Posted on 08/15/2016 6:54:47 AM PDT by Salvation
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.)
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.
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.
You and me and Dubya and all those beach volleyball slatterns are going straight to hell
(I sure hope there are plenty to go around...ex presidents even if mortally unpopular are hard to compete with)
What I see women wearing now at the beach looks as if it were designed by men who hate women. It makes them look mentally retarded, as if they don't even know enough to cover their rear ends. As a man, it does not appeal to me the way a classy bathing suit does.
The female body is truly a work of art. Displaying it in a vulgar way debases women, as do piercings and tattoos.
There is no sense of beauty anymore, just trash.
Pity.
>There is no sense of beauty anymore, just trash.
Welcome to Welmar America where degeneracy is normal and dignity is unknown.
Yes, of course, a priest can be out of line, as can any other human being. My comment meant that nothing a priest says can be correct in the minds of some people.
I have the courage to say that I enjoy seeing young, fit women in skimpy outfits. So there!
A key question is: did the Egyptian women wear the modest uniforms because they “chose”, or because they wanted to avoid being killed when they returned to Egypt?
During the original games in ancient Greece, I believe the games were played while in the nude.
Do you mean Weimar?
“I have the courage to say that I enjoy seeing young, fit women in skimpy outfits. So there!”
Wasn’t talking to you. Was talking to the people who lied about what Msgr. Pope said.
Unfortunately, we have become a society of low-class slobs, men and women alike.
Personally I love women. That’s why I think it’s a shame they have so little dignity and self-respect.
“Oh really. Here is my first post, please point out what was offensive...”Msgr ignored the Brazilian team who wore bodysuits to pick some non-competitive team in a non-competitive uniform. It was not Alinsky to call him out for the poor choice of an example.”
What is offensive is the lie it contains. Before you jumped in with your ludicrous fabrication, he was not called out for “poor choice of example.” He was accused of saying things he did not say. Your assertion that he was called out for “poor choice of example” is what sane people call “a lie.” Lying is offensive.
“There is a moral aspect to rejecting women being forced to wear burka’s”
Ah, another lie. No one here, least of all Msgr. Pope, implied that women should be forced to wear burkas. (Note that an apostrophe is used to form a contraction or a possessive, but never, never, never a plural.) Your lying is morally offensive.
“That is why the example was morally offensive to some.”
And another lie. The Egyptians weren’t wearing burkas. Burkas play no part in the discussion, except as liars bring them up in an attempt to obscure the actual point.
The point is that there is no need for women’s volleyball competitors to display their labia minora and points inward as they play.
“you can re-correct words my phones auto-correct butchered”
Yeah, sure. Autocorrect. That’s the ticket. Let’s say that.
“what would be really nice is if you could fix the original article.”
The original article is just fine. What needs to be fixed is your integrity.
“Unfortunately, we have become a society of low-class slobs, men and women alike.”
I wish I had grounds to disagree.
A priest should always remember that his opinions carry more weight with some people than the average John Doe. Since a priest does not compete in the competitive sports field, he should have no legitimate opinion as to the attire involved. He should CERTAINLY NOT be accorded the victimization excuse such as “nothing a priest says can be correct in the minds of some people.” That fabricated “excuse” throws the fault on the opinion of others who are qualified to comment, not on the priest where it legitimately belongs.
A previous poster pointed out that the uniforms are chosen by each team. I suspect that if any team member had refused to wear the uniform, she wouldn’t have been permitted to participate.
This whole tedious discussion springs from the fact that some people ignore the topic (reasonable modesty in sports dress) and reconfigure some detail into an offense and an occasion for huffing, just because it involves Muslim volleyball players who dress like Muslim volleyball players.
“I suspect that if any team member had refused to wear the uniform, she wouldn’t have been permitted to participate”
You couldn’t be more wrong. Per the article linked earlier in this thread they were all given an option of what to wear. The athletes said they chose to wear bikinis because it was more comfortable for them.
I am sorry I didn’t make myself clear. I wasn’t referring to the bikini-wearers. I was referring to the Egyptians.
So nobody who is not a competitor can have a legitimate opinion as to the attire involved?
You have not made any defense other than to call me a liar and nitpick grammar.
My last post on this thread was a linked article with a discussion regarding the issue I raised and you didn’t address either point.
1. Picking a team that got crushed is a poor example that uniform “doesn’t matter” when a team that won was available.
2. Picking a team that would face violence if they wore anything less modest is a poor example when one was available that chose modesty when they had the freedom not too.
But rail on against your straw-man and keep telling yourself all is well.
It still remains a poor example, I’m still easily amused and willing to spend the next year(s) responding to your posts and pointing it out time and time again. Perhaps if we keep going, we can even get “bad example” associated with the authors name in google search.
I have made an argument on the points and you are insulting me personally. Next time you insult my integrity, I’ll also hit the report button. Either address the issue, or go away.
“This whole tedious discussion springs from the fact that some people ignore the topic (reasonable modesty in sports dress) and reconfigure some detail into an offense and an occasion for huffing, just because it involves Muslim volleyball players who dress like Muslim volleyball players.”
Your casual dismissal of the violence faced by mid-east women is as offensive as people who dismissed the original point on modesty. I stated that had the original author made their point without that example, I would have agreed with much of it.
Rather than not the area of common ground, you chose to defend the bad example by pretending I disagreed with “everything”. You have not addressed the two facts:
1. It was a poor example because that team got crushed and thus did not support his claim that the uniform doesn’t matter from a competitive standpoint.
2. That particular team did not have the freedom to chose a different uniform (at least not without the threat of violence) and thus were a poor example in encouraging others to “chose” modesty.
Another team was available that did well, and did have the freedom to chose. The original author should have made a better choice.
“What is offensive is the lie it contains. Before you jumped in with your ludicrous fabrication, he was not called out for “poor choice of example.” He was accused of saying things he did not say. Your assertion that he was called out for “poor choice of example” is what sane people call “a lie.” Lying is offensive.”
From post 33:
“The time for your complaint was at the onset of the sport and not now. Your arguments at this late date cite the example of EGYPTIAN females as being properly attired.”
My first post was 190:
I did not state that EVERYONE had issues with that example, or that the example was their only issue. I simply stated that he was called out on it. I have provided you with the quote where that was done in a post prior to mine.
You talk about integrity... now show some integrity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.