The Bikini Question: A Rebuttal

[CatholicsAreKewl]

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

 

Lol, why? Women don't care about sex.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't know... it just seems to me like we should understand Pope John Paul II's quotes in context and together with other things Popes said, like that other quote saying that we should evaluate modesty standards based on societies where it's a highly held virtue (paraphrasing) rather than where it's not deemed important. There's a reason why when the bikini was first made, they couldn't even find a model for it. I think with time we got desensitized to immodesty and that's why now, people don't really mind it. I don't think that's a good thing. But I don't see what's so "necessary" about wearing a bikini to a beach: it doesn't help to swim, in any case... the only reason for a bikini is to show the female figure. The article talks about the difference between lust and attraction. But attraction should not have lust in it. If a guy is attracted to a girl because of her bikini, it's not for her personality, it's for parts of the body: so that can lead him to objectifying her. If the reason he's looking at her is because she's showing certain parts of her body, how would this not tempt him to lust? This isn't looking at her as a whole person.

Edited July 23, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Basilisa Marie]

 

 

 But I don't see what's so "necessary" about wearing a bikini to a beach: it doesn't help to swim, in any case... the only reason for a bikini is to show the female figure

 

I respectfully disagree.  I know plenty of women who can't find one-pieces that fit them because they're a different sized "top" and "bottom."  Two-piece swim suits allow women to choose different sizes that fit them, especially older women who have more curves in different places.  Plus, most one-piece swimsuits that are flattering and fit well on women with curves are almost $100, and most women can't afford laying down that kind of money.   

 

 

 

But attraction should not have lust in it.

 

No, not necessarily.  Sexual desire is not inherently evil.  It's actually important to feel sexually attracted to your spouse.  What's wrong is entertaining prolonged sexual thoughts, willfully.  Thoughts popping into your head is not sinful, it's what you do with them.  And that act of will is solely in the domain of the one who is entertaining the thoughts, not the situation or picture or person who inspired them.  

 

 

 

If a guy is attracted to a girl because of her bikini, it's not for her personality, it's for parts of the body: so that can lead him to objectifying her. If the reason he's looking at her is because she's showing certain parts of her body, how would this not tempt him to lust? This isn't looking at her as a whole person.

 

You don't give men enough credit.  Men are capable of being responsible for their actions, and are capable of noticing a woman's body AND her personality.  Life isn't so clear-cut as you're describing here.  

[MarysLittleFlower]

I respectfully disagree.  I know plenty of women who can't find one-pieces that fit them because they're a different sized "top" and "bottom."  Two-piece swim suits allow women to choose different sizes that fit them, especially older women who have more curves in different places.  Plus, most one-piece swimsuits that are flattering and fit well on women with curves are almost $100, and most women can't afford laying down that kind of money.   

 

 

No, not necessarily.  Sexual desire is not inherently evil.  It's actually important to feel sexually attracted to your spouse.  What's wrong is entertaining prolonged sexual thoughts, willfully.  Thoughts popping into your head is not sinful, it's what you do with them.  And that act of will is solely in the domain of the one who is entertaining the thoughts, not the situation or picture or person who inspired them.  

 

 

You don't give men enough credit.  Men are capable of being responsible for their actions, and are capable of noticing a woman's body AND her personality.  Life isn't so clear-cut as you're describing here.  

Basilisa,

 

I'm not sure how to divide the paragraphs in the quote so I'll respond in the same order :)

 

1. the women don't need to wear bikinis though.. there could also be 2 piece swimsuits that are not bikinis. The bikini was first made in order to show the figure more. For example before then, no one would show the belly button: that's one of the reasons it was so scandalous, the amount of skin it showed. If we look at swimsuits in the past, they were very different, even different from one piece swimsuits. But since we're talking about bikinis: if a woman has a difficulty with a one piece swimsuit, there are other options besides bikinis.

 

2. Thoughts popping into your head is not your fault, but if I dress in a way that causes a guy to get these thoughts, I'm partially responsible just for that. (even if he says no to the thoughts). Sexual desire for a spouse is one thing (though in marriage people should also guard against lust, which is selfish) - sexual desires for a random person at the beach, is another thing. Jesus said we shouldn't look lustfully at anyone, and that who did this committed adultery in their heart. If bikinis promote this, then I disagree with bikinis. I'm not a guy, but based on how much skin a bikini shows, it's not hard for me to imagine that they might promote these types of thoughts, simply because of concupiscence. In addition, they promote looking at a person as an assortment of body parts rather than a whole person, because they show certain body parts so much - Adam and Eve didn't have this problem... but after the fall, we do. A guy could still say no. But why put him in that position of objectifying you? :)

 

3. Yes guys can make the right choices. But why not make it easier, so they don't have to do battle with their thoughts as much?

