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.
I believe the attire of RCC hierarchy conveys extreme vanity. I wonder what the Monsignor's opinion on that matter would be?
Wow, I’ve always considered two piece swim wear very easy on the eyes, but never considered them in any way obscene.
Big deal. The original Olympians competed naked.
Ancient Greek athletes were naked when they competed, to display their physical prowess and also to pay homage to Zeus by showing him how they had trained their bodies to their physical peak. An athlete’s physical perfection could also be intimidating to his competitors, and external beauty represented each competitor’s internal beauty and demonstrated their
desire for a balance between body and mind. Athletes were often an inspiration to artists and sculptors, who used the athlete’s physical prowess and movements to inspire their work. This can be seen in archaeological finds dating from that time. Because they were not covered by clothing, athletes took great care to protect their skin. Before starting the day’s training or competition, athletes would rub their body with olive oil then dust themselves with fine sand. This helped to regulate their body temperature and protect them from the sun. After competing, athletes would scrape off the sweat, oil and sand with a curved tool called a strigil. Then they would be washed using water and a sponge.
There’s been an argument over what to wear, since Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit. :-)
The priest compared the “modesty” of the Egyptian athletes to the Americans and the Egyptians came up the winners. He pulled it down, not me.
Best the good Monsignor NOT EVER ATTEND an “Over the Line” tournament, then!
The ones I went to in the 1980s were really, really bawdy - FRom “Miss Emerson” to team names that were not suitable for the San Diego newspaper or TV news.
No telling what it is like nowadays.
Any of you San Diego FReepers have a more recent report?
Modesty is an issue, but aside from that it is incredibly boring
Never mind, I won’t argue with you. This is from a priest, so it would not matter what I say or what anyone says.
The men wear tiny shorts. Why not the girls. Less drag.
Go back about two millenia to the Villa Romana del Casale in Sicily, where a 4th century A.D. mosaic depicts young women in strapless tops & briefs performing a variety of athletic feats. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.
If it’s a matter of either bikinis or burqinis on the beach, the choice is obvious for civilized people who value personal freedom.
The msgr. seems to think that the word “modesty” applies only to sexuality but doesn’t seem to realize that it also applies to humility and moderation.
.
The current Red Pope is an agent of Satan, who seeks to bring about his rule on earth.
It should also be pointed out that the ancient Greek Olympics were male only affairs. Women were not permitted either as athletes nor as spectators.
And they were also a bunch of homos.
I say that if women have beautiful bodies and are proud to have them...please share them with those of us who appreciate beauty. Personally I am a leg man!
When he chooses to criticize Western Women and prefers Muslim women’s dress, he is certainly a Muslim Lover. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is evil in the eye of the beholder. The fault is on him. He can choose not to watch whatever he disagrees with.
there were female archers.
May I add:
Clothing was made for man, not man for clothing. If someone's attire offends you, maybe you're not as pure minded as you think you are - not speaking to you here, xzins, I have followers of the Mohammedan cult in mind.
Yep, fashion dictates.
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.