Swim wear

[blovedwolfofgod]

Going back to what hugheyforlife said, the issue with children is all about comfort. Now, small children are the only ones in our society that can get away with the just a diaper look no matter what gender. I would ask myself why this is. At a distance, a small female is not really distinguishable from a small male. They are not even close to any adult development. They also dont have shame. Shame is a condition of sin and can be seen right after the fall or man. Children are still really young and really innocent. Jesus told us that we cannot enter heaven unless we are like little children, so I believe that supposes an innocence of children. As children have no shame, its our job to teach it to them as they grow older, and Im sure going with the natural order of things that they will develop their own sense of it. However, this also means that they can get away with much more "immodest" clothing. We can percieve their innocence, and they dont exactly move suggestively. We let them do what is comfortable (unless its run around in public nude, cause we have know that kids WILL run around their house quite naked and shamelessly). I think modesty has two parts. We cannot cater to everyone in a sexually perverse society, so we cater to the majority. Pedophiles will be aroused by children in less clothing and so their swimwear would be immodest for the situation. However, seeing as the general populace is not attracted to small children, this clothing has no immodesty because the wearer is shameless and the viewers are not oriented to this. So the two parts of modesty would be the intention of the wearer and the intention of the viewer. However when kids get older, they do need to stop dressing in scanty clothing. As their age increases, they come closer to being able to catch the eye of someone. Unfortunately, females grow a little quicker and so should be taught this a little sooner. Males should learn that women arent objects around the time that girls start to look like women (or a little b4, depending on the age and maturity of some male).

Enough of my philosophizing... probably insane anyway.

[Nicole8223]

I think one-piece is really the only thing that should be acceptable. Even tankinis that have a long top, ride up, and then a girl's stomach will show. There are plenty of "cute" one pieces. We are about virtue, not style, anyway!

And I totally agree about little girls wearing a bikini....I think that's crazy. Bikinis were created to show off a woman's body, and the fact that little girls are being put in them is crazy to me. If for nothing else, it teaches them the wrong lesson. My kids will definitely not be wearing bikinis, I don't care how old they are!

[God Conquers]

Nut-huggers for all!


:deformed:


Just be reasonable...

Don't have things popping out, don't have too much skin showing in the less-than-normally-visible areas.

[scardella]

I doubt that the majority of guys have a sexy enough torso to incite lust in the feminine folk...even if they were trying.

"Behold, the farmer tan for all generations!"
"Look in wonder at my flab!"
"Feast your eyes on my beer belly!"
etc...

[Noel's angel]

I'm just gonna wear a big raincoat and a wolly hat and gloves

[Socrates]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 19 2005, 11:29 PM']Thank you IcePrincessKRS for closing the bikini thread, because we clearly do not need multiple swim wear threads.
[right][snapback]616524[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course we need them! Phatmass should be all about babes in bikinis!

Edited June 20, 2005 by Socrates

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 20 2005, 01:21 PM']I doubt that the majority of guys have a sexy enough torso to incite lust in the feminine folk...even if they were trying.

"Behold, the farmer tan for all generations!"
"Look in wonder at my flab!"
"Feast your eyes on my beer belly!"
etc...
[right][snapback]616966[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' date='Jun 19 2005, 11:15 PM']Heh, are vintage style swim suits really coming back into fashion? Sweet!
[right][snapback]616551[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

check out [url="http://www.jantzen.com/"]http://www.jantzen.com/[/url] - lots of cute retro swimwear

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jun 19 2005, 08:03 PM']Pope John Paul II himself has defended nudity in art, even religious art.  Every depiction of the human body is not pornographic; such a mindset is Puritan, and not at all Catholic.  Catholics believe very strongly that the human body is good, as all of God's creation is good, and our original condition -- as is made manifestly clear in Genesis -- is, in fact, nude.  It is original sin which makes nudity somehow "bad," and it is original sin that brings lust; thus, it is eschatogically correct to depict nudity in religious art, especially religious art of the Last Judgement, because at that time original sin and its effects will be no more and the elect will once again be in the condition of original justice.

