The Difference Between Sexy Bikinis and Slutty Thongs — And Why Little Girls Should Wear Neither
As Barry Rubin wrote about this week at his blog, we’ve reached an age where to state what used to be common sense about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will get you labeled a bigot. To acknowledge that the Palestinians do not want peace with Israel and have rejected every very generous deal put in front of them means you’re “racist against Muslims.”
But just as cultural Marxists invested decades in obscuring the reality of Palestinian intransigence, they also worked to confuse people about the sordid reality of unrestrained male sexual nature. State what used to be common sense for women to avoid sleazy men and all of a sudden you’re the American Taliban blaming women for provoking their rapists.
In my blog post yesterday – What Father Would Permit His Young Daughter to Wear a Bikini? — I knew what paragraph would provoke the most anger and confusion, the one that simply restated the conventional wisdom we all know to be true but don’t like to acknowledge:
But let me spell it out for those who want to deny it: when a woman wears a skimpy swimsuit, she is sending off the signal to every man and boy that she is a self-proclaimed slut and the most interesting thing about her is her body. If a woman didn’t want a man to look at her breasts, if she did not want to use them to attract the kind of men who have no self-control, she would not flash them around.
This provoked a worried reaction from Vesta Vayne, the blogger I appreciate whose post had inspired mine. She feared I was an insane prude who was calling all women who ever wear bikinis sluts:
I find this statement to be a huge over generalization, to put it kindly. Look, I am married, in my 30s, educated, and I wear a bikini. I’m not a slut, and I don’t think my choice of swimwear projects that to anyone. Bikinis are worn all over the world, by all sorts of women. I doubt all of us believe the most interesting thing about ourselves is our body. I certainly don’t.
In the passage you quote I didn’t say “bikini” I said “skimpy swimsuit.” Not every bikini is going to make the woman wearing it look like she’s offering herself up for the world. I’m not saying that every time a woman wears a bikini she’s telling the world she’s a slut. That would be nuts.
Don’t some bikinis scream “I’m a tramp looking for attention from the wrong kind of men” more than others? As a man I certainly see the ones that do versus those that are tasteful. For little girls though I don’t think they should be wearing 2 piece swimsuits at all, though, but maybe I’m being too harsh?
[... A second comment from me later following up...]
And further:
“she is sending off the signal to every man and boy”I am not saying that you or anyone who wears a bikini is a slut. What I am saying is that when a woman wears a sexy, skimpy swimsuit she is giving off the hint to the men around her that she is more sexually liberated than a woman who is not showing off her body. Again: I’m not making a moral judgment with the observation here, just stating what should be common sense. Wear a sexy swimsuit, and men will think that you’re more interested in sex than a woman who wears a modest swimsuit. Girls need to know that when picking their swim wear.
Vesta could tell that I had a moral objection to promiscuity hiding behind my argument, but the point I was trying to make remained out of view when she responded. She was still thinking about the real world — instead of the male world.
‘Don’t some bikinis scream “I’m a tramp looking for attention from the wrong kind of men” more than others?’
Followed later with,
“Again: I’m not making a moral judgment with the observation here, just stating what should be common sense.”
Honestly Dave it does sound like a moral judgement. And besides, those sorts of bikinis garner attention from practically all men, not just the ‘wrong kind’
We are all guilty of making snap moral judgements against others based upon what they are wearing, myself included. I just don’t think you could go to the beach and determine which women are more interested in sex by what type of swimsuit she’s wearing. Here’s an example – a few weeks ago while on a weekend vacation, I was at the pool early in the morning. I had on a bikini. A woman sitting poolside in a utilitarian one piece was reading Fifty Shades of Grey. I’m gonna say she was more interested in sex than me.
Geez, how did we even get on this topic? I think we are both in complete agreement that young girls in grown up bikinis conveys a message the girls themselves don’t understand, and that has the potential to be very dangerous.
What is actually true is not what gets filtered though the male sex drive. My last comment:
Well I have no problem making the moral judgment that women should not live as sluts sleeping around promiscuously. Don’t you? But that’s not the point that I’m making here. I’m making the practical point about male sexual nature and how men view women: the more of your breasts you reveal in public the more we think you want us to think about sex. That’s the hard truth, no pun intended. So when it comes to bikinis, the skimpier the bikini, the sluttier we are going to assume the woman wearing it is.
That does not mean that every bikini makes a man think you’re a slut. There are worlds of difference between a skimpy thong with tiny triangles for a top and the more normal bikini you were probably wearing.
“I’m gonna say she was more interested in sex than me.”
I’m not talking about objective reality, I’m talking about what men perceive. The man seeing you across the pool has no idea what she’s reading. He just sees you and you attract his attention and judgments whether you intended to or not. I’m talking about the practical world here.
Vesta is right that these 3 swimsuits are all going to attract male attention. But one of these three women is much more likely to draw in men who will disrespect her and try and seduce her.
Maybe the one whose fashion sense is most influenced by prostitute culture?
***
Bikinis featured in above illustration available at Amazon:
TYR Sport Women’s Solid Diamondback Workout Bikini Swim Suit, Hot! Bikini white, red or black, Sexy Womens Halter Side Cut Out Monokini Swimwear Bikini
Related at PJ Lifestyle:
And who thinks the outfit on the right is supposed to be for swimming?
It’d be the Olympic equivalent of the Lingerie Football League.
Without the bling and the provocative pose, and with a less *ahem* endowed model, that center bathing suit would seem rather modest.
In your crusade against girls wearing bikinis, you are getting awfully close to the argument used in countries where women are required to cover themselves from head to toe. Basically, you’re saying that women – girls in particular – should dress in a certain way because of how their clothes cause men to view them and not just that but also influence how those men behave. What if we turn the argument around and say that men who look at women (and for the sick few, children) in bikinis and think sex need to stop thinking with what’s in their shorts?