[Basilisa Marie]

 

 

1. the women don't need to wear bikinis though.. there could also be 2 piece swimsuits that are not bikinis. The bikini was first made in order to show the figure more. For example before then, no one would show the belly button: that's one of the reasons it was so scandalous, the amount of skin it showed. If we look at swimsuits in the past, they were very different, even different from one piece swimsuits. But since we're talking about bikinis: if a woman has a difficulty with a one piece swimsuit, there are other options besides bikinis.

 

AHA! So what kind of two piece suits are acceptable that are not bikinis?  Tankinis?  Those are almost equally hard to find that fit properly, because usually there are even fewer tankinis than one-piece swimsuits.  What specifically about the construction of bikinis is problematic for you?  Showing stomach? Thin straps?  

 

It was also scandalous to wear skirts that showed one's ankle in the past, so that argument doesn't work.  

 

 

 

2. Thoughts popping into your head is not your fault, but if I dress in a way that causes a guy to get these thoughts, I'm partially responsible just for that. (even if he says no to the thoughts). Sexual desire for a spouse is one thing (though in marriage people should also guard against lust, which is selfish) - sexual desires for a random person at the beach, is another thing. Jesus said we shouldn't look lustfully at anyone, and that who did this committed adultery in their heart. If bikinis promote this, then I disagree with bikinis. I'm not a guy, but based on how much skin a bikini shows, it's not hard for me to imagine that they might promote these types of thoughts, simply because of concupiscence. In addition, they promote looking at a person as an assortment of body parts rather than a whole person, because they show certain body parts so much - Adam and Eve didn't have this problem... but after the fall, we do. A guy could still say no. But why put him in that position of objectifying you?  :)

 

No, you're not responsible for those thoughts. You're only responsible for the thoughts if you dress in a way with the explicit intention of inciting lust.  That is the ONLY way you are responsible for those thoughts.  I know guys who are turned on by Catholic school uniform skirts.  Does that mean every young woman who attends a Catholic high school is guilty of sin, simply by following the code? No, of course not, and I'm sure you'd agree with me.   My point is that while some people wear bikinis to make the boys drool, not everyone does, and it's only sinful if you do it to make the boys drool at the beach. 

 

But the biggest problem I have with your argument isn't exactly in your preference against bikinis - that's fine, you're well within your rights to not like bikinis.  I have a problem with the affects of your argument.  By making an argument like yours, you're placing more emphasis on women wearing clothing, which may or may not be sinful, than any emphasis on ensuring that men are responsible for their own sin.  I see your argument as part of a larger narrative that says that women are responsible for the sexual sin of men, and any responsibility men have becomes negligible.  

 

We may start by saying men are primarily responsible and one thing women can do to help is by covering up a bit, when they can. But if we keep talking about the women helping out, soon it becomes the only thing we hear, and because it's the only thing we hear, it's the only thing we believe.  Soon it becomes women being primarily responsible for the sexual sin of men.   The reason why I argue so hard that some binkinis are perfectly fine is partly to change the greater narrative, to put the focus back onto men taking responsibility for their own sin.  Swing the pendulum back the other way, so to speak. 

 

 

 

[Sister Marie]

I wish I could get paid for this, haha... for my apostolate (classroom decorations cost a lot of money!) but Lands End bathing suits are great.  I have a black LE BS from Sears that is modest, stylish, and looks good.  I know... I'm a nun... but we have a retreat house down the shore and the sisters go swimming there and in our academy's pool.  I'm young and I still find the bathing suits to be youthful and modest.  I have a black one, but you could get them in all different colors.  The waist is rouched and the bust is modest.  Obviously the rest is just like a normal bathing suit.  Some of our sisters wear the tankinis that cover the stomach.. no one actually shows their stomach!  They find them quite comfortable because they can find a skirt or shorts with a tank top style top.  I usually bring shorts with me to wear over the bathing suit itself when I am on the beach.  I see no need to risk drowning by swimming in a habit or to wear something cumbersome to placate others.  The ocean is one of the great delights God has given us on Earth and I intend to enjoy it!

[ardillacid]

 

 

 

No, you're not responsible for those thoughts. You're only responsible for the thoughts if you dress in a way with the explicit intention of inciting lust.  That is the ONLY way you are responsible for those thoughts.  

 

What if a woman decides to go about in the nude without any intention of causing lust. By your definition: okay. Dumb. 

[ardillacid]

So how about this. Tomorrow, I will start posting pictures of women with less and less coverage. The point at which I get warned/banned, that's what we can all agree is immodest.

[Basilisa Marie]

What if a woman decides to go about in the nude without any intention of causing lust. By your definition: okay. Dumb. 

 

No, because you also have to take into account the appropriateness of the situation.  You wear a swimsuit to a beach or pool.  You don't wear it to the mall or to church.  That's implied with the situation. 

 

So how about this. Tomorrow, I will start posting pictures of women with less and less coverage. The point at which I get warned/banned, that's what we can all agree is immodest.

