Modesty and Beach Volleyball

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 08-14-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Modesty and Beach Volleyball

Msgr. Charles Pope • August 14, 2016 •

One of the less edifying aspects of the Summer Olympics in Rio is the attire of the women’s beach volleyball players from Western countries. Most of the women wear a tiny bikini with the bottom being especially tiny. (I do not show a picture here because I deem it immodest to do so. Instead, I show a picture of some of the men, whose attire I mention below.)

Embed from Getty Images

 

Frankly, playing volleyball in a tiny bikini seems quite unnecessary. I would argue that it detracts from the sport because it distracts from the sport. The attention doesn’t seem to be drawn to the ball, shall we say. I would further argue that the attire encourages the focus not even on the women, but on certain aspects of the women’s bodies.

I can understand that swimmers (male and female) wear tight and sometimes abbreviated swimsuits to lessen drag in the water. Gymnasts, too, often wear brief and/or tight clothing to improve their performance and maximize the mobility of their limbs. The clothing is thus at least somewhat performance related.

But I can see no performance enhancement brought about by the wearing of tiny bikinis. Some will point out that the bikini top in question acts as a sports bra. Fine, but men wear supportive attire, too; but they do so under their shorts, not out in the open.

Embed from Getty Images

 

The Egyptian women’s beach volleyball player shown in the above photo illustrates that it is possible to compete quite well without wearing a bikini. One could argue that having short sleeves and shorter leg coverings might be cooler for the players. The impact on performance of wearing the hijab is debatable, but it is worn tucked in and did not seem to bother the women who wore it. These women played and competed well in a sport that is relatively new to their country and region.

Men’s beach volleyball attire also illustrates that near nudity is not required to play the sport well. The men do not play wearing tiny swimwear. They wear ample shorts along with t-shirts or tank tops.

I realize that each time the question of modesty has come up on this blog there are some readers who want to dismiss such discussions and emphasize the right of people to dress as they please. They believe that any sexual temptation aroused is almost wholly the fault of the viewer, not the one wearing the attire.

Modesty should avoid excessively burdening people. It seeks a middle ground wherein the one who dresses and the other who sees share responsibility. The one wearing the attire should not be burdened with difficult requirements, nor should the viewer be burdened by facing undue temptation. Mutual charity and concern are the goals.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of modesty as protecting the mystery, chastity, and dignity of the human person.

Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. … Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. … Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet (CCC 2521-2522).

As always, comments are appreciated, but I have found in the past that discussions about modesty are often difficult to have in a way that is helpful or charitable. Reasonable people may differ on the details of modesty. Modesty does involve a range of options, influenced by circumstances and the sensibilities of cultures. I have articulated here that I see no need for tiny bikinis in this sport and that I think more modest attire is important. If you disagree, please explain the relationship you see of the brief bikini to the sport, considering that men in general and women from other cultures who compete do not see the need to wear so little. If you agree, please remember in your comments that the imputation of motives to individuals is a sketchy and usually uncharitable thing to do. Everyone, please use care when commenting.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"He could have [offered] these actual uniforms from the games as a comparison but he seems more interested in the [stifling] outfits of the Egyptian women because he thinks they are nice and neat and modest and you can play so well all wrapped up like a mummy."

[I'm thinking you've had the same kinds of problems with SpellChek that I have, so I rendered two words in your quote to reflect what I think you were typing.]

And now let me say you're factually mistaken. Pope said not one descriptive word about the particulars of the Egyptian team's uniforms, except that they covered more than the bikinis did, and didn't seem to hamper their athletic performance, as they qualified on merit and played very well.

In fact he specifically referenced the men's beach volleyball uniforms as a favorable comparison (and they didn't wear burqas). He chose this illustration and made the following comment:

"Men’s beach volleyball attire also illustrates that near nudity is not required to play the sport well. The men do not play wearing tiny swimwear. They wear ample shorts along with t-shirts or tank tops."

Do you think the men and disadvantaged and play poorly because they're not just sporting jock straps tout court?

The men's uniforms --- which Pope favors --- are not extreme or prudish, and certainly do not reflect pro-Sharia Fashion Enforcement.

I think your criticism is a bit off-target.

[Chgogal]

Bump to the top!

[trisham]

Go away. You’re clueless. This is why I hate the religion forum.

[Chgogal]

Ditto.

[CaptainK]

The picture serves my point even if it’s a different team.

Score.

[CaptainK]

Click on my name and see my FR profile.

[CaptainK]

Oh, also a Catholic to boot. Who is sick of all the Islam boot licking that the Catholic Church hierarchy has been doing lately.

[CaptainK]

Pope said not one descriptive word about the particulars of the Egyptian team's uniforms, except that they covered more than the bikinis did, and didn't seem to hamper their athletic performance, as they qualified on merit and played very well.

What he should have noted is that Islam is a religion that shames women bodies to the point that they have to participate in sports activities swaddled from head to toe in the tropical heat. That's the important point. Not bikinis

[Mrs. Don-o]

That’s your important point. You missed his important point: that you shouldn’t have to reach for the Gold through the gonads. It’s an athletic competition, not T&A.

You can’t fault the author for making *his* important point, instead of yours. It’s his article.

