• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Fundamentalist swimwear

Dark Detective said:
Yeah, I read about that in the Bullshit Weekly! :D
Click to expand...


not sexy cos where do u look?... three targets and they get anoyed if u try to get a bulls eye...lol.... realy they arnt sexy, all that on display and not a chance of touching?... its just a sweet shop of glass gobstoppers.
 
molga parrot said:
Well, my Mum is overweight, so she's been pretty much 'banned' from swimming for twenty years, not wishing to become a point'n'gigglefest for frequenters of the local pool.
Click to expand...

when the wife went to learn to swim they ran a swimmers club in the deep end (non of the lerners being keen on that end) plenty of ladies not in skimpy costumes there or indeed thin at all.
 
Timble said:
Can't be too easy to swim in, it'd be a bit like the tests they used to do (may be still do) for Life Saving Certificates, where you had to swim a certain distance in loose pajamas.
Click to expand...
Yeah - slightly OT I know, but since taking that particular test I have never, ever been called upon to rescue a brick from chlorinated water whilst wearing pyjamas. But when my moment comes, by Gad, I'll dazzle them!

I agree entirely that how much you display when you go swimming is entirely up to you and/or your personal convictions. No-one points and giggles at wet-suits, nor the all-covering sunscreen suits, so why laugh at this? Having sustained really bad sunburn swimming in Spain some years ago (or was it the flourescent light death ray? see American Nightmare thread for illumination :)), a practical garment to cover you up can be a bloody good idea (T shirts are either too thin to be much protection from the sun, or if heavier they're like trying to swim in a duvet). Indoors, fine, I just stick to trunks, but in strong sun I think they're a bloody good idea.

That's not to say I don't like women in bikinis, of course :).
 
JerryB said:
Fallen Angel - I think the main problem people have with this stuff is that it seems to angle itself from the point of view that the sight of too much naked female flesh is somehow a bad thing.

Prohibitions against women wearing 'revealing' attire, even if they're based on religious grounds, tends to come from the angle that the sight of women can lead men astray. This is why women should be covered up. It's not because of any religious idealism - it stems from essentially saying that there is something inherently wrong about anything that helps define the female form, whereas similar rules for men don't seem to exist. It's an entirely conservative male perspective - that somehow women's bodies are a symbol of negativity from a religious point of view. If there was any equality in such matters, men as well as women would be covered up. But this is not the case, obviously. Any forms of clothing that are created for such specific purposes stem directly from a male perspective on the whole subject. The religious angle is only part of the equation.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Let me break this into little pieces and take it a bit at a time.

The website says nothing about clothing only for women. It does mention that the most pressing need was for modest swim/active wear for women so they put that on the website first. It's quite specific. The idea that only women should have modest clothing is something someone has read into this. They have a phone number on the website, I think I'll call and ask.

Edit: BTW they are right, about the "more pressing need". This past summer here in CA I saw a lot of men/boys in a one pc swim suit that looked a lot like the outer layer of this women's coulotte thingy. It was like a tank top and shorts all in one, and it had a fitted short underneath the bottom. It was more modest that most of the swim trunks and far more so than a speedo. So there are modest options for men, but no equivalent for women.

That the female body should not be displayed in public being a man's view (and I'm guessing you mean that men are treating women as property or subservient by forcing women to refrain from displays) - this is something that is commonly misunderstood by a lot of people. I can tell you right off, I have an aunt that converted to Mormonism. She agrees with and adheres to the "womanly modesty" dress guidelines the church has. Not because the church says so but because she believed it before she ever converted. Some women, even non-religious women, think that the current dress standards of "as long as the nips are covered it's okay" is way too extreme and some believe that the dress standards held by many people encourage promiscuity and a lack of self esteem in young women. The best teaching method is always "set them an example". Just because a woman does not want to take advantage of an option does not mean a man somewhere is oppressing her.

I guess that I am amazed that no one credits these women for having any spine or backbone. Few women will wear this unless they want. They will wear it because they do subscribe to the idea that a woman's body is not to be displayed in public. For whatever reason. If this is the woman's own belief (notice I said belief, not religious belief), why have any problem with it?
 
I don't have any problem with it being any women's belief - but I'd argue that that belief in itself is male-orientated in it's origin. As far as I'm concerned, unless God or Jesus said 'women should cover up', everything else is made up after the fact by their more earthly followers.

The equation is that flesh=sex, sex=sin, and that women are the root of sin, WRT Eve. Which, I'd argue, is a rather unhealthy approach. Especially as it has no bearing on how men should live their lives WRT their bodies.
 
