The Bathing Suit
June 27, 2017
FEMINISTS claim that women are more fulfilled and happy when they are free to wear almost nothing.
Virtually the whole world has accepted their premises. Go to any beach, and you will be hard-pressed to find any woman covered up to the extent that these women — such ridiculous figures, huh? — were in 1906.
Are women better off? Are they better off now that the battle over the bikini has long passed and no one will think twice if you show up in a few threads?
Obviously, some say they are better off. But this is a lie — not a conscious lie necessarily, but a definite falsehood. Women are much worse off. They are less powerful. They are less happy. They are less fulfilled. (And they are less numerous. One of the ironies of “sexual freedom” is that procreative activity and oceans of lust produce fewer people. What philosophy can possibly be pro-woman when it is against their very existence, embattled against those not yet born?)
Who shall find a valiant woman? Far and
from the uttermost coasts
is the price of her .. She hath made
for herself clothing of tapestry:
fine linen, and purple is her covering …
Strength and beauty are her clothing, and
she shall laugh in the latter day …
Proverbs 31:10
These “ridiculous” figures on the beach were headed for a happier existence — both in this world and the next — than those in bikinis and thongs today. For one, they were much more likely to achieve what most women most want: the love of a man and a happy home, the foundation of which is the mysterious and ineradicable differences between the sexes. They were much less likely to face the tremendous existential crises women face today, which are placed under the heading of “depression” or other psychological diagnoses which do not begin to describe the depth of internal conflict feminism begets.
One of the common symptoms of insanity or dementia in an individual is a loss of modesty. The insane person does not care if he is covered up. We live in an insane society.
Immodesty undermines femininity. A woman’s greatest influence and dignity are not based in her body but in her personality and soul. When flesh is exposed, that’s what people see. The flesh, not the person. (Immodest dress is especially unkind to the woman who does not have an ideal body.)
Immodesty is a form of aggression.
This is because men are — by nature — highly sensitive to visual stimuli, much more than women, and cannot, except by emasculating themselves at some deep level, eradicate their responses to the female form. (And why would women want them to?) Most women are not conscious of this reality in an age where they are directed by powerful forces to dress in a certain way and to believe that the sexes are exactly the same (while at the same time hypocritically dressing as if they are not), but immodesty in women is a power trip over men in the same way physical aggression by men can be a power trip over women.
The male bully often dominates with his fist. The female bully dominates with her sexual power. That power is visual.
Immodesty in women induces men to sin — in their thoughts or actions (unless they have been thoroughly emasculated). All sin is a form of slavery, and thus when immodesty is not aggression, it is at the very least thoughtlessness and inconsideration. It is selfish and unloving to men (I realize that many men would prefer that kind of selfishness), and to those women who do not possess the same sexual power either because of age or lesser beauty. Women (and it was women primarily who enforced standards of modesty) once acted as a sort of trade union — to protect the higher interests of all women. Now they regularly display this inconsideration toward each other.
For much of history, in many cultures, the world was wiser than it is today and would be scandalized by the scene on an American beach or at a swim club today.
The Greeks and Romans had separate bathing houses for swimming for men and women. Can one accuse those of such advanced civilizations as these of barbaric attitudes? [See correction below.] Colleen Hammond writes in her book Dressing with Dignity:
Separate bathing houses for men and women continued in one form or another through the centuries. By the 1400’s, mixed swimming occurred in some establishments, and these places were known for their promiscuity. Mixed bathing houses were considered hotbeds of vice, as only women with loose morals would swim in mixed company. Actually, the word “stew” originally meant bath house but came to be another name for a brothel.
Over the centuries, respectable bath houses continued to be separate. Before the mid-18th century, mixed swimming was condemned by Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims as an occasion for vice. From the latter half of the 1800’s, women who went bathing — usually outdoors — wore an elaborate bathing outfit which included sleeves, a skirt, and loose pantaloons to below the knee. The fabric used was basically the same heavy fabric used in other clothing — so today we would hardly consider such an outfit a “real” bathing suit. [Dressing with Dignity, Tan Books, p. 45)
Interestingly, the bathing suit for women changed — and coed swimming became popular — just around the time when women were being used for more menial roles in the workplace, in factories and offices.
The bikini, named after the island where the atomic bomb was tested, was introduced in 1946, when many women were tired from their work in wartime factories and offices. The more sexually “free” women became, the more they were economically exploited, as if Satan said, “Here, I will give you this apple — this power unleashed. And in return you will have drudgery for the rest of your days.”
The Victorian swimming outfits such as those above (I’m not saying they are the only way to go or the best way) might seem relatively uncomfortable, but one of the paradoxes of semi-nudity is that it really isn’t all that comfortable. In fact, it can be uncomfortable. A woman has to keep whatever little she is wearing from falling off or exposing the tiny zones that do, even today, cause embarrassment.