Pope after pope after pope has defended Michelangelo's use of nudity in religious art, and the use of nudity in other works of art, religious or secular.  Trying to be more Catholic than the popes will often result in not being Catholic at all, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the appropriate use of nudity in art, nor do I think there is anything wrong with the human body as such.  What's wrong with us is lust, and that requires not only modesty, but also purification of thought.
[right][snapback]616344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yep, it's true, and I'm not denying the credibility of nudity in art...just mentioning that using that specific time period isn't the best idea 'cause it got well outta hand.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Nicole8223' date='Jun 20 2005, 09:42 AM']I think one-piece is really the only thing that should be acceptable.  Even tankinis that have a long top, ride up, and then a girl's stomach will show.  There are plenty of "cute" one pieces.  We are about virtue, not style, anyway!
[right][snapback]616707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mine doesn't, and I wear it with a pair of board shorts so its WAY more modest than even a regular one piece.

I think blovedwolf has some good points about children having innocent shamelessness. Whenever I water my plants or our ducks Adrienne will run out into the yard and start playing in the basins of water for the ducks, and usually she will strip her own diaper off and begin running around totally nude. To be honest I think some little baby bikinis are cute, but I definately think modesty is more important. I don't really mind the idea of 2 piece suits in a PRIVATE setting (in your own backyard pool for example) but I think going out in public is much sketchier. (Not that I would wear a 2 piece anywhere anymore, bearing the badges of motherhood I prefer to remain a little more covered up. lol)

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 20 2005, 12:29 AM']Thank you IcePrincessKRS for closing the bikini thread, because we clearly do not need multiple swim wear threads.
[right][snapback]616524[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're welcome.

[Q the Ninja]

My sister is almost 10 and still wears those bathing suits...I don't think they should be allowed only because the children pick them up.

[marielapin]

I wear a two piece sport tankini (it has a skirt instead of shorts) that covers me up more than most people I see out on a daily stroll. It has a high neck and a skirt. The shirt does not ride up and it covers up much more than any one piece I have ever owned. Hooray for lands end and their modest bathing suit options (unfortunately which are pricey).

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jun 19 2005, 04:27 PM']The Church at the time was in the Rennaissance and the Popes weren't exactly the best people to look towards.  The reason Baroque came around is because of the problems with the Rennaissance.

Also, The Last Judgement had everyone covered up because it was thought innappropriate for the Sistine Chapel...Michaelangiolo wasn't too happy with that.
[right][snapback]616242[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Hey Now what was wrong with Julius II!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jun 19 2005, 08:03 PM']Pope John Paul II himself has defended nudity in art, even religious art.  Every depiction of the human body is not pornographic; such a mindset is Puritan, and not at all Catholic.  Catholics believe very strongly that the human body is good, as all of God's creation is good, and our original condition -- as is made manifestly clear in Genesis -- is, in fact, nude.  It is original sin which makes nudity somehow "bad," and it is original sin that brings lust; thus, it is eschatogically correct to depict nudity in religious art, especially religious art of the Last Judgement, because at that time original sin and its effects will be no more and the elect will once again be in the condition of original justice.

Pope after pope after pope has defended Michelangelo's use of nudity in religious art, and the use of nudity in other works of art, religious or secular.  Trying to be more Catholic than the popes will often result in not being Catholic at all, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the appropriate use of nudity in art, nor do I think there is anything wrong with the human body as such.  What's wrong with us is lust, and that requires not only modesty, but also purification of thought.
[right][snapback]616344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



I think I agee with everything here except for this "Trying to be more Catholic than the popes will often result in not being Catholic at all," You where right further above, this is not Catholic at all but Protestant fear of the Body, it isn't trying to be more Catholic than the Pope, it's trying to be so modest that one derides the wonder of Gods creation. THAT IS NOT CATHOLIC!


Great post good friday!


P.S. Where is the rest of the post aboput pure thought and all that, I agreed with the whole thing.

Edited June 21, 2005 by Don John of Austria