The Bikini Question: A Rebuttal

[MarysLittleFlower]

Basilisa,

 

I think this is the part that i'm a bit confused about... :) you said that going to the beach topless/string bikini/etc isn't modest. I agree with you, it's not modest. But what standards are you basing this statement on? Would you say it's something objective, or subjective? What would you say to people a hundred years ago, or even 50 years ago, who would be scandalized at the idea of wearing a bikini? In our culture, going topless is considered scandalous, let's say in a hundred years, it would be considered normal: would you still believe that it's immodest? I think if we take subjectivity very far - we would end up thinking that going around the streets nude is just fine. But instinctively, I think we know that because of concupiscence, it would tempt someone. I think that showing the figure too much would tempt someone - I disagree that it's limited to only showing the bikini areas, I think it's more than that, because this is what has been believed by people for so long, and that seems to be the experience of many men who commented on the topic - for example in some surveys. For this reason, I think it's more objective, because although societies change, concupiscence stays, and - even if people get used to it, the getting used to it is also a problem. I agree with the statement of the Pope (I'm sorry I forget which one) - that modesty should be judged according to the society that values it the most (for example a very good Christian society, or - the Saints!), not the least.. because this is what would protect human dignity the most, it would also be what would come from a sensitivity to the topic, not desensitization.

 

I agree with you that going to the beach topless is immodest, but I think that because of objective modesty standards, not based on our society, which could change... for this reason, my modesty standards also go above those of our society, because I think we've mostly lost this concept. Why else are women willing to dress in ways that women even 50 years ago would have been shocked at.

[MarysLittleFlower]

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.  

 

 

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. 

 

Regarding tankinis, to be honest they're not something I'd wear either, because they show so much of the back and the thighs and they are often low-cut. However, in my area they're easier to find than bikinis, and they are not perfect to me but they're more modest than bikinis are. (I still would say they're not modest though and wouldn't wear them). With bikinis, it's basically exactly like underwear, and they show a lot of the body. According to a moral theology text that I read once, - the areas that should be reserved for one's spouse to see are not limited to the bikini areas, but the close surrounding areas as well. In addition, in a survey done of a large selection of young men, - most found it immodest if a woman shows her upper thighs or stomach. Meaning: it is a temptation to them.

 

WIth your second point - yes men are responsible for their thoughts, as we all are,  but I think it's charitable to help each other to holiness. My question should be: how have I helped my brothers and sisters in Christ to holiness today? If I dress in a way that I know would tempt them to lust - that is not helping them. It's uncharitable to do so.

 

According to a sermon I listened to, - if a woman wears something immodest because she wants to tempt someone, yes she's willfully sinning. If she wears something immodest not realizing it's effects, her culpability is perhaps reduced but it doesn't excuse the immodesty or make it modest, because the effects are there. I'm talking about things that are actually immodest and cause lust to normal people, not those who are actively looking for lustful thoughts in everything. The priest also said, we should be extra careful around the weak and children, so we don't scandalize them. The Popes have talked about how unfortunate it is when mothers don't teach their daughters about modesty and they never acquire this virtue.

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.   

 

But at the beach.. humans are still fallen humans. We don't become like Adam and Eve before the fall. If seeing a part of a body regularly causes lust to someone, it would cause it at the beach too. That's why many Christian guys have a problem with going to the beach. Do you have any evidence that the problem goes away for guys at the beach? Maybe they expect the bikinis, but they still see much of the female figure that is more meant for their husbands. I don't think this is okay, even if society accepts it like it does.

 

You're admitting here that men who struggle with thoughts of lust should avoid the beach: I agree, but - aren't you admitting by this that the bikini can cause lustful thoughts? If it can, wouldn't it be better not to wear it?

 

Furthermore, if a society goes down this road... the bikini would no longer be just for the beach, - I've already seen girls wearing the bikini top while running outside, or at the park. If we keep going down this road, then eventually people would be totally nude at the beach, and there would be no modesty standards anywhere. This might seem like an extreme idea, but the idea of bikinis was extreme 50 years ago, look where we're today: most women wear one.

Edited July 26, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Basilisa Marie]

Sure, a bikini can cause lustful thoughts.  But so can a potato sack.  Or a pretty skirt you'd wear to church.  I was shocked to find out that a lot of my classmates in college were turned on by sundresses - sundresses! Modest, knee-length, non-cleavage-showing, wide strapped sundresses!  Does that mean women shouldn't wear them? I don't think so.  Women wear them because they make them feel pretty and dignified, not because it makes them feel especially desirable.  

 

It's definitely charitable to help one another to holiness.  But I wouldn't say it's a requirement that women wear something like shorts and a baggy t shirt at the beach.  And like I said before, if we start making that level of charity a basic requirement, and not meeting that level of charity a sin, it just furthers the idea that women are mostly responsible for the sexual sin of men.  If I follow your line of reasoning, that it would be better to not wear any clothing that has the possibility of inciting lust, then we end up saying that the only truly charitable clothing is a burka.  At the end of the day, we could both argue that the modesty line I'm drawing is just as arbitrary as yours is.  

 

I think one main point the original article made was that modesty is situational.  Yes, there are some lines that everyone can agree on are basic modesty standards.  But ultimately, modesty is situational.  Quoting JPII:

 

 

“Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment… There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labor, for bathing, or for a medical examination. If then, we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so. For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.”

 

 

Honestly, some bikinis are only constructed to serve the function of looking sexy.  Many others, though, are constructed for active swimming.  

 

To sum up my position, I quote the OP's article:

 

 

Women, love yourselves. Dress in a way that makes you feel dignified. If that’s a bikini, so be it. If it’s not, that’s also fine. As long as what you’re wearing is appropriate for the venue and is being worn with the genuinely holy motive of communicating your strength, worth, confidence, dignity and beauty to the world, more power to you.

 

Men, let’s start taking responsibility for our actions, thoughts, and desires. I promise you that you are capable of so much more than the culture tells you. I promise you that it is possible to become chaste relying on nothing but yourself and the Holy Spirit! I promise you that there is no greater feeling than being in the presence of a woman who may or may not be dressed immodestly and being able to look at her with nothing but love, chastity, and a desire to communicate her dignity to her in any way you can.

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Sure, a bikini can cause lustful thoughts.  But so can a potato sack.  Or a pretty skirt you'd wear to church.  I was shocked to find out that a lot of my classmates in college were turned on by sundresses - sundresses! Modest, knee-length, non-cleavage-showing, wide strapped sundresses!  Does that mean women shouldn't wear them? I don't think so.  Women wear them because they make them feel pretty and dignified, not because it makes them feel especially desirable.  

 

It's definitely charitable to help one another to holiness.  But I wouldn't say it's a requirement that women wear something like shorts and a baggy t shirt at the beach.  And like I said before, if we start making that level of charity a basic requirement, and not meeting that level of charity a sin, it just furthers the idea that women are mostly responsible for the sexual sin of men.  If I follow your line of reasoning, that it would be better to not wear any clothing that has the possibility of inciting lust, then we end up saying that the only truly charitable clothing is a burka.  At the end of the day, we could both argue that the modesty line I'm drawing is just as arbitrary as yours is.  

 

I think one main point the original article made was that modesty is situational.  Yes, there are some lines that everyone can agree on are basic modesty standards.  But ultimately, modesty is situational.  Quoting JPII:

 

 

 

Honestly, some bikinis are only constructed to serve the function of looking sexy.  Many others, though, are constructed for active swimming.  

 

To sum up my position, I quote the OP's article:

 

 

Lol, you really expect us to believe women should wear whatever they want? What next? You want equal pay too? Have you not read any of the Mary-like modesty threads? 