I don't have a problem with the modesty thing. I also think it's a bit of a jump from "Women should cover up" to "Women are the root of sin". (Yes, there are a lot of fundamentalist idiots who believe that, but it's not clear that these people do from their website.)

I've just read my previous post on this subject, and realised that the term "neo-Victorian tripe" may have been a trifle inflammatory. Let me explain (as I think I attempted to in that post, but it's not especially clear).

My opposition to that particular style of swimwear is not moral, it is that I do not believe swimming in a skirt that reaches to the knees is safe. A much shorter skirt would possibly be OK, but it might be seen as some as defeating their stated aims of modesty.
 
Few women will wear this unless they want.
Click to expand...
Probably not, but there are cossies for young girls on the site.
As parents normally decide what their offspring wear especially for swimming then young girls are going to be made to wear these garments. I agree with Anome that the abundance of fabric looks dangerous for swimming.

So- parents can put their daughters in swimear which might drown them.
But hey, it's OK because it's modest and possibly godly..........:rolleyes:

All swimwear is revealing, even the full suit types.
I got my nephew a Nike lycra 'full body suit' to wear under his wetsuit for canoeing. It's perfect- keeps him warm in bad weather (he's an all-season canoeist) and helps the wetsuit go on and off easily.
It's opaque and protects from sunburn but clings when wet so he still wears shorts over it on the beach etc.

But hey- WHO'S LOOKING?
Exactly whose responsibility is it to control an individual's gaze?
 
This is probably a site to provide clothing for pentacostal holiness people. If you aren't familiar with them the women don't cut their hair or wear makeup. They only wear dresses or in summer coullatts or gouchos. The men are also required to dress modestly. They don't own televisions and generally don't see movies usually reject popular culture. I grew up with alot of them and years ago when we would go swimming they would wear their clothes (men too). At least now they have an alternative if not the most flattering one.
 
Actually, women's swimsuits that respect the sheriat are readily on sale in Istanbul - usually a loose shell suit with a head covering in the same material.

Nothing especially fundamentalist about them, though. Hardliners just wouldn't hazard it at all.
 
The only problem I've got with this is the "wholesome" stuck in the title. It just sounds so condescending. (Whether from a male-oriented perspective or not!)

Or like Escargot said about the young girl sizes and parents dressing their kids... Seems a bit weird to stick a little kid in one of these, really. You know it wasn't her choice to wear it, and little kids aren't too worried about modesty issues. Plus, it seems unsafe.

What's wrong about just sticking a (non-white) T-shirt over your swimsuit, anyway? It's far cheaper. :rolleyes:
 
Would those pentacostals have internet access?

In south east asia you could see a lot of people swimming in full clothes due to the muslim religion. Thinking about it, I can't remember seeing anyone very far out. I suppose it might be a bit too dangerous if it gets deep.

Personally I`m quite a skinny person and get's comments on that even when I`m fully clothed. So I have kept away from the beach for years because of that. And I could imagine a lot of other people have the same problem. I think there should be made beaches particularly for unattractive people, so we would have the option of swimming as well. I could imagine if somebody would want to wear this for modest and not religious reasons.
 
There were also some problems in Denmark with muslims, wanting some schools to pay for full body suits they could wear for the swimming lessons. And also that they should install shower cubicles rather than the normal open rooms with showers we have. I think Danes have a healthy attitude to nudity, I wouldn't want to see this changed. I don't really know what the end result was, wether they got it or not.
 
I think with exception of the Amish everyone has embraced the internet. The pentacostals I know use the internet I even exchange email with a some. You pretty much don't have a choice. Most Universities and Colleges here have almost exclusive online registration, some classes only offered on the internet and having to communicate with instructors via email. So if you want to be able to do anything nowdays it is a technology that must be used.
 
True, Danes are wonderful relaxed folk but that doesn't mean everyone has to do as the Danes, even in Denmark, assuming Denmark is a pluralist culture.

That' the thing about pluralism - a respect for the things in other people's cultures even if you don't get 'em. And provided they injure none.

Pity is that Europe seems to be moving away from the notion at the time when everybodyelse seems to be beginning to aspire to it.
 
Hrrmm, I try to keep an open mind in regards to other people's beliefs, but swimming in full cloths/full body suits just seems,...unatural. I wonder how well the fabric breathes, how much drag it produces, and how easily one could overheat in one of them.

However, It probably just reminds me too much of some of my HS teachers. Ah, the girls shivering because they could only wear skirts in cold weather, and my personal favorite, the "Your hair touches your collar, it's a sin." theology.

Perhaps strict regulations just bother me, but :confused: that site just irks me.

