Why are all bikinis often considered immodest by Christians?

[Hetta]

So long as they are worn at the appropriate place - the pool or the beach or in your back yard, i.e. preferably not in Wal Mart which is as grungy as wearing PJ's to WM and yes, I've seen both - then bikinis are fine.

A lot of Christians are obsessed with sex and want to blame an attractive woman for getting them all riled up. It's kind of sad. And then it's her fault of course, for being a jezebel, and not his for being a creep.

Wear your bikini and enjoy it. You won't be young forever! (That said, I still wear one )

 

[Hetta]

Boys wearing swimming trunks also have the vast majority of their bodies showing.

Immodest, I tell you!

Oh my. Did you ever see this? Mom Kim Hall writes open letter to sons' female Facebook friends warning them on 'selfies' | Mail Online

The crazy woman went of on a rampage about teenage girls posting 'sexy' selfies and accompanied her rant with photos of her topless teen sons because, yes, she has absolutely no commonsense. Hilarious.

 

[Inkachu]

Boys wearing swimming trunks also have the vast majority of their bodies showing.

Immodest, I tell you!

Hooray for being able to read my mind! And having the maturity to disagree with someone without resorting to childish digs! You win the prize!! WOOHOO!

 

[Sammy-San]

There is no consistent standard over time and from culture to culture on what constitutes modest attire. The best you can say is that the genitals are usually covered. Otherwise there is simply no way to deduce the standard by logic.

I've been watching the Outlander series, and in the very first episode Claire's very normal 1940s dress is taken for underwear in the 1740s. Meanwhile some other traditional cultures do not cover women's breasts. Surely you've seen the National Geographic pictures.

Yes, but Christians shouldnt base their modesty standards solely on the culture, especially if that culture has double standards. There are some very basic standards of human decency.

Yes, but just because those traditional cultures do it, it doesnt make it right. A lot of cultures are uncivilized. Here's another example. If a Christian grew up in a Muslim country, would it be a sin for them to not wear a head covering? Despite their cultural standards, I would argue that it isnt a sin.

 

[Cute Tink]

if she isn't shaving that skull is going to have a goatee.

I wasn't expecting anyone to actually say it

Bikinis are designed to be sexy and get attention. That's just a fact.

I totally agree, at least for the majority of adults who wear them.

Well, I do think people over in the US are more modest than the area you live in. I've never heard of those in the US (they could exist, I'm not certain about that) but I hear they are in Europe.

The US has a few, as well as some nudist colonies.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Hooray for being able to read my mind! And having the maturity to disagree with someone without resorting to childish digs! You win the prize!! WOOHOO!

To be honest, can't tell what you're trying to say with that. Emphasis is sometimes lost in text.

I honestly don't see why the reason someone wears something matters. I don't see nudity (or near nudity) as a sexual thing, though.

We are all naked under our clothes. We were born that way.

 

[keith99]

Blacks Beach is still clothing optional it seems.

Black?s Beach - La Jolla Shores - La Jolla, CA | Yelp

and this might lead to a few more:

California Nude Beach Guide - with nude beach behavior guidelines, photos and directions

 

[Inkachu]

Oh my. Did you ever see this? Mom Kim Hall writes open letter to sons' female Facebook friends warning them on 'selfies' | Mail Online

The crazy woman went of on a rampage about teenage girls posting 'sexy' selfies and accompanied her rant with photos of her topless teen sons because, yes, she has absolutely no commonsense. Hilarious.

I didn't see a "rampage" at all. She was very kind, very civil, even complimenting the girls on being beautiful and interesting. She was encouraging them to focus on their character and inner qualities rather than how sexy they could look in their PJ's. I agree that the photo of her sons in their swimming trunks was a bit comical, though lol; she did remove it later on, when her mistake was pointed out. FTR if a girl was obviously trying to seduce my young son with pics of herself on her bed in her PJ's with her butt sticking out and her lips all puckered up, or only wearing a bath towel, I'd block her, too. I mean, this woman's sons looked to be maybe no older than 13 or 14 (given the blog was posted a year ago). If they were closer to adult age, like 17 or 18, I wouldn't be so agreeable with her interference. Her blog post has over a thousand replies and the vast majority are positive and supportive, so I don't think she's being viewed as crazy at all.