 

^ Stylish and respectful. Why can't you understand that? You just love tempting us don't you, Eve? 

Edited July 26, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[MarysLittleFlower]

Sure, a bikini can cause lustful thoughts.  But so can a potato sack.  Or a pretty skirt you'd wear to church.  I was shocked to find out that a lot of my classmates in college were turned on by sundresses - sundresses! Modest, knee-length, non-cleavage-showing, wide strapped sundresses!  Does that mean women shouldn't wear them? I don't think so.  Women wear them because they make them feel pretty and dignified, not because it makes them feel especially desirable.  

 

It's definitely charitable to help one another to holiness.  But I wouldn't say it's a requirement that women wear something like shorts and a baggy t shirt at the beach.  And like I said before, if we start making that level of charity a basic requirement, and not meeting that level of charity a sin, it just furthers the idea that women are mostly responsible for the sexual sin of men.  If I follow your line of reasoning, that it would be better to not wear any clothing that has the possibility of inciting lust, then we end up saying that the only truly charitable clothing is a burka.  At the end of the day, we could both argue that the modesty line I'm drawing is just as arbitrary as yours is.  

 

I think one main point the original article made was that modesty is situational.  Yes, there are some lines that everyone can agree on are basic modesty standards.  But ultimately, modesty is situational.  Quoting JPII:

 

 

 

Honestly, some bikinis are only constructed to serve the function of looking sexy.  Many others, though, are constructed for active swimming.  

 

To sum up my position, I quote the OP's article:

 

Basilisa,

 

I disagree that we can compare bikini to a potato sack or even a sundress. A guy might find a girl attractive if she's wearing a pretty dress that's not revealing. But if he gets lustful thoughts because of particular body parts she's showing: then he's not truly looking at her, he's looking at the body parts and is not looking at her truly as an individual. With the sundress, we can ask: does the guy just find the girl to be pretty? or does he find her attractive because the sundress shows certain parts of her body that cause these thoughts and a focus on these parts of the body? for example, I've heard it said before that guys might struggle more with seeing shoulders and the back then if they were to be covered. I think if someone wore something like a mid calf skirt with a regular shirt (not tank top), guys might think it's pretty but I don't think they'd get lustful thoughts, unless a guy is looking for them in everything, which is not related to what the woman is wearing.

 

I also disagree with the idea that if we make this level of charity a requirement, then we're giving the idea that women are responsible for guys thoughts. Because in this idea, we're not saying that the guy WILL consent to the thought. We're saying that the consent is his choice: but the initial battle in his thoughts, for that the woman is partly responsible if she's wearing something immodest. I'm also not making up this requirement, in my understanding the Church has been teaching this for a very long time: not to present occasions of sins to others. I've heard priests about it as well. So I think it's already a requirement, it's not something I'm making up or even proposing.

 

Regarding what you said about the burka: I actually read, in the moral theology text I alluded to before, about the standards for what could or could not incite lust. It doesn't mean wearing a burka, so I'm always confused why people bring it up: no one here is advocating for a burka. For example, Christian women are not obligated to cover the face. The text I read referred to parts of the body that shouldn't be shown, such as the areas the swimsuit covers but also the close surrounding parts of the body as well. That's because the imagination can easily use this to lead to lustful thoughts. Then there are other parts of the body that are less serious to show, but it's more perfect to not show them. Pious Christian women have always dressed in this way until modern times, perhaps we can ask why that is :)

 

I think there's a theological or philosophical problem with this discussion. In modern times, there's the idea that ethics can change during time and according to society. This is known as situation ethics and was condemned by Pope Pius XII as part of modernism, which was called a heresy. This way, we can't really say that bikinis weren't modest before because people saw them as immodest, and now they're modest because people are used to them: the only reason people don't have a problem with them today is because we've grown desensitized. So again my problem with this is theological.