(Edit- just looked at the timestamp of when this was posted, Holy Old Thread Bumping Batman!:eek!!!!: )
 
Ineffable Ogre said:
However, It probably just reminds me too much of some of my HS teachers. Ah, the girls shivering because they could only wear skirts in cold weather, and my personal favorite, the "Your hair touches your collar, it's a sin." theology.
Click to expand...

My hair used to be so long I could practically sit on it... One ticket to hell, please! :D

Eh, and my parents wondered why when I was looking at colleges, I was so violently opposed to any place that had ANY ties at all to the church. :rolleyes:
 
Xanatic said:
I think there should be made beaches particularly for unattractive people, so we would have the option of swimming as well. I could imagine if somebody would want to wear this for modest and not religious reasons.
Click to expand...

Define "unattractive"

Would you feel less self-concious being stared at for wearing a full body suit on the beach than being stared at for being thin?

I decided years ago that if people didn't like my body then they didn't have to look at it and so have dressed in whatever is most comfortable for the job in hand ever since. As other posters have pointed out, these costumes do not look comfortable. It is a shame that anyone should feel that they have to wear one for whatever reason.
 
I personaly do not like showing off my body and cover up on the beach. (also have a very sensitive skin! I got badly burnt when a child and learnt a very valuable lesson) for swimming I reccomend a drysuit, covers you up and keeps out all that unhealthy water. Also why should I remove my bikini line hair??
 
That is quite possibly the longest domain name I have ever seen.

The site offers swimwear for nursing mothers, which I hadn't realized was such a neglected market.

Click here

Edit: that page has an ocean waves soundtrack so be careful if you're opening it at work or something. :)
 
That is the scariest website I have ever seen :shock:

Back to the original link on this thread, when I looked at the modest swimear I thought it was for those of us of a large persuasion who want to swim but are shy of exposing themselves in a normal cossie.

Me? I just take my glasses off and then I can't see anyone laughing at me :D
 
I would just like to state for the record that this "Lady of Purple" bird has no connection to me, Queen of the World and Mostly of Purple Sparkly Things. (Just a reminder- all twenty quid notes actually belong to me, so save them up and send them to me and I'll make you a knight or something when I ascend to my rightful throne.)

I do like the posed pictures. They really typify the stereotype of American homeschoolers. Although there is one dodgy one of a young lady sprawling on a hay bale with a cow and goat, or something. It has the air of verging on homeschooler porn.

As to us larger ladies on beaches, I have to cover up. If it's warm enough to swim it's warm enough to burn- and I've burnt in rain before! But those swimsuits look awfully uncomfortable and would, in my opinion, only cause people to stare all the more. Not exactly low profile.
 
All due respect--

"Prohibitions against women wearing 'revealing' attire, even if they're based on religious grounds, tends to come from the angle that the sight of women can lead men astray. This is why women should be covered up. It's not because of any religious idealism - it stems from essentially saying that there is something inherently wrong about anything that helps define the female form, whereas similar rules for men don't seem to exist. It's an entirely conservative male perspective - that somehow women's bodies are a symbol of negativity from a religious point of view. If there was any equality in such matters, men as well as women would be covered up. But this is not the case, obviously. Any forms of clothing that are created for such specific purposes stem directly from a male perspective on the whole subject. The religious angle is only part of the equation."

Okay, I know I'm a year or two late with this, but this kind of thinking really disgusts me. For the record I am a 25 year old female with very personal and secure ideas of modesty.
Seriously, women covering up is medieval? It's been imposed upon us by the oppressive patriarchal system? All due respect- BS. Most men prefer to see as much of women as they can. Many women cater to that desire. You think we wear bikinis for each other? Give me a BREAK. A society where women are mocked for wishing to cover up is just as oppressive as a society where women are pressured to cover up. In the society I have been raised in, and in which I now live, I am constantly seeing how worthless a woman is considered if she doesn't have a great body and if she's not willing to show it off.
I'm not a feminist, and I'm not a withering housewife who wears dresses down to my ankles. I sincerely dress in what is comfortable for me. This is NOT in fact the case for most women. They dress in what is sexy, and YES, they do it for MEN. Because where men used to value a woman for her modesty and purity, they now admire her for her, pardon the expression, sluttiness. It's no less oppressive.
So don't try and feed us this feminist BS about how a woman covering up her body is representative of male oppression and bigotry. And since you have so little respect for Christian women and their opinions on modesty, try talking to a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a wrap in the US.
And while we're at it, why don't you get off your soap box and realize that Christian women aren't weak oppressed children, and are capable of making the decisions for themselves, about their religion, modesty, and morals. It's INSULTING to an extraordinary degree for ignorant people to treat us as if we're poor and oppressed by our "menfolk". As if there's no way we could have chosen to live as we do, and do so willingly and gladly! As if these choices are more oppressive than being the sex objects that women are currently in society, driven to dress in extremes, show off our bodies for your viewing pleasure, and sleep around with no committment. Women are selling themselves CHEAP in this society.

