The Bikini Question: A Rebuttal

[Nihil Obstat]

As I have said in the past, I think it would be going much to far to suggest that we have no obligation not to present temptation to our neighbours. Christianity teaches quite clearly from the earliest years that we are our brother's keeper. Prudence and reason determine in what ways and to what extent we work to minimize those temptations which may be under our control.

[Basilisa Marie]

People shouldn't willfully cause others to sin.  Just as you can't know for sure what's going through a person's mind when they decided to wear a particular outfit, they can't know what's going to be a problem for you.  

 

So when I was in high school, I almost always wore minimal makeup, jeans, T-shirt and a sweatshirt with tennis shoes to class, because it was functional, comfortable, and easy to throw together at 5:30 every morning (my classes started at 6:30, and I usually didn't get done with homework until at least 11pm).  But one day when I had an important presentation, I wore a nice blouse, a lacy camisole, a knee-length skirt, pantyhose, heels, and flattering makeup.  Most of my guy friends flipped, and I could see in their eyes that it was hard for them to not lust after me that day.  Was I wrong to wear the skirt, blouse, and to do my hair and makeup in a way that made me look professional? No, of course not. I dressed up because I had an important presentation, not because I wanted to look hot for my guy friends. If I had worn the same skirt and blouse to look hot for my guy friends, I would be in the wrong.  It's certainly easier to not intend to incite lust in some clothing than in others.  It's easier to have pure, modest intentions in a knee-length skirt than in a mini-skirt.  

 

I think the same thing can apply to bikinis.  Some bikinis are cut no differently than most one-piece suits, just with the middle area missing.  They have thick straps, cover your butt, and nothing is at risk of popping out.  Almost all one-pieces are tight, so you already can see a person's waist or whether or not they have washboard abs. The only real difference is that there isn't a thin piece of fabric stretched tight over your stomach.  I don't see how it's really any different.  How does something like that put extra attention on a woman, while a one-piece doesn't?  

 

I mean, gosh, look at the vintage-style two piece swimsuits on ModCloth.  They provide a lot of coverage.  

[Nihil Obstat]

You are definitely right to distinguish between willful presentation of temptation and incidental presentation of temptation. Clearly your experience was incidental.

I think sometimes there may be a grey area, because our rather promiscuous culture has desensitized most, if not all of us to such things, so it takes some extra effort in some cases to understand where we must draw the line.

But I would argue that it would be praiseworthy for a serious Catholic to fairly regularly examine their conscience and see if they might be able to do even better. Perhaps we are not strictly obligated to avoid those incidental situations, but I think it would be meritorious to avoid them anyway.

After all, for a Catholic, enough is never enough. :smile3:

[Basilisa Marie]

True, it definitely would be meritorious to do our best to avoid incidental situations. But I think there's a balance between encouraging such behavior and trying to guilt women to don a burka.  :)  

 

But I think so much of modesty conversations focus on

 

1) A woman's obligation to prevent men from sinning

2) what kinds of clothes are or are not objectively sinful to wear

 

and they usually forget that the other half of the conversation should talk about 

 

3) A man's obligation to take responsibility for his own sin and to avoid creating occasions of sin for women

4) what kinds of clothing are appropriate for what situations

 

So I think the article does a good job of reminding us of the other parts of the modesty conversation. It's not that women don't have an obligation to help prevent sin, or that some clothes aren't objectively immoral.  It's just that that's all we ever seem to focus on.  

[WillT]

Ugh that website is terrible to read off

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

This.

I tried to read it but I couldn't. I'll try tomorrow when my eyes aren't quite so tired.

[Nihil Obstat]

Personally I think most discussions of modesty that we are seeing on the blogs and whatnot these days completely miss the point. On both 'sides' of the debate. In my opinion we should all be talking less about the minutiae of the secular world, and more about the metaphysical meaning of femininity and masculinity qua salvation.

The discussions are inevitably shallow if we are not talking about the fundamental and rather mysterious differences between men and women, and by so doing, getting a better idea of the great - and different - gifts God has given both sexes. The 'modesty debate' is really just a tertiary aspect of that.

[Basilisa Marie]

Personally I think most discussions of modesty that we are seeing on the blogs and whatnot these days completely miss the point. On both 'sides' of the debate. In my opinion we should all be talking less about the minutiae of the secular world, and more about the metaphysical meaning of femininity and masculinity qua salvation.

The discussions are inevitably shallow if we are not talking about the fundamental and rather mysterious differences between men and women, and by so doing, getting a better idea of the great - and different - gifts God has given both sexes. The 'modesty debate' is really just a tertiary aspect of that.

 

I don't think the conversation is necessarily shallow if it's practical.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't think the conversation is necessarily shallow if it's practical.  

There is a time and a place for practical things, for sure. But that is, right now, the entirety of the modesty debate. It has been done to death, and there is nothing more to say, because practically everyone is missing the point. :sweat:

 

ETA: Basically I think the debate has forgotten its foundation, and is very clearly demonstrating what happens to a structure built on sand.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Chestertonian]

Should we refrain from wearing nice clothes or driving nice cars, lest someone become envious?

[Nihil Obstat]

Should we refrain from wearing nice clothes or driving nice cars, lest someone become envious?

Do prudence, reason, and a thorough examination of conscience tell you to avoid those things?

[Chestertonian]

Do prudence, reason, and a thorough examination of conscience tell you to avoid those things?

 

Ya, but not necessarily for moral reasons, but rather because I'm a cheapskate. :P

[Nihil Obstat]

Ya, but not necessarily for moral reasons, but rather because I'm a cheapskate. :P

Excellent. Me too. :like3:

[ToJesusMyHeart]

"Modesty makes peace between the body and the soul."

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/06/modesty-is-honesty.html

 

Thoughts?

[fides' Jack]

I didn't like how the article's author took Pope John Paul II's small paragraph a little out of context, and used it to draw false conclusions.

 

I think his intentions were good, but his conclusions are off.

 

I agree with Nihil that the argument's focus needs to change.  I think that modesty is first and foremost a virtue which resides in the spirit.  But just like any other virtue, if it truly exists, the physical aspect of modesty will always follow.

 

In this case, the purpose of a bikini is always to show off the female body.  If it were meant entirely for practical swimming, it would be a one-piece.  We don't see professional female swimmers in bikini's, do we (while swimming professionally)?  On that note, I think professional male swimmers could learn a thing or two about modesty...

[elizabeth09]

Some women will say that two piece are the only in the stores.  That is false.  It the only ones that they see.  My mom makes my sisters and myself wear one piece.  It takes more time finding a swim wear that we even like.  More then ever we have to get a suit that we may not like a lot because there are no more swim wear there at the store.