Mormons and Bikinis

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You're like the evil inner voice whispering in people's ear "just do it.  It's ok.  It's "technically" not a sin.

Only in this case I gave a specific reference to establish exactly what I was talking about.

You know, like any one of THESE examples of you asking essentially the same question and the responses to it.

On 5/14/2018 at 2:03 PM, BJ64 said:

I suppose there’s no need to wear swimwear at all. Just get into the water fully dressed. 

A swim brief is comfortable and dries quickly when you get out of the water. 

This whole speedos are immodest thing is just a puritanical/Victorian American mindset. Other parts of the world are much less concerned about guys in swim briefs. In France it is required to wear swim briefs in public pools for sanitation reasons. Men shouldn’t be wearing shorts in a public pool which can also be worn out on the street. It’s not sanitary. In France there are speedo dispensers at pools so you can buy one if you don’t have one. 

People believe what they are taught about modesty. If you tell people that a certain style of swimsuit is immodest that’s what they grow up believing. If you grow up in a place where brief swimwear is considered normal then you’ll think it’s normal. If you were raised going to nude public beaches then nudity would not be considered immodest. 

By 1800’s standards every woman in America is dressing immodestly by showing their arms, ankles and neck. 

There is really nothing wrong with nudity in appropriate settings. It was Satan who told Adam and Eve to hide their nakedness. 

To get back to the original topic, as I asked before, does anyone really get turned on by seeing a woman’s shoulder?

On 5/8/2018 at 1:33 PM, BJ64 said:

A question that might be asked is do boys really get turned on by seeing a girl’s shoulder?

As for myself a woman’s shoulder is no more alluring then her elbow.

On 5/14/2018 at 1:33 PM, anatess2 said:

@BJ64, wearing your tighty whiteys in the public pool, I'm sure, you will think is inappropriate.  I'm sure even your boxer briefs which cover a heckalot more than your speedos you'd probably think inappropriate, right?  Therefore, it is not about how much skin is being laid bare.  Rather, it is about what is appropriate for the occasion.  Speedos, as the name implies, is built for speed in competition.  There's no such need in leisure swimming in a public pool.  Now, if you're training for a swim event, then sure, wearing your speedos in your training pool wouldn't be inappropriate.  It's like beach volleyball - there's a specific reason competitive beach volleyball players wear what they wear.  But, wearing that outfit out to the grocery store... well, I guess it would be just like wearing bermuda shorts to Church.  This all goes with the concept of Modesty - it's not just the outfit, it's the outfit with the spiritual mindset.

On 5/17/2018 at 6:53 PM, BJ64 said:

I would call it indecent but not immodest but if indecency is immodesty then I’d have to say it is immodest. 

How would you compare this photo with my examples of women with bare shoulders or short shorts?

 

[person0]

I am trying to convince my wife that we should get these (or similar) for our daughters:

It seems both modest and also not ugly.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

On 5/19/2018 at 10:20 PM, Vort said:

Let's see:

I'm stumped.

HEY!  Where did you get that picture of me and why are you posting it?!?!?!?!?!?!?

😆

I admit I thought of you as a bit more...masculine. But that's an impressive six-pack.

[priesthoodpower]

On 5/19/2018 at 2:36 PM, Hey_I_Have_A_Question said:

So, I've been wondering, can I wear a bikini if it is modest and no revealing? This may seem silly, but I am looking for a new swimsuit and have really bad chest acne. The only thing I can find that is high enough to cover it are some high chested bikinis. I have a plan to just wear the top and wear board shorts but I need some other opinions.

I allowed my 15yr old daughter to wear anything as revealing as she wanted,  but not in public. So she took 10 of the most skimpy bikinis with her into the department store dressing room, stayed there for 1 hr. Came out, put it all back on the rack. The next day she went swimming in her usual rash guard and board shorts.

Oh, and I was sure to monitor her IG account to make sure none of those pics got uploaded.

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, person0 said:

I am trying to convince my wife that we should get these (or similar) for our daughters:

It seems both modest and also not ugly.

These are 2 of my swimsuits.  They're awesome - good quality and quite cute.  The first one is a 2-piece outfit where the skirt is attached to a bikini bottom.  The 2nd one is a 1-piece outfit where the colored top layer hides a black unitard.

 

[person0]

8 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

The next day she went swimming in her usual rash guard and board shorts.

Yeah, I think we decided this is what we are going to do.

I have never quite understood how somehow modesty standards are lowered when swimming or participating in water based activities.

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, person0 said:

I have never quite understood how somehow modesty standards are lowered when swimming or participating in water based activities.

Probably because you equate "modesty standards" completely on the amount of skin exposed.  Skin exposure is not the end-all-be-all of modesty in the same manner that folding your hands and bowing your head is not the end-all-be-all of Reverence.  Modesty is about the spirit.  An extreme example would be - engaging in sexual relations with your spouse - exposing private parts - is Modest.  Exposing the same parts to your gynecologist or paramedic in their exercise of their medical duties is still Modest.  Exposing those parts in sexual relations with somebody not your spouse is highly Immodest.  Make sense?

Edited May 22, 2018 by anatess2

[BJ64]

I would still like someone to explain why it is that men can show their stomach when swimming and women not. 

I’m confused about the double standards in swimwear modesty.  

Men can show their stomach, women shouldn’t. Women can show their thighs men shouldn’t. Men can show their back women shouldn’t. 

Men’s and women’s bodies are essentially the same except for the breasts and genitals and of course muscularity and fat distribution but those two don’t really play a part in modesty. So long as the genitals are covered and the women’s breasts are covered I don’t see why other body parts should br treated differently between men and women. 