 

Regarding what Pope John Paul II said: I think that we should relate this first to Catholic teaching in general and other modesty related quotes by Popes. We can't simply ignore the rest of it. Maybe what JPII is saying is that there's a difference between the doctor's office and the street. Swimsuits were mentioned as well: but what type of swimsuits is not elaborated on. Swimming clothes has always been different than regular clothes in the recent times. However, men and women also had separate swimming areas, and the idea of "mixed bathing" was actually condemned by the Vatican when it first appeared. So it's true that we could wear certain things at the beach that we can't wear anywhere else, but traditionally ti's been understood that there are conditions to this. I think if we look at the quote together with quotes by other Popes, we get a different picture. It could be argued that bikinis, the way they are made, 'arouse concupiscence' so easily that they should not be worn in public. I just don't understand why the JPII quote is being used so much but other quotes by Popes are being ignored, just because they don't fit our modern mentality. I think we should look at the Catholic teaching in totality.

 

I don't think we can compare the bikini to something very modest, because if a guy gets lustful thought from modest clothing, it's probably because he's actively looking for lust in everything, and the woman isn't contributing to it herself. But the bikini is made to be very revealing and immodest. It was first created to shock people, that's where the name bikini came from. If it later became so popular, it's not because it's something virtuous to wear, but I'd say because our society has become less aware of chastity and modesty and the dignity of the individual as a result of this.

Edited July 26, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just to elaborate a bit, I think we shouldn't treat the JPII quote like that in isolation as if ti's the synthesis of all Catholic teaching. It's one quote that we're maybe taking out of context, or the context of which is not known to us right now. JPII is linking modesty to concupiscence. It doesn't mean that "anything goes", even at the beach. It could be argued that the bikini shows so much of the body and in such a way, that even when expected at the beach, it would still cause lust. It could also be argued that bikinis were not made for the function of swimming, but to arouse lust. We know they were initially made to shock people. Anyway, while fashions change over time, its' possible for something immodest to be considered okay even if it causes lust, because our society has largely forgotten the concepts of both chastity and modesty. Also, I would add this quote:

 

Pope Pius XII – August 15, 1954 delegated Cardinal Ciriaci to issue a letter on modesty.
"Everyone knows that during the summer months particularly, things are seen here and there which are certain to prove offensive to anyone who has retained some respect and regard for Christian virtue and human modesty . On the beaches, in country resorts, almost everywhere, on the streets of cities and towns, in private and public places, and, indeed, often in buildings dedicated to God, an unworthy and indecent mode of dress has prevailed. Because of this, the young particularly, whose minds are easily bent towards vice, are exposed to the extreme danger of losing their innocence, which is, by far, the most beautiful adornment of mind and body. Feminine adornment, if it can be called adornment, feminine clothing, ‘if that can be called clothing which contains nothing to protect either the body or modesty.’ (Seneca) are at times of such a nature that they seem to serve lewdness rather than modesty . What we are discussing here is obviously most serious, since it vitally concerns not only Christian virtue but also the health and vigor of human society . Well did not the ancient poet say of this matter: ‘Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity’ (Ennius)."

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Here's a very informative quote:

 

