FEMINISTS claim that women are more fulfilled and happy when they are free to wear almost nothing.

The whole Western world has accepted their premises. You will be hard-pressed to find any woman on a beach today covered up to the extent that these women — such ridiculous figures, huh? — were in 1906.

Are women better off?

The truth is, these ridiculous figures on the beach were much more likely to have a stable home life. They were more likely to have children. They were less likely to face the existential crises women face today. They lived in a more stable society with less crime. Political power and wealth were not so dangerously concentrated in the few. The federal income tax didn’t even exist! Our economic system was not yet crushed by debt, reducing most of us to insidious and hidden financial enslavement.

It’s no secret that powerful people want women unclothed and actively promote it. Civilization demands clothes. Tyranny demands nudity.

Immodesty undermines femininity. A woman’s greatest influence and dignity are not physical, but in her personality and soul.

Immodesty is a form of aggression. Men are — by nature — sensitive to visual stimuli, much more than women, and cannot, except by emasculating themselves at some deep level, easily eradicate their responses to the female form. (And why would women want them to eradicate their masculinity?) Most women are not conscious of this. The fashion industry pressures them to dress in a certain way and to believe that the sexes are exactly the same (while at the same time dressing as if they are not), but immodesty in women is a power trip over men in the same way physical aggression by men may be a power trip over women.

For much of history, in many cultures, the world was wiser than it is today. Societies that wanted to survive held the physical power of women as sacred and potentially dangerous.

The Greeks and Romans had separate bathing houses for swimming for men and women. 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 work in wartime factories and offices. The more sexually “free” women became, the more economically exploited.

The Victorian swimming outfits 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.

Modesty is greatly misunderstood. Thomas Droleskey wrote at Christ or Chaos:

Who has recommend to [women] short skirts, sleeveless dresses, pants, shorts, and clownish pants suits, and so on?

Not only did women and girls buy and buy and buy the clothing that through the years became gradually shorter and skimpier and tighter and ever more unladylike, thus making the whole program of gradual nakedness a huge success, but something else happened at the same time; the sense of modesty and propriety, which God has instilled into their souls, became gradually more blurred and dim and fuzzy, until in so many it became totally blacked out and dead. They did not, and do not, know what happened to them. By blindly and stupidly following the satanic program of gradual abbreviation of attire, they destroyed in themselves a precious God-given gift–the sense of modesty–so that they have now made themselves incapable of distinguishing between modesty and immodesty, nor do so many of them care to know.

And not only have women destroyed in themselves God’s gift of modesty, but they have destroyed it in their children from their earliest years, so that a whole generation has been brought up without any real understanding of modesty without any desire to possess its beauty.

Immodesty alienates women from God, the very source of their being.

Please follow and like us: