '…modesty is a matter of custom’ is just as wrong as to say that, ‘…honesty is a matter of custom.’

• Pope Pius XII

“Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.”
-Donato Cardinal Sbaretti, Prefect
Congregation of the Council
Rome, January 12, 1930

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

-The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII

hope those quotes clear up any confusion

Of course they do not clear up any confusion.

The second quote is just good advice – dress modestly – but it doesn’t say what that means.

The third quote is an interesting opinion, but it gives no reasons for the prescribed manner of dress. An imprimatur means that the material is approved for publication, not that it is somehow binding.

And for the first quote, from Pius XII. With all due respect to him, modesty by definition is a matter of custom:

From www.merriamwebster.com:

Modesty – 2 : propriety in dress, speech, or conduct
**
Propriety – 4 a** : conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech b : fear of offending against conventional rules of behavior especially between the sexes

Of course, the mere fact that something is socially acceptable does not make it truly proper. Homosexuality may become socially acceptable, but its actions will never be proper. But that is because it is *sin. *Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium – all have made it clear that those actions are wrong. However, aside from the Levitical ceremonial law I am aware of nothing in those three that would indicate the inherent impropriety of wearing any particular style of clothes

As an illustration of the subjective element of this sort of thing, while it is definitely immodest in our culture for a woman to walk around topless, it is not necessarily immodest for a woman to breastfeed in public (assuming it is done as discreetly as possible).

There are so many other qualifications and exceptions that any effort to establish a universal definition of modest apparel will fail.

 

[fix]

Prometheum_x:

Of course they do not clear up any confusion.

The second quote is just good advice – dress modestly – but it doesn’t say what that means.

The third quote is an interesting opinion, but it gives no reasons for the prescribed manner of dress. An imprimatur means that the material is approved for publication, not that it is somehow binding.

And for the first quote, from Pius XII. With all due respect to him, modesty by definition is a matter of custom:

From www.merriamwebster.com:

Of course, the mere fact that something is socially acceptable does not make it truly proper. Homosexuality may become socially acceptable, but its actions will never be proper. But that is because it is *sin. *Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium – all have made it clear that those actions are wrong. However, aside from the Levitical ceremonial law I am aware of nothing in those three that would indicate the inherent impropriety of wearing any particular style of clothes

As an illustration of the subjective element of this sort of thing, while it is definitely immodest in our culture for a woman to walk around topless, it is not necessarily immodest for a woman to breastfeed in public (assuming it is done as discreetly as possible).

There are so many other qualifications and exceptions that any effort to establish a universal definition of modest apparel will fail.

I do not think it is about establishing a dress code. It is about prudence and modesty. Two things that seldom are observed or talk about. I quoted our Lady from Fatima. Much of what passes as fashion in the west can be considered scandalous.

 

[SavedByHim]

Couple of thoughts:

1. I wonder what the average age is fo those who think modern swimwear is immodest vs. those who don’t? For example, I’m 26 and while I think some swimwear is immodest, (really skimpy string bikinis for example) I think a simple one-piece suit is fine and appropriate beachwear.
2. I’m really baffled by the idea that women are somehow responsible for impure thoughts that enter a man’s mind I agree that certain outfits/swimsuits are definitely immodest and I would not want my daughter running around in them, but is it really the girl’s fault if a man cannot control his thoughts? (This is a genuine question by the way.)

To me, we start running on a slippery slope when we say that women’s immodest apparel is why men have impure thoughts. Does anyone see how this could be misconstrued as “Well, she was wearing a skimpy swimsuit so she was just begging to be raped?” I know the two are different: having thoughts vs. acting on the thoughts, but it really scares me when we put so much fault on the women for what really should come down to a man’s own self-control.

 

[Prometheum_x]

fix:

I do not think it is about establishing a dress code. It is about prudence and modesty. Two things that seldom are observed or talk about. I quoted our Lady from Fatima. Much of what passes as fashion in the west can be considered scandalous.

I would agree with you on all counts.

 

[mercygate]

SavedByHim:

Couple of thoughts:

1. I wonder what the average age is fo those who think modern swimwear is immodest vs. those who don’t? For example, I’m 26 and while I think some swimwear is immodest, (really skimpy string bikinis for example) I think a simple one-piece suit is fine and appropriate beachwear.
2. I’m really baffled by the idea that women are somehow responsible for impure thoughts that enter a man’s mind I agree that certain outfits/swimsuits are definitely immodest and I would not want my daughter running around in them, but is it really the girl’s fault if a man cannot control his thoughts? (This is a genuine question by the way.)

Of course we can’t hold ourselves responsible for what men think. But you put the limit on your own proposition by the disclaimer you make. That is all I advocate. We KNOW pretty much within a predictable spectrum what is normally considered provocative dress (especiallly when accompanied by provocative body language).

To me, we start running on a slippery slope when we say that women’s immodest apparel is why men have impure thoughts. Does anyone see how this could be misconstrued as “Well, she was wearing a skimpy swimsuit so she was just begging to be raped?” I know the two are different: having thoughts vs. acting on the thoughts, but it really scares me when we put so much fault on the women for what really should come down to a man’s own self-control.

Every man is responsible for controlling himself, of course. And the neighborhood rapist falls outside the spectrum anyway – but the normal guy, the young guy (or not so young) who has a problem with masturbation, or the faithful husband who wants NOT to be physically attracted to other women – we can at least not place burdens on them that are unnecessary, ungenerous and unkind.

 

[mercygate]

SavedByHim:

Couple of thoughts:

1. I wonder what the average age is fo those who think modern swimwear is immodest vs. those who don’t? For example, I’m 26 and while I think some swimwear is immodest, (really skimpy string bikinis for example) I think a simple one-piece suit is fine and appropriate beachwear.
2. I’m really baffled by the idea that women are somehow responsible for impure thoughts that enter a man’s mind I agree that certain outfits/swimsuits are definitely immodest and I would not want my daughter running around in them, but is it really the girl’s fault if a man cannot control his thoughts? (This is a genuine question by the way.)

Of course we can’t hold ourselves responsible for what men think. But you put the limit on your own proposition by the disclaimer you make. That is all I advocate. We KNOW pretty much within a predictable spectrum what is normally considered provocative dress (especiallly when accompanied by provocative body language).

To me, we start running on a slippery slope when we say that women’s immodest apparel is why men have impure thoughts. Does anyone see how this could be misconstrued as “Well, she was wearing a skimpy swimsuit so she was just begging to be raped?” I know the two are different: having thoughts vs. acting on the thoughts, but it really scares me when we put so much fault on the women for what really should come down to a man’s own self-control.

Every man is responsible for controlling himself, of course. And the neighborhood rapist falls outside the spectrum anyway – but the normal guy, the young guy (or not so young) who has a problem with masturbation, or the faithful husband who wants NOT to be physically attracted to other women – we can at least not place burdens on them that are unnecessary, ungenerous and unkind.

I believe it detracts from the dignity of women to place ALL the responsibility on men.

 

[fix]

SavedByHim:

Couple of thoughts:

1. I wonder what the average age is fo those who think modern swimwear is immodest vs. those who don’t? For example, I’m 26 and while I think some swimwear is immodest, (really skimpy string bikinis for example) I think a simple one-piece suit is fine and appropriate beachwear.

It really should not be that relative. A proper conscience should have a good idea what is modest and what is not.

1. I’m really baffled by the idea that women are somehow responsible for impure thoughts that enter a man’s mind I agree that certain outfits/swimsuits are definitely immodest and I would not want my daughter running around in them, but is it really the girl’s fault if a man cannot control his thoughts? (This is a genuine question by the way.)

I am not being flip, but I am baffled that you are baffled? Why would one think one may wear anything and not be an occasion of sin for another? This should be Catholicism 101.

To me, we start running on a slippery slope when we say that women’s immodest apparel is why men have impure thoughts. Does anyone see how this could be misconstrued as “Well, she was wearing a skimpy swimsuit so she was just begging to be raped?” I know the two are different: having thoughts vs. acting on the thoughts, but it really scares me when we put so much fault on the women for what really should come down to a man’s own self-control.

There is no excuse for rape. That does not mean a woman would not be guilty, in our Lord’s eyes, if she wore provactive clothing. That is no green light to attack anyone, but impure thoughts are mortal sins. To lead another to sin is a very evil thing.