Pope Pius XII – 1957 to Congress of Latin Union of High Fashion
"The strange opinion which attributes the sense of modesty to one type of education or another, and even considers modesty a conceptual deformation of the innocent reality , a false product of civilization, a stimulus to dishonesty, and source of hypocrisy, is not supported by any valid reason. On the contrary, it finds explicit condemnation in the resulting repugnance with which they are viewed who dare to adopt this point of view as a way of life. Thus the soundness of common sense, manifest in universal usage, is confirmed. Natural decency in its strictly moral sense, whatever its origin may be, is founded on the innate and more or less conscious tendency of every person to defend his personal physical good from the indiscriminate desires of others, so that he may reserve it, with prudent choice of circumstances, to those wise purposes of the Creator, which He Himself has placed under the protective cover of chastity and modesty. This second virtue, modesty-the very word modesty comes from modus, a measure or limit-probably better expresses the function of governing and dominating the passions, especially sensual passions. It is the natural bulwark of chastity. It is its effective rampart, because it moderates acts closely connected with the very object of chastity. Modesty makes man hear its warning, like a forward sentinel, from the moment he acquires the use of reason, even before he learns the full meaning and purpose of chastity . It accompanies him throughout his entire life and demands that certain acts, which are good in themselves because they are divinely established, should be protected by a discreet veil of shadow and the reserve of silence, in order to confer on them the respect owed the dignity of their great purpose. It is therefore just that modesty , as the depository of such precious possessions, should claim for itself authority prevailing over every other tendency and every caprice, and should preside over the determination of fashions in clothing…. Speaking in concrete terms, it cannot be denied that along with seemly styles there are also immodest fashions that create confusion in well-ordered minds and can even be an incentive to evil. It is always difficult to indicate with universal norms the borderline between seemliness and shamelessness because the moral evaluation of attire depends on many factors. However, the so-called relativity of fashions with respect to times, places, persons, and education is not a valid reason to renounce a priori a moral judgment on this or that fashion which, for the time being, violates the limits of normal decency. Here, as elsewhere, greater sensitivity to this warning against the snares of evil, far from being grounds for criticizing those who possess it, as though it were a sign of interior depravity , is actually a mark of an upright soul and of watchfulness over the passions. Yet, no matter how broad and changeable the relative moral of styles may be, there is always an absolute norm to be kept, after having heard the admonition of conscience against approaching danger: style must never be a proximate occasion of sin… More basically, the immorality of some styles depends in great part on excesses either of immodesty or luxury . An excess of immodesty in fashion involves, in practice, the cut of the garment. The garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society , but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire…"

 

We can see here that:

 

- fashions change

- fashion must never be an occasion for lust (are bikinis? I'd say yes...)

- "the garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire". SO EVEN THOUGH fashions change, - it's still not entirely subjective, it's still not relativism, because we should evaluate clothing based on the society that has this virtue. Does our society "prize the dignity and seriousness of its public attire"? I don't think it does much... so I don't think we can say that bikinis are modest just because our society says they're modest. Imo, we can't even really say that they're modest because they don't cause lust, in reference to JPII quote: because we often hear that they do cause lust. So I don't think that we could use the JPII quote to excuse relativism and subjectivism, because here we have another quote by a Pope that clarifies, that - it's not like the norms of the society decide everything, *even though* clothing does change over time and in different places. He said that an absolute norm is that clothing shouldn't cause sin. But according to much of what I've heard, - there are types of modern clothing that are very popular and do cause sin. Just because they are accepted, doesn't make them modest, - that would be relativism. That's why in my other post, I said: "This way, we can't really say that bikinis weren't modest before because people saw them as immodest, and now they're modest because people are used to them: the only reason people don't have a problem with them today is because we've grown desensitized." I think this could be related to the last sentence of the Pope's quote.

[HisChildForever]

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 what bugs me about the modesty topic. It seems that modesty really only applies to "attractive" women.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just to make it really clear what I'm saying, I thought maybe I could put it this way :)

 

There are two things that I'd disagree with, regarding types of modern clothing that are not modest.

 

1. They were made to incite lust. So things like really short dresses, tight clothing, bikinis, - I think most people would agree why these types of clothing were initially created. And why they shocked people.

 

2. Our society isn't known for its virtue, and as Pope Pius XII said, the cut of the garment should be evaluated based on virtuous societies that prize modesty, not those that don't.

 

MAYBE that's because:

- the latter societies don't care if there's lust

- they might also be desensitized to immodesty in a way that is damaging to morals/customs. But I think this point is related to the first one.. because lust still happens, regardless, it's just not cared about as much, which leads to more immodest fashions, etc - it's like a circle. If children grow up being used to it, it's not a good thing, according to other quotes by Pope Pius XII and others.

