Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Joan-529855 said: The question was "should a CHRISTIAN woman wear a bikini?" All of the countries that were sited as having beaches in which women walked around nude or partially nude are also countries with a very low population of CHRISTIANS. We are CHRISTIANS; please dress MODESTLY, at all times. Why is this even a question on a CHRISTIAN forum? It is very clear in scripture that (as Steven pointed out earlier) immodest attire is SINFUL.
every woman not wearing a burka walks around partially nude.
Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Tom-112790 said: every woman not wearing a burka walks around partially nude.
Tom, to clarify I was referring to the women walking around with only the bottom portion of their two piece swimsuit on or the top portion of a one piece rolled down (as was posted earlier). I think if you had read the previous posts you would have been able to understand what it is I was referring to when I said partially nude.
Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Joan-529855 said: Tom, to clarify I was referring to the women walking around with only the bottom portion of their two piece swimsuit on or the top portion of a one piece rolled down (as was posted earlier). I think if you had read the previous posts you would have been able to understand what it is I was referring to when I said partially nude.
OK. Fair point re: partially nude. But quite honestly--there are places where this partial nudity is a norm at beaches----and believe me it is really not about sex...and is less of a turn-on than more covering.--I know it seems paradoxical.But a nude beach(its been decades since i was at a clothing optional beach) is not a turn on.Its about 'freedom' for most people.Feeling free and unfettered....not about the turn on aspect.
Aug 20th 2013 new
Where to draw the line? It is certainly not rocket science eyebrow; but then again rocket science may be easier to figure out than some people's way of thinking.
Essentially if you determine that swim wear is "SWIM WEAR" and that the attire is to be used for SWIMMING ONLY, otherwise a "cover up" is required. The cover up would require that the shoulders and knees be covered (the same as the Catholic School requires for appropriate attire). A women's attire should require that knees and shoulders be covered at all times, EXCEPT when swimming. There is nothing puritanical about this dress requirement. It is the same as when I was a child and only changed in the "liberated 70's". As Matt pointed out earlier, many times it is not so much the lack of cloth covering the woman's body, but the sensual movement of the body that can cause a man to sin. It is the woman's responsibility to not tempt the man with her body, or she too has sinned.
Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Tom-112790 said: there are bikinis and there are bikinis. again it becomes a matter of degree.there is a huge difference betw a postage stamp w dental floss and a 2 piece bathing suit that covers a lot and is still defined as a bikini. There is a boundary there as well.
-but I do see your point.
I can state with equal certitude that the square root of 2 is not 9, 8, or even 7.

If you are seriously suggesting that there is a swimsuit that can be classified as a bikini which presents some legitimate question regarding modesty, you will have to provide a photograph or drawing (not necessarily on a person) of said suit, as I have never seen it. Since you mention "covering a lot", keep in mind the criteria is not just exposed skin: the exposure of the form is as much a factor as the exposure of bare skin.

Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Tom-112790 said: every woman not wearing a burka walks around partially nude.
And no one claimed a bikini is the only example of immodest swimwear.

Further, being "partially nude", depending on how one defines the term, is neither necessary nor sufficient to be dressed immodestly.

The Blessed Virgin herself has stressed the point that immodest dress displeases Jesus and has serious moral consequences. The discussion of the topic deserves serious attention with the intent of figuring out how we can best meet our Creator, Lord, and Savior's expectations; not trying to rationalize our own bad behavior, regardless of how commonly accepted it is in secular society. If nothing else, the changes in the socio-cultural climate over the past several years -- nay, even the past several months -- should be showing us just how warped modern social norms are.

Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Tom-112790 said: OK. Fair point re: partially nude. But quite honestly--there are places where this partial nudity is a norm at beaches----and believe me it is really not about sex...and is less of a turn-on than more covering.--I know it seems paradoxical.But a nude beach(its been decades since i was at a clothing optional beach) is not a turn on.Its about 'freedom' for most people.Feeling free and unfettered....not about the turn on aspect.
Accepting the premise (that those who frequent nude beaches are not sexually aroused by the experience) for the sake of argument:

(a) Those who frequent such beaches are a small portion of the overall population.

(b) I would expect this population is self-selection for this particular trait (i.e., those who are aroused in this environment are not likely to return due to the embarrassment factor).

Thus, even if the argument regarding nude beaches is factually accurate, it has no bearing on the present debate concerning bikinis.



Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Joan-529855 said: Where to draw the line? It is certainly not rocket science ; but then again rocket science may be easier to figure out than some people's way of thinking.
Essentially if you determine that swim wear is "SWIM WEAR" and that the attire is to be used for SWIMMING ONLY, otherwise a "cover up" is required. The cover up would require that the shoulders and knees be covered (the same as the Catholic School requires for appropriate attire). A women's attire should require that knees and shoulders be covered at all times, EXCEPT when swimming. There is nothing puritanical about this dress requirement. It is the same as when I was a child and only changed in the "liberated 70's". As Matt pointed out earlier, many times it is not so much the lack of cloth covering the woman's body, but the sensual movement of the body that can cause a man to sin. It is the woman's responsibility to not tempt the man with her body, or she too has sinned.
Restricting the use of swimwear as outer apparel to the period of time one is actually swimming certainly reduces the window of exposure; however, it is not a complete solution to the problem.

Previous generations, perhaps realizing that completely modest swimwear was both impractical and unsafe -- and perhaps not even possible to design at the time -- had a solution for the problem: segregated (by sex) swimming locations.


Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: Restricting the use of swimwear as outer apparel to the period of time one is actually swimming certainly reduces the window of exposure; however, it is not a complete solution to the problem.

Previous generations, perhaps realizing that completely modest swimwear was both impractical and unsafe -- and perhaps not even possible to design at the time -- had a solution for the problem: segregated (by sex) swimming locations.


Hi, Jerry, Are you suggesting the solution is to segregate (by sex) the swimming location? If yes, I think it's not a solution but another issue that will create more problems than resolve the issue on modesty. I think in the end, God will not judge us by what we wore but more so by what's in our heart. God bless. Lesil
Aug 20th 2013 new
(quote) Jim-624621 said: Perhaps not, Jerry. But unless American secular society changes over night, we aren't going to be able to completely avoid these obstacles in secular places, and we are going to be exposed to some temptation, and we are going to have to avoid sin as a result.
It won't change at all unless/until people (a) recognize and accept what is right, and (b) take responsibility for what is doing right for themselves and their families.

No, we can't completely avoid temptation. That is no excuse not to avoid as much as we can -- and to do as much as we can to avoid providing temptation to others. And, yes, this WILL mean avoiding, as much as possible, some aspects of the secular world. For example, I have not had my TV on in over 9 years and the last movie I saw was several years before that. Each person is going to have to decide which is more important for them: the fleeting pleasure of the secular entertainment or the eternal salvation of their soul.

Of course, the first problem to deal with is that the Great Deceiver has convinced so many people that the former presents no obstacle to the latter. In today's world, the nature of the vast majority of the available secular entertainment is such that it poses a very grave risk to our souls, temporally and eternally.


Posts 151 - 160 of 164