The Bikini Question: A Rebuttal

[Amppax]

Not sure why I'm posting this, but maybe a "good" modesty thread will end all the llama drama and butthurt as someone said. I'm also interested in others reactions to this.

Anyway, this blog post was shared by several friends on Facebook and I wanted to see what people thought here. Here's the link: http://theholyfool.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-bikini-question-rebuttal.html?m=1

[PhuturePriest]

Am I the only one who found it interesting that it says "butt" in the link?

[CrossCuT]

Ugh that website is terrible to read off

 

INCREASE THE DENSITY OF THAT WHITE BACKGROUND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! 

[Basilisa Marie]

I think the article accurately describes the picture of how modesty SHOULD be talked about, but isn't.  It'd be one thing if people made arguments about modest clothing using the understanding of modesty outlined in the article, but more often than not they don't.  It's "we have to protect our brothers" and/or "it's objectively immoral to wear X piece of clothing." 

 

I'd argue that it's immoral to wear SOME kinds of bikinis or monokinis or whatever, because the explicit purpose of the design of some of them is certainly to incite lust, not to function as swimwear.  You all probably know the ones that I'm talking about, you can't imagine actually swimming in them.  But other bikinis are obviously meant to function primarily as swimwear. It shifts the argument from "women need to protect men" to both sexes sharing the burden of modesty.  

[GregorMendel]

Hurray for this being the 8,000th discussion, btw :)

[Amppax]

I think the article accurately describes the picture of how modesty SHOULD be talked about, but isn't. It'd be one thing if people made arguments about modest clothing using the understanding of modesty outlined in the article, but more often than not they don't. It's "we have to protect our brothers" and/or "it's objectively immoral to wear X piece of clothing."

I'd argue that it's immoral to wear SOME kinds of bikinis or monokinis or whatever, because the explicit purpose of the design of some of them is certainly to incite lust, not to function as swimwear. You all probably know the ones that I'm talking about, you can't imagine actually swimming in them. But other bikinis are obviously meant to function primarily as swimwear. It shifts the argument from "women need to protect men" to both sexes sharing the burden of modesty.

My thoughts exactly. EVERYONE NOTE: Agreement is possible in a modesty thread!

[Basilisa Marie]

AND AND AND

 

I'd argue that board shorts could be like the male equivalent of a one-piece.  I don't have a problem with men wanting to wear shorter or tighter swimwear at the beach because it's easier to swim or surf or whatever in. It's my job to avert my eyes if it becomes a problem for me.  But thongs? Yeah, not so much.  

 

But everyone can and should wear flip flops.  :|

[Chestertonian]

AND AND AND

 

I'd argue that board shorts could be like the male equivalent of a one-piece.  I don't have a problem with men wanting to wear shorter or tighter swimwear at the beach because it's easier to swim or surf or whatever in. It's my job to avert my eyes if it becomes a problem for me.  But thongs? Yeah, not so much.  

 

But everyone can and should wear flip flops.   :|

 

Men wear thongs?

[Amppax]

Men wear thongs?

Unfortunately.

[Chestertonian]

 

[Gabriela]

I liked his carefully described distinction between lust and attraction, and the purpose that attraction serves. I thought it was a good article, though I don't think it settles the Great Modesty Debate. Mostly because what people find appropriate for any given venue varies drastically.

 

That, and a lot of people don't actually know what their real intentions are. They're so repressed they might think they feel dignified in a thong, when in fact, interiorly, their soul is dying.

[PhuturePriest]

The problem many people have is they think modesty is about sin. It has nothing to do with sin. It has to do with upholding a woman's dignity.

 

And hooray for going almost an entire page without someone attempting to kill someone else!

Edited June 11, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[the171]

Upholding HUMAN dignity. Modesty is for both women AND men.

[MarysLittleFlower]

The problem many people have is they think modesty is about sin. It has nothing to do with sin. It has to do with upholding a woman's dignity.

 

And hooray for going almost an entire page without someone attempting to kill someone else!

 

I'm confused why you said that modesty is not about sin. It is about upholding a women's dignity too, but I think it's also about sin. I think it's about both. Otherwise, the Church wouldn't have talked about this at all. But several Popes (like last century) talked about certain types of clothing being an occasion of sin to others. Maybe the way women's dignity is related is that objectifying women is against their human dignity, which is true, but there is also lust, which is where the objectifying comes from, and lust is a sin... hence... the discussion about sin.

Edited June 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Regarding this article.... yes men should control their desires and yes they have a choice whether to sin or not to sin, but I have heard sermons by priests etc talking about how we shouldn't cause an occasion of sin to others, *even if they don't sin*. Popes talked about immodest dress causing temptation too.

 

Regarding lust and attraction... I think genuine attraction should involve the whole person, not just the body. if a woman wears a bikini, that puts too much attention on her body in a way that is more for her husband to see, because it would invite those types of thoughts. So I'd say that yes bikinis invite lust not just attraction.