Just my two cents.

 

[Inkachu]

To be honest, can't tell what you're trying to say with that. Emphasis is sometimes lost in text.

I honestly don't see why the reason someone wears something matters. I don't see nudity (or near nudity) as a sexual thing, though.

We are all naked under our clothes. We were born that way.

Because you assumed that I was being a hypocrite. That I would chastise girls for baring most of their bodies, but not boys.

If you don't see nakedness as sexual, then that's how you see things. Most people would not look at a young, fit naked person of the opposite sex and NOT see something sexual.

Yes, we are all naked under our clothes. Our bodies are amazing things.

 

[KitKatMatt]

And what if they do see something sexual? I don't see a problem here. I see things that are appealing all day (mostly food) and it doesn't have an impact on my life.

I think "oh, that looks good" and continue on with my day.

 

[Inkachu]

And what if they do see something sexual? I don't see a problem here. I see things that are appealing all day (mostly food) and it doesn't have an impact on my life.

I think "oh, that looks good" and continue on with my day.

Because my opinion is that blatant sexuality should be reserved for the marital bedroom. There's a big difference between seeing something appealing, like a cheeseburger, and seeing another human being nearly naked. If you don't have a problem with that, that's fine, you're entitled to your own point of view. I'm just stating mine.

 

[Skaloop]

For most of my youth (age 6-18) I was a competitive swimmer. I spent most of my mornings and evenings at practice/training, and my weekends at meets. As such, I find race-style one-piece suits (not the newer ones with legs, but the more traditional ones from, say, the '90s) far sexier than any bikini or revealing swimsuit. Because pretty much all of my formative years involved seeing the girls I was attracted to wearing them.

 

[CabVet]

Because my opinion is that blatant sexuality should be reserved for the marital bedroom. There's a big difference between seeing something appealing, like a cheeseburger, and seeing another human being nearly naked. If you don't have a problem with that, that's fine, you're entitled to your own point of view. I'm just stating mine.

And what if I tell you that seeing the skin from the neck of a woman or their ankles is blatantly sexual to some people? Where do you draw the line, at the line of where you consider things sexual or others? Your argument inevitably leads to burkas.

 

[Paradoxum]

Oh my. Did you ever see this? Mom Kim Hall writes open letter to sons' female Facebook friends warning them on 'selfies' | Mail Online

The crazy woman went of on a rampage about teenage girls posting 'sexy' selfies and accompanied her rant with photos of her topless teen sons because, yes, she has absolutely no commonsense. Hilarious.

Too many stressy people.

Yes, but Christians shouldnt base their modesty standards solely on the culture, especially if that culture has double standards. There are some very basic standards of human decency.

What does modesty mean apart from the culture? If it's normal in a culture for women to be completely topless, I'm not sure how you could claim that is immodest. There's no reason why seeing boobs would be intrinsically bad.

I didn't see a "rampage" at all. She was very kind, very civil, even complimenting the girls on being beautiful and interesting. She was encouraging them to focus on their character and inner qualities rather than how sexy they could look in their PJ's.

What if they do both?

I'm not saying that constantly trying to look sexy for selfies is a great thing, but I don't it's really something to get annoyed about either. It's a non-issue to me, though it's not good basing one's self-respect on whether people think you are pretty.

FTR if a girl was obviously trying to seduce my young son with pics of herself on her bed in her PJ's with her butt sticking out and her lips all puckered up, or only wearing a bath towel, I'd block her, too.

Why? It would be so bad to have a girlfriend?

And why do you have control of his facebook.