[unixknight]

10 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Oh, and I was sure to monitor her IG account to make sure none of those pics got uploaded.

Parenting win.

[unixknight]

21 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I would still like someone to explain why it is that men can show their stomach when swimming and women not. 

I’m confused about the double standards in swimwear modesty.  

Men can show their stomach, women shouldn’t. Women can show their thighs men shouldn’t. Men can show their back women shouldn’t. 

Men’s and women’s bodies are essentially the same except for the breasts and genitals and of course muscularity and fat distribution but those two don’t really play a part in modesty. So long as the genitals are covered and the women’s breasts are covered I don’t see why other body parts should br treated differently between men and women. 

Male gaze.

[person0]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Probably because you equate "modesty standards" completely on the amount of skin exposed.

Well, only in certain circumstances.  In a different thread I was on the team arguing that modesty is not based only on skin exposure.  I specifically made the point that sagging is immodest, even though there may be no skin shown at all.  However, with bathing suits, I don't really see any reason why we have progressed to our current state of depravity(other than societies normalization).  Here is an article showing historical swimwear and how it changed over time.  I find it interesting that over time there has been less and less clothing worn by women (and men) when swimming.

Interestingly, here is an example of men's swimwear from the early 1900's:

Edited May 22, 2018 by person0

[BJ64]

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Male gaze.

Females gaze as well. 

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Females gaze as well. 

Not like men do.  It's a psychological fact that males are far more stimulated visually than females are. 

[BJ64]

7 minutes ago, person0 said:

Well, only in certain circumstances.  In a different thread I was on the team arguing that modesty is not based only on skin exposure.  I specifically made the point that sagging is immodest, even though there may be no skin shown at all.  However, with bathing suits, I don't really see any reason why we have progressed to our current state of depravity(other than societies normalization).  Here is an article showing historical swimwear and how it changed over time.  I find it interesting that over time there has been less and less clothing worn by women (and men) when swimming.

Over time men and women have worn less clothing while not swimming. T shirts and shorts are common for men and women which would have our ancestors crying immodesty yet I doubt many feel that way now days. 

Garments used to go to the wrist and ankles. The thought of seeing a calf or arm would have been scandalous. Joseph F Smith had a lot to say about the immodesty of his day. So did Brigham Young. I think that as far as skin coverage is concerned what is immodest is showing that which the cultural considers forbidden to show. Once the culture decides it’s not forbidden then showing it is no longer immodest. 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Not like men do.  It's a psychological fact that males are far more stimulated visually than females are. 

Yup. That's why advertisements geared towards men are likely to have a girl in a bikini in them while most (most, not all) advertisements geared towards women aren't likely to have an shirtless man in them hawking the product. Women are still motivated by the visual but not nearly as much as men are. The male/female sex drive is totally different. 

[BJ64]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Not like men do.  It's a psychological fact that males are far more stimulated visually than females are. 

Yes, and some males are stimulated by the sight of other males so maybe we should all keep our six packs covered while swimming. 

I also still think women gaze at guys. 

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Yes, and some males are stimulated by the sight of other males so maybe we should all keep our six packs covered while swimming. 

I also still think women gaze at guys. 

Nobody is saying women don't look.  We're saying males are more stimulated visually.  @MormonGator demonstrated an example to illustrate.  

[BJ64]

30 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Not like men do.  It's a psychological fact that males are far more stimulated visually than females are. 

This is the thinking that leads us to teach women that they are responsible for the unclean thoughts of men rather than teaching men that they are responsible for their own thoughts. 

[Guest MormonGator]

21 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Nobody is saying women don't look.  We're saying males are more stimulated visually.  @MormonGator demonstrated an example to illustrate.  

Exactly. That's why more people can relate to this meme about a distracted boyfriend rather than the meme about a distracted girlfriend. 

 

 

Virtually every girl here has seen her boyfriend/husband do this before. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

This is the thinking that leads us to teach women that they are responsible for the unclean thoughts of men rather than teaching men that they are responsible for their own thoughts. 

Wrong. Just because men are more likely to glance at an attractive female doesn't mean women are responsible for unclean thoughts. Men are, that's the point

[BJ64]

42 minutes ago, person0 said:

 

Interestingly, here is an example of men's swimwear from the early 1900's:

Note that this suit shows as much or more of the male contour as a speedo. Yet this sort of form fitting suit was acceptable in 1900. Why are we so much more prudish about the male form today?

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

This is the thinking that leads us to teach women that they are responsible for the unclean thoughts of men rather than teaching men that they are responsible for their own thoughts. 

So... we should ignore the results of scientific research on human psychology because it's wrongthink?

And, what @MormonGator said.

[BJ64]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. That's why more people can relate to this meme about a distracted boyfriend rather than the meme about a distracted girlfriend. 

 

I guess her shoulders were more alluring than his girlfriend’s shoulders. 

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

I guess her shoulders were more alluring than his girlfriend’s shoulders. 

He ain't lookin' at her shoulders, buddy.  

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

So... we should ignore the results of scientific research on human psychology because it's wrongthink?

And, what @MormonGator said.

Thanks bud. Remember, we ignore science when we disagree with it but we love science when we agree with it. That's how life, and in particular, the internet work. 

It also needs to be said that there is a huge difference between a quick glance at an attractive female and then acting obnoxious. Catcalling, making comments, etc is very disrespectful. Virtually all men (yes, including you reading this, even if you won't admit it) have done the first (taking a look) , while only a cad does the second (making comments). 

Edited May 22, 2018 by MormonGator