Would Holy Mary wear a swimsuit?

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by Steve Andersen
Fortunately times change

Does that mean truth changes with time?

No. That means that what you consider to be objective truth may actually not be it. How about considering it?

Ever heard of coed nude baths in ancient Israel (mostly river sites adapted for public bathing) or in the Roman empire (yes, Christians attended those), or in Finland? Ever heard of how people swam before swimsuits were invented, especially in the rural areas? Ever heard about how mediaeval chambers were organised? Perhaps something about the traditional Irish (until about the 18th century) clothing customs? Or the changing fashions of European royal courts? Ever been to Vatican Museums, hmm? Or seen a woman breast-feeding in public (which used to be allowed in churches).

How about all those tropical lands and islands missionaries visit? Are you aware that there are people who are admitted to Holy Communion naked? Do you know that if you caught a traditional Muslim peasant woman working in the field partly clothed, she would actually pull the remainder of her clothing on her face so that you couldn’t see it? Ever had to go to a doctor other gender than you? Or ever had a woman in your family?

How about the origins and the raison d’etre of the concept of modesty? “Who looks on a woman to lust for her, already commits adultery with her in his heart.” That’s why there is a problem with licentious behaviour, seductive moves, poor conduct, lack of moderation and, indeed, imprudent clothing.

But lust is the core and the cause of the problem. Lust works in many ways and acting on each to exploit it illicitly (intended consciously or less so), corrupting and leading to sin, is what makes immodesty.

Still not agreeing with me? Hope I’m not coming across as too harsh, but certain received concepts are a bit tough to shake and put in a wider perspective.

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.

Yes, that was part of my point. If it worked like that for men, then they would be totally incapable of matrimony, let alone headship. Men use this kind of logic to excuse themselves from not trying to impose any control on their drives. There is nothing in the male sex drive which makes it necessary to be unrestrained. Men are responsible for how they look and how they act (Reservation: if men are responsible for keeping looking, then there’s something special about the target, right? If they kept looking at a Ming vase, there wouldn’t be any controversy. We still need to bear this in mind.).

Something to shake people’s minds up a bit: perverted impatient rapists may target girls who dress revealingly or tightly. However, rapists who lie in ambush waiting for their victims usually target girls who have modest and even somewhat withdrawn, reserved looks and bearing. They are seen as easier targets and they are also more attractive to them for a number of reasons. So, were those girls at fault for dressing modestly this time? Or maybe they were at fault for being pretty? Some men tend to think this way. Women are pretty, so women lead to sin, so it’s their fault. Even early church fathers said things like that up to the point of claiming that a woman should be ashamed for being a woman.

 

[chevalier]

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.

So far as we are talking about humongous cleavages and low-riding trousers showing half a bottom and a thong, then you are absolutely right. Those girls dress up like hookers, so one could ask where they are taking inspiration. But I wouldn’t agree if we were talking about normal swimsuits.

Your joke actually serves a good point. If immodest dress cannot lead another into sin, then one may argue nudism is not sinful.

More so, there is no immodest dress in that case (aside from the fact there is no dress at all ).

Of course, I have never heard a Catholic argument in favor of nudism, yet.

I have. Maybe not exactly from Catholic sources, but anyway. There groups of nudists which identify themselves as Christians and they have quite a lot of arguments for that. Some of those arguments are pretty good, in fact. Curious thing, many pioneers and founding fathers of that movement were Christian ministers (if not exactly Catholic ones).

Well, before you flame me back, please refer to the passage about King David prancing around naked and see some renaissance religious art in a local museum. Not like early Christian catacomb pictures wouldn’t do (early Christians are practically all saints, mind you).

Immediately, then, upon entering, you remove your tunics …]
You are now stripped and naked, in this also imitating Christ despoiled of His garments on His Cross…]
How wonderful! You were naked before the eyes of all and were not ashamed! Truly you bore the image of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden and was not ashamed.

Saint Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem. Note that ancient prophets preached unclad, so did King David dance, and also Saint Francis happened to preach nude in a church, together with Brother Rufino. Of course, there was no sexual intent there. There is quite a number of passages about nudity in the Bible and it’s not condemned unless the person is left unprotected from weather, or humiliated after being caught prisoner or some such. There is no condemnation of nudity per se. However, there is a condemnation of lust and lustful looks and playing with people’s lust. Some of those less covering swimsuits are so suggestive that they make an object of lust of the person who wears them and pushes the beholders into sinful thoughts. Of course, such swimsuits are bad. Or rather wearing them is bad. Need to make a difference here.

What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?

Michelangelo

Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest…Nakedness, as such, is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regards to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reason are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of the person.

Pope John Paul II

The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserves intact its splendor and its beauty.

Pope John Paul II

Well, and seen the quite recent Quo Vadis movie? The girl who plays the almost-martyr isn’t exactly clothed, as are not some other people. I fail to recall anyone with authority in the Church condemning that movie.