She is often conscious of what she is exposing. She is less free when bound in this prison of flesh. The spirit roams farther than the body.
Don’t take for granted what you see on a beach today. It will not last.
Civilization demands clothes. Slavery demands nudity.
— Comments —
Bert Perry writes:
It strikes me that in the Deuterocanon–the books of the Maccabees–there is adequate evidence of the barbarity of the Greeks and Romans, no? Worth noting as well is that the Greeks substituted homosexual sexual nudity for heterosexual sexual nudity, while the Romans had mosaics in Pompeii which more or less serve as a model for pornographers today, I’m told. You’ll see hints of it as well in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians.
Not that the Greeks and Romans didn’t have great achievements that we can still treasure today, but to hold them up as a model of propriety simply ignores the Biblical record.
Laura writes:
Good points.
The Romans also practiced infanticide and devolved into sexual license. Pretty barbaric.
My point was, however, that they were civilizations that sustained themselves and were capable of great achievements.
Terry Morris writes:
As a newly wedded man, I picked out myself a bikini for my wife to wear at a gathering at the lake with friends and relatives. When one of my (male) relatives said something to me about how “hot” she looked in the bikini, my first reaction was “hey!, watch your mouth!” I thought about it for a few seconds afterward and decided two things – (1) that it was my fault for encouraging her to wear it and draw that kind of attention to herself; and (2), that it was time to cover her up.
Great post!
Laura writes:
Thanks.
By the way, if a husband wants his wife to dress more modestly, he should approach the subject tactfully, patiently and with respect for her independence.
The best way is simply by encouraging and complimenting.
Mrs. T. writes:
I just wanted to add my quick two cents.
I have five young boys and taking them to the beach has become a bit of a nightmare. Even the five- year-old is keenly aware of the blatant immodesty. I can see the question marks in their eyes.
Good thing we homeschool and can go during “off” hours. Or visit a friend’s lake cottage where there is very little immodesty to deal with.
What surprises me the most are the mothers. You can almost feel the embarrassment from their children. Especially the teenage boys.
Laura writes:
I greatly sympathize with your situation, especially since the beach is such fun. What is more fun than the beach!?
But, you’re right, it’s a nightmare. It’s gotten to the point where you feel almost embarrassed — like an Amish person at the mall — if you’re wearing clothes rather than a few strips of nylon. And, semi-naked people in the sun, all laid out on a slab of sand, most of them suffering the negative effects of the Pizza Industrial Complex, make human flesh seem so, so … distasteful. People worry about beach erosion, but clothes erosion is much worse. Maybe “nauseating” is the best word. Actually, I feel a bit queasy just thinking about it. Animals have feathers and fur and scales. We just have skin. And flab. Sometimes all that flesh looks like an eruption of human lava coursing toward the sea.
Perhaps you could have your children wear blindfolds and lead them in single file to the ocean. : – )
But seriously now, good mother that you are, you’re trying to help your adolescent boys cultivate self control! Very difficult when they’re surrounded by a different message. Not everyone looks bad in a bikini. It’s almost as if women are visually raping men, so aggressively do they shove their sexual power in their faces. And then when the boys go to college, they will be the ones implicitly accused in their obligatory sexual harassment seminars of aggression!
Animals don’t need clothes. They don’t have the exalted souls we have. Or the degraded souls we have.
June 29, 2017
S.J. writes:
While the article does make some interesting points, the main tenant is off the mark. The article states:
“This is because men are — by nature — highly sensitive to visual stimuli, much more than women, and cannot, except by emasculating themselves at some deep level, eradicate their responses to the female form. (And why would women want them to?) Most women are not conscious of this reality in an age where they are directed by powerful forces to dress in a certain way and to believe that the sexes are exactly the same (while at the same time hypocritically dressing as if they are not), but immodesty in women is a power trip over men in the same way physical aggression by men can be a power trip over women.”
There are at least two things wrong with that paragraph. Unless a man is mentally deficient, he is not a slave to visual stimulus; and what excites a man visually is not the same for every man!
When a woman is raped it is 100% the guy’s fault and 0% the woman’s fault!
It does not matter if she was attractive.
it does not matter what she was wearing.
It does not matter if she smiled.
The man is to blame! Arguing that he could not help himself is pure, unadulterated, B****T!
We have to make it clear to young men that they are responsible for their actions! We have to make it clear to everyone that phony, b***t, excuses about what the woman was wearing, what she did, or what she said, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!
(Note that there are cases where a woman consented and then accused her partner of rape. That is not what I am talking about. False accusations of rape are not rape. Period.)