 

Still not appropriate, because this isn't the beach, it's a Catholic forum. There's a difference between a woman wearing a one-piece in a sexy magazine and a woman wearing a two-piece at the beach.  I can wear a certain swimsuit without the intention of causing lust, and another woman could wear the same one with that intention, thus making it sinful for her and not for me.   Furthermore, men who especially struggle with lustful thoughts can avoid the beach.  A Catholic forum is a place where he wouldn't normally have to worry about seeing such images.   

Edited July 24, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Socrates]

No, because you also have to take into account the appropriateness of the situation.  You wear a swimsuit to a beach or pool.  You don't wear it to the mall or to church.  That's implied with the situation. 

 

 

Still not appropriate, because this isn't the beach, it's a Catholic forum. There's a difference between a woman wearing a one-piece in a sexy magazine and a woman wearing a two-piece at the beach.  I can wear a certain swimsuit without the intention of causing lust, and another woman could wear the same one with that intention, thus making it sinful for her and not for me.   Furthermore, men who especially struggle with lustful thoughts can avoid the beach.  A Catholic forum is a place where he wouldn't normally have to worry about seeing such images.   

 

With particular emphasis on the bolded part, this begs the question of whether you think there should be any objective standard of modesty in dress?

 

Generally speaking, an attractive woman who is nude or scantily dressed presents a certain degree of temptation to most men.  That's why the Church has always encouraged modesty in dress and for women to cover up what should be covered up in public.

 

If you and the other woman wore the same swimsuit to the same beach, you would be seen by the same men and boys, and (presuming you're equally good-looking and all) would present the same amount of temptation against purity, regardless of your inner intentions (which most onlooking men would not know or care about).

 

This is not to say men are not responsible for their thoughts and actions, or that women's clothes (or lack there of) should be solely blamed for impurity on the part of males.

 

However, one of the primary reasons for modesty in dress is to not needlessly create temptations for others.

If the actual clothes didn't matter at all, and all that mattered was inner intention, then there would be know need for the Church to preach modesty in dress at all - only to tell everyone to have clean thoughts.

 

Also, I think a good (minimal) rule of thumb for modesty would be that if a type of clothing is commonly worn by other women to incite men to lust, it's probably best to avoid wearing that type of clothing.

 

And, if a type of clothing should not be displayed in a "sexy" magazine, it probably shouldn't be worn at the beach either.  Most men would actually find a live woman in front of them "sexier" than a mere photo on paper or a computer monitor.

[Winchester]

So how about this. Tomorrow, I will start posting pictures of women with less and less coverage. The point at which I get warned/banned, that's what we can all agree is immodest.

[ardillacid]

 

So how about this. Tomorrow, I will start posting pictures of women with less and less coverage. The point at which I get warned/banned, that's what we can all agree is immodest.

 

Coincidentally, that's what I had gotten into last night... :pinch:

[Basilisa Marie]

Believing that there's wiggle room in modesty guidelines doesn't actually imply that I believe there's no such thing as an objective standard in modesty.  Don't be ridiculous. 

 

Going bottomless at a beach isn't modest.  Women going topless at a beach isn't modest.  String bikinis aren't modest.  Monokinis aren't modest.  

 

Bikinis that don't show cleavage and cover your butt are modest (google "competitive two piece swimsuit" for what I'm talking about). Bikinis that have thick straps and don't show off lots of boobs are going to be modest on some people and immodest on others, because women are shaped differently.  A bikini bottom that covers your butt is modest, boy shorts being the best example, but not the only style.  If a woman is spilling out of the top of her one-piece, that one-piece swimsuit isn't modest. 

 

Two piece swimsuits that aren't tankinis aren't always immodest. It depends on their cut and what they look like on you.  

 

 

 

Also, I think a good (minimal) rule of thumb for modesty would be that if a type of clothing is commonly worn by other women to incite men to lust, it's probably best to avoid wearing that type of clothing.

 

Okay, but I think we also have to keep in mind that a whole lot of women don't actually wear makeup and cute clothes and all that stuff for men, they do it for themselves.  Sure, plenty of women wear a certain swimsuit because it makes them look "hot" or whatever.  But most people I know who wear the non-problematic two-piece swimsuits do it because they like the suit, it has nothing to do with men finding them attractive.  Swimsuits are such a hugely common source of frustration and negative self-image for women (just ask anyone on phatmass), that I think more average women are interested in finding something that makes them feel confident before they think about being sexy.  

[GeorgiiMichael]

You don't get to say "THAT'S OUT OF CONTEXT" without then explaining what you believe the context to be.

 

Especially because after reading Love and Responsibility for myself, there is nothing "out of context" and the conclusion drawn isn't false at all. 

 

Unless you didn't actually read the whole article and thought it was encouraging the bikini, when all it was doing was saying that the concept of a bikini wasn't objectively immodest. 

 

Reading comprehension's a b.

[GeorgiiMichael]

I'd also like to point out that JPII also said that partial or even complete nudity isn't inherently immodest, depending on the situation.