 

[Arwen037]

As far as my dressing, I tend to be modest, but my CATHOLIC SCHOOL UNIFORM is more than “two fingers breath” from my neck, has short sleeves, and my school skirt is above my knees. I even talked to one on my (VERY conservative Catholic) guys friends about if I dress modestly enough and he said I did. And my swimming suit isn’t a one piece (they are WAYYY too form-fitting for my tastes) but if covers as much as a one piece would. Is that actually immodest? Especially since the pool I swim at REQUIRES appropriate swim attire, and street clothes are not allowed.

 

[Kerrypchef]

Would Holy Mary wear a swimsuit? Well…if she were going swimming or sunbathing, then yes, I suppose she would.

 

[Pug]

You can look on a completely naked female without sin.

Yes, it is possible to not have lust in your mind as you look upon her.

But is it appropriate to look at her anyway? Our bodies are us, they are not superfluous, they are ours. I don’t want all of you to know every detail of my mind and thoughts, so why would I want you to know my whole body, every detail? In heaven a total self revelation to the other members of heaven may be okay, I don’t know. But a certain amount of reserve is more appropriate down here, regarding ourselves. A relationship may not warrant that kind of exposure of thoughts, self, body, mind.

Have you ever met a person who tells you deeply personal things the first time you meet them? This is often an impediment to growing as friends.

I hope it is clear that I am not talking about lust here. Just about how our bodies are an expression of ourselves, and you just don’t let it all hang out to strangers in this imperfect world. Intimacy (emotional, physical, any type) should not be casual.

If someone casually threw down a personnel file or dossier of their life, I would not read it, unless I were to do so for a reason (I’m a doctor trying to fix them or something). Otherwise it is inappropriate info until I know them.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

fix:

Does that mean truth changes with time?

no, only fashion

 

[otm]

Listener:

Where on earth did you get the information that men and women had to swim separately 50 years ago? I’m almost old enough to collect Social Security. Even when I was a small child, men and women swam together. The bathing suits were more modest than those they have now, but they were not a whole lot different, except that they didn’t wear the really tiny bikinis that girls wear today. Women did wear two-piece bathing suits, however.

If you want to be shocked, go to Europe and see the women sunbathing without their tops on!

One of my daughters studied for a semester in France. After listending to her description of some of the women running around topless on the beach, I was laughing so hard I was crying. Shocking? Oh my, yes! Sexy? Not even in the dictionary… Enough to make one enjoy celibacy…

 

[fix]

In history, slaves were often forced to go naked; royalty and other important personages were draped in robes. Peasant girls, slaves and concubines often wore short dresses (mini-skirts?), sometimes to show that they were sexually available. Women of rank were outfitted with long garments -queens of ancient Egypt, medieval France, and Victorian England all wore gowns that fell to their feet. My knowledge of anthropology is admittedly limited, but I believe this was the case in almost every culture until the advent of more effective and available birth control, when the situation changed to what we have now. Even in the debased symbolism of our modern culture we can find remnants of the association between clothing and human dignity. Judges still wear robes, as do priests, bishops and popes. On ceremonial occasions, professors and graduates wear them as well. In our society, only women are culturally permitted to wear “robes” at any time if they wish. I began exercising my “cultural prerogative” to wear robes (long skirts) as often as possible when I realized how crucial and valuable a woman’s role is to society. We’re meant to be much more than sex objects.

theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,4,2-5-1999/Schmiedicke.htm

 

[fix]

Dressing immodestly is insensitive to men. In today’s gender wars, Catholics can work for change by cultivating good relationships between men and women, of friendships built on trust and mutual respect. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many fine Catholic young men who bend over backwards to understand and accommodate a woman’s sensitivities and special genius. However, in the area of modesty, most young Catholic women haven’t responded in kind. I myself am puzzled as to whether this is sheer ignorance or merely an uncaring attitude.

Once a chastity educator I know, who wore very short skirts, said to me: “If men have a problem with my clothes, well, they just have to deal with it.” This attitude tramples on men’s visual sensitivity. What men see affects how they feel in a far more direct way than it does with women.

theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,4,2-5-1999/Schmiedicke.htm

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

I love the double standard, men must be sensitive to women (and I really am) but that some women insist that they don’t have to be sensitive to men. How fair is that?

 

[chevalier]

I remember guys running on and on about what their desired man should be, how caring and sensitive, up to the point where they simply enumerated was in which he should make them feel good and how he should make them feel and son, and then losing all composure after one simple question, “and how would you make him feel?” OK, granted, sometimes they just want to vent or they simply focus on the requirements rather than the offer itself, why not, but in general, it looks like what you say. But we have some double standards working against women, as well. It’s just the feminazi, I mean, the feminists, playing on my nerves. I’m telling you, it’s beneath a woman’s dignity to be one of those.