 

[felra]

mercygate:

Of course we can’t hold ourselves responsible for what men think…We KNOW pretty much within a predictable spectrum what is normally considered provocative dress (especiallly when accompanied by provocative body language).

Every man is responsible for controlling himself, of course…but the normal guy, the young guy (or not so young) who has a problem with masturbation, or the faithful husband who wants NOT to be physically attracted to other women – we can at least not place burdens on them that are unnecessary, ungenerous and unkind.

I believe it detracts from the dignity of women to place ALL the responsibility on men.

I believe that it is hard for women to always appreciate that a man’s hardrive wiring and information processing is different. Men are visual and meant to be stimulated visually. Unless this is fully appreciated and respected, it is easy to look to culture to determine what is acceptable/non-provocative dress. Nor is it always easy to know your audience and the degree of chastity that each “viewer” has achieved. This being the case, better to error on the side of more dress is better, or please pass the blinders honey!

 

[SavedByHim]

Mercygate,
You make good points when you speak of young men and husbands who wish to remain faithful, etc. I guess I was just taking it one step further and that is due to my past. I was sexually abused when I was young so I’m very sensitive to these kinds of issues where women get “blamed” for causing a man to rape or assualt her.

Let me just throw this out there:
I was sexually abused in my gymnastics class. That means that I was wearing appropriate dress for the activity - a leotard. (which for all intents and purposes resembles a one-piece bathing suit.) Are you all saying that I was at fault for being sexually exploited simply because I was wearing a leotard? Do we as Catholics really believe that I caused this man the “occasion to sin”?

Fix, I’m sorry if I don’t understand Catholicism 101, but I spent years in therapy trying to believe that the abuse was not my fault! You said that the woman would be guilty in the Lord’s eyes if she wore provacative clothing. I’m seriously asking the question, does the Church say that I am guilty?

Excuse m, but I need to weep and pray on this matter.

 

[mercygate]

SavedByHim:

Mercygate,
Let me just throw this out there:
I was sexually abused in my gymnastics class. That means that I was wearing appropriate dress for the activity - a leotard. (which for all intents and purposes resembles a one-piece bathing suit.) Are you all saying that I was at fault for being sexually exploited simply because I was wearing a leotard? Do we as Catholics really believe that I caused this man the “occasion to sin”?

That was what I meant when I said that “the neighborhood rapist is an outlier.” You were abused because the abuser was an abuser, not because of anything you did or wore. You could have been wearing a burkha and the guy would still have been abusive.

That isn’t to say that it NEVER matters what a woman wears; that a woman is NEVER cooperative in drawing men to sin.

We’re talkin’ apples and wrenches here (not even oranges!).

 

[mercygate]

SavedByHim:

Mercygate,
Let me just throw this out there:
I was sexually abused in my gymnastics class. That means that I was wearing appropriate dress for the activity - a leotard. (which for all intents and purposes resembles a one-piece bathing suit.) Are you all saying that I was at fault for being sexually exploited simply because I was wearing a leotard? Do we as Catholics really believe that I caused this man the “occasion to sin”?

That was what I meant when I said that “the neighborhood rapist is an outlier.” You were abused because the abuser was an abuser, not because of anything you did or wore. You could have been wearing a burkha and the guy would still have been abusive.

That isn’t to say that it NEVER matters what a woman wears; that a woman is NEVER cooperative in drawing men to sin.

We’re talkin’ apples and wrenches here (not even oranges!).

 

[sarcophagus]

Keep in mind that, society dictates fashion. Not every person in the world is faithful enough to believe that the clothes being presented to girls is immodest. This leads to uneducated youth. Most youth aren’t wearing these fashions to make men sin. They are wearing them a) because society places so much emphasis on the fact that what you wear dictates who you are and how “cool” you are and b) most importantly, because their parents let them wear these things. It is entirely the parents fault for the lack of morals and standards in today’s society. So when you see a young girl dressed like Britney Spears, pray for them, don’t gawk and think that they choose to wear it because they want to sell sex. They aren’t educated enough to know that it is immodest. Thank God that you were given the light to show your children what is respectable and pure.