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.

[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.