Anyway, it’s right that we should be ready to help other people. Notwithstanding the fact that my chest is hardly a killer, if a girl asked me to put on a shirt because she were wrestling her thoughts, I would. You know, it’s just help is help and not doing the job for someone else. Sure, it would be easier for men if women covered themselves from ankle to neck instead of having them control themselves. But really? Perhaps if bellies and thighs and arms and backs were all covered, ankles would regain their special meaning and wrists would acquire one? Maybe just about the whole body would become a “private part”? After the minds of men adjusted, perhaps someone would say there were still too much room for temptation, so maybe kindly please wear gloves and shoes all the time and a scarf on the face? We don’t want that to happen. At least I don’t. While I do have a problem with hooker-style sexually provocative swimsuits (which do a “better” job than if the girl simply came round totally naked), I don’t have a problem with parts of the body not being covered. Heck, and I like to look, as well. Girls are pretty, aren’t they? God made them so and thank Him for that. It’s just that it depends on how you look and girls know how you do.

 

[Meggie]

I agree that the disturbing part is the provactiveness, rather than the fact that its a swimsuit…you can be fully covered and dress in a provative way…and though they are rare I have see unprovocative two peice suits (sportsbra ish top and shorts for the bottom) I have also seen some terrible one-piece suits.
I have seen outfits that are not skimpy but ment to seem provocitive and outfits that are light and don’t cover all that much but are modest looking.

Its all in the intent of the design of the fasion…some outfits seem made to scandalze

 

[misericordie]

Alterum:

I agree with the sentiment entirely! Swimwear, especially for women, is extremely immodest. It probably would’ve been considered pornographic 100 years ago.

Yes, one reason I don’t go to the beach or swimming pools. Especially if one has some sort of instant visual hormonal reaction. Really, it is sad. Why can’t they just ware shorts or something?

 

[MistyF]

I haven’t read this whole thread, it’s too long. I just thought I’d add my opinion, though.

I have a roommate who is very busty (yet thin). We could go out together with her having a shirt up to her neck and sleeves to her wrist, and I (who am rather small in that way) have on a low cut shirt trying to show off what I do have. She’d get more notice, men would fantasize far more about her. Yet, she would be dressed more modestly. But, because it would be obvious that I was trying to show off more, it would (IMO) be myself that was sinning.

I think that swimsuits, or any clothing for that matter, that are meant to expose a woman OR a man are wrong. I also think that the way a person carries themselves makes a big difference, also. Twins in the same swimsuit standing next to each other could have different effects on people.

It is most definitely a matter of judgement, and not a one-size-fits-all rule.

 

[misericordie]

MistyF:

I haven’t read this whole thread, it’s too long. I just thought I’d add my opinion, though.

I have a roommate who is very busty (yet thin). We could go out together with her having a shirt up to her neck and sleeves to her wrist, and I (who am rather small in that way) have on a low cut shirt trying to show off what I do have. She’d get more notice, men would fantasize far more about her. Yet, she would be dressed more modestly. But, because it would be obvious that I was trying to show off more, it would (IMO) be myself that was sinning.

I think that swimsuits, or any clothing for that matter, that are meant to expose a woman OR a man are wrong. I also think that the way a person carries themselves makes a big difference, also. Twins in the same swimsuit standing next to each other could have different effects on people.

It is most definitely a matter of judgement, and not a one-size-fits-all rule.

How do you know that the men are FANTASIZING in the above scenario?? Be careful with rash judgement.

 

[MistyF]

misericordie:

How do you know that the men are FANTASIZING in the above scenario?? Be careful with rash judgement.

I am not making judgement on anyone specific without cause. And, given that it is a hypothetical scenario, how could that be considered rash judgement?

But, in general, I will say that I know what I said is true. I’ve heard guys talk about her, I’ve seen what happens when I go out and play pool or whatever with her.

 

[Cadence]

Personally I ALWAYS wear shorts over my swimsuit - as do most of the women/ girls I know.

Its actually considered to be very fashionable here (in Australia) to wear boardshorts over your bathers.

I believe in dressing modestly as I don’t think it is fair to flaunt your body in front of men who may be struggling - also I don’t think its all that flattering!
But we need to remember - it is impossible for women to prevent men from having sinful thoughts completely. In the end it is the job of the man not to look at women as sexual objects. Of course, if women don’t DRESS as sexual objects this helps!

We both have a part to play. Women don’t have to cover all parts of their bodies and men shouldn’t have to be faced with breasts hanging out everywhere!

 

[StephanieC]

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?

Okay, I’ve quickly read through this whole thread, and my initial, spontaneous response is: If Mary were going swimming, she would probably be seeking relief on a hot day and a) only swim with other women, b) be far from the presence of men, and c) she’d probably be innocently and modestly skinny-dipping in some secluded swimming hole!
Please, save the outrage (I can hear people screaming about disrespect already); FWIW, I think Our Lady probably has a sense of humor about the title of this thread, anyway!

 

[tuopaolo]

Modesty is not a custom. Modesty is a virtue, annexed to the virtue of temperance. You shouldn’t rely on a secular dictionary to define theological terms. That would be as silly as relying on a non-medical dictionary to define technical medical terms.

 

[pnewton]

Modesty is a constant virtue. Truth never changes. What this thread is about is the application of this virtue in our culture. Application does change. This is why we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not the Catalogue of the Catholic Church. The question as asked should be asked by every faithful Catholic girl or woman when picking out an outfit. A well-informed conscience will make the right decision.