What is sexually exciting is somewhat cultural. Men raised in societies where woman are fully covered tend to be more easily excited by, for example, a woman wearing a short sleeve shirt or shorts. A man raised near a European beach, where woman in bikini is a regular sight, is not likely to be unduly excited by scantly clad woman. While cultural “norms” play a huge role in what most men find sexually stimulating, there will always be exceptions. None the less, it is foolish to try to regulated what woman should wear based on how you expect men to react! It would be much better to teach men to behave appropriately regardless of what woman are wearing.
The question of what is appropriate attire is relative. What is acceptable when attending a formal evening, a church service, or a business meeting is different from what is appropriate for an evening around a campfire or a day at the beach. If a woman wears something inappropriate she should not face any greater risk than if a man wears something inappropriate. If establishments want to enact dress codes, that is their prerogative – but it only applies to people who want to enter the establishment! A restaurant can have a “no shoes = so service” policy but they cannot force people in the street to wear shoes.
On a related note, all men look! I have had this discussion with many people and take exception when examples of staring or ogling, which is not socially acceptable, is equated with looking. Looking at our our surroundings is something that helps us survive. Visually stimulating items will catch our attention: red cars are noticed more than other cars. By the same token, women wearing something unusual, flamboyant, or provocative are more likely to be noticed. There is no commandment in the Bible, and none in the Catholic or Anglican religion, against looking. There is a commandment against coveting! Looking at a woman with desire is, or is close to, coveting. Looking is not the problem; desire is! Even staring (which is not socially acceptable) is not necessarily accompanied by desire.
Laura writes:
Perhaps you read the article quickly. I did not say men are unable to control their responses. I said they cannot eradicate them. In the discussion with Mrs. T., we spoke of the need of boys to learn control. In general women possess a greater ability to discipline sexual responses, which does not mean they too do not also have very powerful desires. But, of course men have to practice restraint as well.
I agree every man is not the same. I agree stimuli are relative. Even when women were much more modest, they could excite a man. A woman’s hand or feet or mouth can all be highly stimulating, but I challenge the idea that a bikini is not a greater temptation to lust. Why all that fuss about swimsuit issues or pin-up posters?
The man is to blame! Arguing that he could not help himself is pure, unadulterated, B****T!
We have to make it clear to young men that they are responsible for their actions! We have to make it clear to everyone that phony, b***t, excuses about what the woman was wearing, what she did, or what she said, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!
I’m sorry, but I did not say that a man may be blameless in the case of rape because of what a woman is wearing!!!! I did not say that.
We have to make it clear to young men that they are responsible for their actions! We have to make it clear to everyone that phony, b***t, excuses about what the woman was wearing, what she did, or what she said, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!
For any college student today that message is being delivered loud and clear. What is not being delivered is that women have a responsibility to help create a climate of mutual restraint.
But there is more to this issue.
Feminine modesty protects intimacy. It also protects the sacredness of marriage. As Pope Pius XII said, women should be trained “in that sublime and holy dignity which is so clear and powerful a safeguard of physical and spiritual integrity. This virtuous and indomitable stateliness and pride are a great ornament of the soul which will not be reduced to slavery. It enriches the moral vigor of the woman, who gives herself untouched only to her spouse, for the founding of a family, or else to God.”[“Allocution to the Girls of Catholic Action,” April 24, 1943]
In other words, revealing clothing affects the psychology of women too. They are giving away something they can’t take back. It is not something tangible.
Laura writes:
The basic point I wanted to make is that female immodesty in the advanced stage that we have reached is a sign that our society is dying. Immodesty trivializes the female body and its role in perpetuating ourselves as a people and civilization.
S.J. writes:
You challenge that my comments imply “a bikini is not a greater temptation to lust”. The level of “temptation to lust” is relative. I can assure you that seeing a woman in a skimpy bikini has less effect om me now than a young lady wearing jeans and a t-shirt did when I was in university. This is mainly because I am older, but probably also a bit because I have seen more women in bikini over the years. So yes, a woman in bikini might be more alluring than a woman in jeans – but a man from a Muslim country might be more dazzled by a woman in a dress than a man from California would be by the same woman in a bikini!
I would disagree that “in general women possess a greater ability to discipline sexual responses”. I consider that a cop-out, used to blame women for the failings of men. There is no reason why a man of normal mental capacity can’t “reign in” his desires. Certainly, the desires are about a thousand times stronger in a young man than once he passed 40. The more realistic issue is that a man reaches his sexual peek in his late teens or early twenties and may not yet be fully mature enough to handle the hormonal overload. Woman reach their peek much later and are more likely to be sufficiently mature by then.