 

[Skaloop]

Because my opinion is that blatant sexuality should be reserved for the marital bedroom. There's a big difference between seeing something appealing, like a cheeseburger, and seeing another human being nearly naked. If you don't have a problem with that, that's fine, you're entitled to your own point of view. I'm just stating mine.

But being nearly naked isn't always sexual, and being fully clothed can be quite sexual. Some guys are turned on by string bikinis. I am sometimes turned on by skiers or snowboarders, wearing full winter outfits, toques, and goggles. Basically all you can see is their chin. Still sexy, though.

 

[South Bound]

First off, I really hope this is the right place, but if not, please direct me to where this oughta be! And secondly, I'm sorry it's so long, I just wanted everyone to right away understand why I'm confused about this.

I’ve grown up going to a Christian camp with the rule you stomach cannot show for your swimsuit (even though it was an all girls camp… huh?), at church retreats it has always been one pieces or modest tankinis, or even going to someone’s pool for a homeschool event no showing stomachs were allowed. However, I never hear anything about the bust area. Ummm, why not? Why don’t they say, full bust coverage? I’ve seen v neck swimsuits as low as the bust itself with the breasts peeking out the sides too at my Christian camp, but nope, that wasn’t a problem. But an inch of belly showing was??? I understand wanting the bust covered. Gotcha, that’s, well, private and I don’t want everyone seeing that. Of course. And the bottoms. Ahhh, I understand the desire for even shorts cause ya don’t really want your bottom peeking out. However, I don’t see that absolutely necessary if it does have good coverage (debatable, I know).

So all that I agree with, except, well the midriff. Now I’m not saying I disagree with that rule. In fact, I don’t know *what* I think. Thus, this post. First off, I understand your bottom and breasts, those are, uhhh… special on female types. Sure. But the stomach? Everyone has one. Guys pull off their shirts at a beach retreat and who gives a second thought about that being modest? Very few. But if a girl wears a bikini top that covers the bust up perfectly, it’s “Oh my gosh, that’s immodest, put a shirt on!” But what’s so modest about guys being topless when even if a girl covered up her bust it’s considered immodest? I’ve never been able to find a swim suit that both covered up the bust AND the midriff completely but not end up looking like a grandma or a plain athletic one piece (I’m sorry, but no, just no, plus those athletic ones don’t have built in bras). So, I always have to compromise. My swimsuit shows ever so little of the bust, but it’s not completely covered. Also, I’ve heard from a Christian guy that after you are in the water, even if you’re wear a tshirt, it’s skin tight, anyway. And guys will lust no matter what you are wearing, I’d like to point that out, no one forces a guy to lust. Sure, some situations might be harder, but just cause you are wearing a once piece doesn’t make you lust proof.

Here are some examples of the bikinis I am thinking might be modest (I’m just looking at the tops in these pictures): Swimsuit 1 | Pinterest
Swimsuit 2 | Pinterest
Swimsuit 3 | Pinterest

Did you ever stop to think that, sometimes, being a Christian means not doing what you want to do or wearing what you want to wear?

Are you more interested in following the Biblical instruction to dress modestly? Or are you more interested in seeing what you can get away with wearing?

 

[KitKatMatt]

My point was, how is the sexuality hurting anyone?

I'd prefer it if all people left toy breed dogs in their homes. I am scared of small dogs. However, someone bringing a small dog for a walk outside or carrying it into PetCo isn't harming me or anyone else.

 

[South Bound]

And what if I tell you that seeing the skin from the neck of a woman or their ankles is blatantly sexual to some people? Where do you draw the line, at the line of where you consider things sexual or others? Your argument inevitably leads to burkas.

If wearing a burqua meant that you might keep from causing a weaker brother to sin, would you do it?

 

[CabVet]

If wearing a burqua meant that you might keep a weaker brother from sinning, would you do it?

No.

 

[faroukfarouk]

If wearing a burqua meant that you might keep a weaker brother from sinning, would you do it?

Before you start advocating this practice, how about finding out how many evangelical women in North America would be pleased to follow your advice?