Hey, and on top of that, I've read other posts by people who say they cover up because they're fat. Hmm, is THAT not being oppressed? "Hey, fatty, your body isn't pleasant for me to look at, so you need to cover up. " Yeah, this time it's not about men forcing women to cover up, just men (and women too) forcing FAT women to cover up.
 
Re: All due respect--

amea_gari said:
...

So don't try and feed us this feminist BS about how a woman covering up her body is representative of male oppression and bigotry. And since you have so little respect for Christian women and their opinions on modesty, try talking to a Muslim woman who chooses to wear a wrap in the US.
And while we're at it, why don't you get off your soap box and realize that Christian women aren't weak oppressed children, and are capable of making the decisions for themselves, about their religion, modesty, and morals. It's INSULTING to an extraordinary degree for ignorant people to treat us as if we're poor and oppressed by our "menfolk". As if there's no way we could have chosen to live as we do, and do so willingly and gladly!...
Click to expand...
Well, that's fine. Let's hear no more about Muslim women and sanctions against the wearing of head scarves.

I'm all for people, adults anyway, being allowed to wear what they like. As long as there really is no coercion involved. I suspect that that is not always the case.

Anyway, I was under the impression that it was the insufferable smugness of the demurely religious clothing sites that was actually rileing everybody. :lol:
 
And while we're at it, why don't you get off your soap box and realize that Christian women aren't weak oppressed children, and are capable of making the decisions for themselves, about their religion, modesty, and morals. It's INSULTING to an extraordinary degree for ignorant people to treat us as if we're poor and oppressed by our "menfolk". As if there's no way we could have chosen to live as we do, and do so willingly and gladly! As if these choices are more oppressive than being the sex objects that women are currently in society, driven to dress in extremes, show off our bodies for your viewing pleasure, and sleep around with no committment. Women are selling themselves CHEAP in this society
Click to expand...

Your value judgements are showing.

Montheistic religions in general, and Christianity possibly in particular, are inherently patriarchal in structure and in their use of language : God *is* the father, we *are* the children, and all the rules are made by men.

If you willingly choose to follow this faith you are quite free to do so, and to dress how you like, of course, but your assumptions as to the behaviour, intelligence and worth of those of us who do not do you no credit. You are highly critical of a society which makes judgements based upon physical appearance and yet you do so yourself.

Sex is a pretty strong drive in most healthy adults of all species who reproduce in that manner but the rules of engagement particular to the cultural group of yours of which you are a member do not apply to all.

And trousers are simply not practical for swimming
 
"You are highly critical of a society which makes judgements based upon physical appearance and yet you do so yourself. "

A person's body, physical appearance, and how they choose to dress and act are two different things. If you don't understand that, far be it from me to attempt to explain it.

"but the rules of engagement particular to the cultural group of yours of which you are a member do not apply to all. "

That's the POINT.
 
You are correct, I do not understand.

Can you dress 'sluttishy' and behave modestly then? Or be a 'cheap' person whilst dressing decently? (your loaded terms)
the sex objects that women are currently in society, driven to dress in extremes, show off our bodies for your viewing pleasure, and sleep around with no committment. Women are selling themselves CHEAP in this society.
Click to expand...
would seem to imply you connect physical appearance and behaviour quite strongly.

Always assuming, of, course, that 'sleeping around with no commitment' is A BAD THING, and not just one of those different rules of engagement of which you wouldn't want to be critical.
 
As if these choices are more oppressive than being the sex objects that women are currently in society, driven to dress in extremes, show off our bodies for your viewing pleasure, and sleep around with no committment. Women are selling themselves CHEAP in this society.
Click to expand...

As Androman says, I don't care what people wear, it's up to them entirely. It's the smugness of the sites and their censorious undertone, and yours, that gets up people's noses.
 
So people who agree on certain moral standards should censor their speech on their own websites, for fear of their standards being taken as 'preaching' to people who disagree? Please.

What you don't seem to understand is that your own opinions are just as much preaching-- the only difference is these stricter moral standards have some basis in traditional religion, whereas yours have basis in humanistic views. It can ALL be considered preaching, to those who disagree with the standard.
Anyway, I'm done here, no one wants to read this argument. I posted to state my opinions, now I have done so.
 
Of course they shouldn't have to censor their speech on their own web-sites. But the world wide web is available to all sorts of people, so they should be aware that they may be open to criticism, just as any of us here are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top