 

So even though clothing changes over time, our culture doesn't care too much about chastity and modesty so it's not the most reliable, and we're not relativists, and we can see that this condition of a society also coincides with the clothing causing lust. As the culture gets more and more used to it, the clothing becomes more and more revealing, heading into a downwards spiral. A priest once said in a modesty documentary, that often the clothing that is worn by prostitutes, later becomes the popular fashion of the typical young women. That's quite disturbing, but if we look at the history of fashion, I think we can see that in modern times especially.

 

I think views of Saints like St Padre Pio, who cautioned women against wearing short skirts even though they were already popular in the 60s. - even though often these views are laughed at today (imo, wrongly), I think St Padre Pio's view is great to fight both errors: to evaluate clothing based on a pure society (and no doubt he lived very chastely, so he could think clearly about this), and to make sure clothing doesn't incite sinful thoughts. At the time, society was going through the "sexual revolution" and morality wasn't very high. It's the same today, we're just more used to it. (but our society still isn't very moral, and certain clothing today does cause lust, and going back to what Pope Pius XII said - our society is hardly a standard for modesty).

 

We were given the prophesy that fashions would be introduced that would greatly offend Our Lord. Also, that Our Lord has no fashions, that He is always the same. This is from Our Lady to Blessed Jacinta. So I think that it's incorrect to say that just because clothing changes, that we can wear whatever our society supports: because it could still cause lust, and because our society doesn't care much for chastity or modesty. This is the reason why I don't support bikinis. I tried to back up my view with statements from Pope Pius XII and points I heard in sermons by priests, or things the Saints have said. To me, those sources are quite good. If you disagree with me, - I understand this is a difficult topic, but I'd invite you to look at the various quotes by Pope Pius XII about modesty, cause they really show us a lot:

 

“The good of our soul is more important than the good of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts . . . If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up . . . O Christian mothers, if you know what a future of anxieties and perils, of illguarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose their sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making for yourselves, the harm which you are causing to these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians."

 

I think it's kind of obvious why certain forms of clothing, like low cut shirts, skirts or shorts that show  much of the thigh, were made. I think it's obvious with bikinis too.

[MarysLittleFlower]

This is what bugs me about the modesty topic. It seems that modesty really only applies to "attractive" women.

 

I'm not sure what you mean... modesty is for everyone, because everyone has dignity as children of God.

[Guest]

wow you wrote a lot flower...could never read all that...if a girl wants to wear a bikini at the beach she should....end of thread...

[MarysLittleFlower]

It's up to you if you want to read what I wrote or not.. but I tried to provide evidence for what I said.

[Guest]

I read some of what you wrote...To long to read all...Your heart is in the right place so props...But again its not a big deal...Should guys wear baggy shorts and tshirts to swim ? I'm muscular and dieting down to 10 or 9 percent bodyfat (think the white tryrese)...Once I'm that lean shoul I cover up when I swim ? Because that will never happen...That would be dumb...

Edited July 26, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

I don't think its that big of a deal....If a guy can't handle seeing a girl in a bikini don't go swim in a publice place...Cause most girls are going to wear bikinis...Its just the fact....Some may be trying to get attention...Most just want to swim in one....I will give a christian girl the benefit of the doubt she wants to swim in one....Again if a guy can't handle seeing a girl in a bikini dont go to a public swimming area... Its pretty simple...And for the guys that can't handle it I'm sorry about your luck...I will handle it for you...

Edited July 26, 2013 by Guest

[havok579257]

This is what bugs me about the modesty topic. It seems that modesty really only applies to "attractive" women.

 

 

I don't necessarily think so.  I mean I think most men on here would agree men should not wear speedo's or be shirtless out and about in public.  I think it applies to both sexes.  You just see way more women wearing bikini's than men wearing speedo's.