[Salvation]

Evidently you have not read some of his other columns. He is a very straightforward Catholic preacher.

Try it sometime.

[dsc]

“If that had been the only point made and if that one point had been made better... I might have sided with you.”

That was, in fact, his only point. He made it very well, the claims of the stupid and the malicious notwithstanding.

“Good intentions on one point do not make up for poor execution in others.”

Poor execution? Howls, Bruce. Howls of derisive laughter.

Who are you to criticize a writer of Msgr. Pope’s stature?

Everyone here understood this article quite well. A few people, or possibly one person with a few identities, decided to highjack the thread with totally groundless claims.

Luckily, the OP is so very clear that no one will be misled.

[cherry]

very very very few people male or female really look good with skimpy clothing...

these female volleyball players are so skinny its hard to even look at them...the men are more buff but still, just too much skin...

guys, what women really love to see is a guy with pants up to his waist and a nice muscular chest and arms...we really don't want to see any hint of your privates...

I suppose men like women with a nice muscular chest too...:)

[cherry]

"With all the issues going on in the world, the Catholic church needs to weigh in on athletic-wear"

its a start...

[csivils]

“Who are you to criticize a writer of Msgr. Pope’s stature?”

I’m someone who will call you a hypocrite for making a disagreement personal after calling others out for what you considered Alinsky tactics.

He picked a poor example, and your only two choices are that he did it carelessly... or he did it intentionally. Both choices lead to different conclusions, neither of which are very flattering.

I personally think it was intentional, and my opinion of him is shaped by that. But buy all means, keep defending the undeniable and I’ll keep posting the same point in response and it will continue to build up a wall of evidence to memorialize the poor decision.

Or you could walk away from this one.

[csivils]

“That’s your important point. You missed his important point: that you shouldn’t have to reach for the Gold through the gonads. It’s an athletic competition, not T&A.”
They get gold by points, not gonads. The rules leave the attire up to the competitors and in the highest level of competitions, the look-at-me aspect of the attire takes a back seat to being able to compete well.

There are other teams from non-muslim countries who compete in body suits. Picking a burka as his example muddied the issue and raised questions regarding the writers motives.

The Brazilian female team wore bodysuits last night, and they are expected to be in contention for the gold medal. They aren’t big baggy uniforms like the burkas, but they were more modest and provided an example that could have been used with far less baggage.

Just like the athletes pick their clothing, the author picked his example. He is welcome to critique the clothing choices... and others are free to critique his examples.

Calling people names and slinging insults won’t make his example a good one.

[dsc]

“I’m someone who will call you a hypocrite”

Sure you will. That’s next in the Alinsky playbook.

“for making a disagreement personal”

Don’t come the great ponce with me, melad. You and the others with you have been offensive since the first post.

“after calling others out for what you considered Alinsky tactics.”

Oh, you do keep reaching for those straws.

It is long past time for decent people to wake up and realize that when dealing with scumbags, civility is nothing but a self-imposed handicap. We conservatives are free to say unpleasant things too; unlike Alinskyites, though, we make sure the things we say are true.

“He picked a poor example”

To an intelligent, sane, reasonable man, his example was perfectly fine. An Alinskyite knows that time spent discussing this is time not spent discussing morality, and has no concern for the truth, and so he trolls with ludicrous inventions such as, “He picked a poor example.”

“and your only two choices are that he did it carelessly... or he did it intentionally.”

Since your initial premise has been shown to be dreck, no such choice exists.

“neither of which are”

Neither of which *is.*

“I personally think it was intentional”

No you don’t.

“But buy all means”

But *by* all means.

“keep defending the undeniable”

It’s right there for everyone to read. Did you forget that?

“and I’ll keep posting the same point in response”

What point? You don’t have a point. You have a ridiculous falsehood that is exposed by the very text of the OP. All that people have to do is scroll up and read it.

“Or you could walk away from this one.”

Yes. I’m not prejudiced against drooling morons per se, but I can only handle so much idiocy at one sitting.

[CaptainK]

He makes no point of substance if I’m suppose to take away from the article that seeing a female Olympic athlete wrapped and re wrapped in layers of clothing is preferable to seeing an Olympic athlete, not a stripper, in a bikini.

I hope the Father never goes to a USA beach because I don’t think he’d make it out alive. Better for him to swim off the coast of Egypt.

[Mrs. Don-o]

He also referenced the *men's* (non-Muslim) beach volleyball uniforms. He wasn't trying to spike the ball for Sharia.

BTW, who's calling names and slinging insults?

[csivils]

“He also referenced the *men’s* (non-Muslim) beach volleyball uniforms. He wasn’t trying to spike the ball for Sharia.”

Since he had one example, why even bring up burkas? Why not bring up an example of Christians dressing modestly?

By using the Sharia example, he held it up as an example of virtue, and by extension the culture that forces that choice on some women and even the culture that uses violence to enforce that choice. The example was offensive and detracted from his point.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"By extension"!

Your "by extension" is extreme. He didn't say or imply support for Sharia at all. You are exaggerating and misconstruing his intentions, and then faulting him for *that*.

Not a convincing way to argue.