Your argument reduces women to sex objects and men to barbarians who just want to get laid … deftly insulting both in one fell swoop.
“In your crusade against girls wearing bikinis, you are getting awfully close to the argument used in countries where women are required to cover themselves from head to toe.”
This amoral perversion of my common sense point is why I’ve been joking about being the American Taliban.
Only in America can a man who doesn’t want his future daughter taking fashion tips from prostitutes be called a barbarian.
“Basically, you’re saying that women – girls in particular – should dress in a certain way because of how their clothes cause men to view them and not just that but also influence how those men behave.”
It’s amazing that we have come to the point in this country, that something so self-evident as “people will judge you based on your dress and manners” is now regarded as atavistic and subversive. Of course, it’s paired with;
“What if we turn the argument around and say that men who look at women (and for the sick few, children) in bikinis and think sex need to stop thinking with what’s in their shorts? ”
Ah, yes, the feminist reprise “So I’m parading naked in front of you and you think of sex, you sicko!”
It’s fascinating, isn’t it? All the modern man needs to do to accommodate a liberated woman is make himself into a sexless robot, lest the impulses writ into the basic biology of all mammals make her feel self-conscious about her poor choices.
Because that’s what this is really about, isn’t it? An adult woman of even moderate intelligence can tell the difference between a suit worn for swimming and one designed to attract attention. But to point out that her suit will have a completely predictable effect on others, that is forbidden. It’s others fault, you see.
Moreover, isn’t it interesting, a man thinking about sex by being a woman parading in front of him in near total undress, he’s “a barbarian”. Because, of course, no civilized man thinks of sex when faced with a woman wearing three postage stamps connected by dental floss. She’s probably just there to address the United Nations’ General Assembly, or perhaps give a summation in court…
Seems this is just more of the “Slut Walk” cognitive dissonance that Zombie has documented so well on this site.
It’s human nature to make judgements about a person based on their appearance – the non-verbal messages they are sending based on their grooming, attire, expressions and gestures. You might as well scream at the author for helpfully pointing out that smiling and laughing people are judged to be happier than frowning people.
And he’s not telling women or girls what to wear, he’s just informing them that their bathing suit choice sends a non-verbal message. Choices are still a good thing, right?).
Most women (note – not little girl) is conscious of the sexual power she wields when she displays her body. Women who say otherwise are likely (perhaps not GUARANTEED, but definitely more likely than we admit) either completely sheltered and have no experience with the male sex drive, or lying to themselves.
Yes, ladies, when we put on that skimpy dress at the club, or wear a particularly revealing swimsuit at the pool, we are displaying flesh to attract male attention. We may have no intention of acting on that message, but we KNOW we’re putting out that message. You would have to live in a bubble not to know it.
Of course this does not absolve men from acting on that message. To say one is true is not to say the other is. Men are moral beings with free will. They can restrain themselves from ogling, groping, etc., and they SHOULD. But let’s not pretend that we ladies don’t know that displaying our, ahem, assets, doesn’t get them to notice us in a sexual way. That’s the point!
Thanks, Inez. Yes, that’s the point.
*Most women are conscious…
Sorry, edited the language and forgot to change that bit
Most women are conscious. I like that
As a father of an 8 year old girl who considers herself a fashionista, I can see what you are trying to get at but at the same time feel you are being far to all encompassing in your generalizations.
There is clothing my daughter has wanted that I have flat out vetoed, and yet she wears both one-piece as well as two-piece bathing suits in our pool that I have no issue with.
In my mind, and the ladies can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, a basic bikini is probably far more comfortable to swim in than a one-piece bathing suit.
Generally the only women I see wearing one-piece suits are those who have some self-perceived issue with their appearance.
In my imagination I would liken a one-piece to a guy swimming while wearing a t-shirt.
So, as long as the bathing suit is actually practical for swimming, then I’m generally good to go with what my daughter wears as anything impractical for that purpose (I refer anyone needing a visual to the far right example you provide) would be IMPRACTICAL for swimming.
Granted anything can be taken to an extreme and the creative will always find ways to push the envelope, but the basic assumption I’m going on is if the bikini can stay in place and keep everything covered while doing a cannonball or a dive into the pool or any of a number of other activities horsing around in the water while keeping her completely covered then it’s probably modest enough.
Then you have the whole sunbathing activity so many engage in.
I can see why a female would want to minimize tan lines, and so again have no issue with it if that is why she selected that bikini.
Now, if my daughter one day wants a bikini like that on the far right and claims she is going swimming or hanging out with friends….well, even I’M not that gullible!
Hi Scott – I’ve been a pretty active swimmer for 50 years and in my younger years did some competitive springboard diving. This was my experience with swim wear. If you’re an ocean swimmer you might as well throw the bottom of the bikini away for all the good it will do. Diving through breakers can change a bikini into a one (top) piece really fast, especially if you get caught in the breaker’s roll. Ditto for diving – the impact can force the bikini bottom to your knees.
Of course, when I go to the pool its to do laps, and at the ocean I’m much more interested in swimming out beyond the breakers than in lying on the beach, so I stick with the utilitarian “swimmers” one piece. And as an aside, many one piece bathing suits can be equally useless if one is a swimmer, as opposed to a sunbather.
I grew up within a 45 minute (driveway to beach blanket) drive of the Atlantic Ocean, but in all of the trips out to the beach while growing up I never once saw a bikini bottom go missing.
Bikini tops – yes, but not bikini bottoms.
The young ladies DID have to adjust constantly, but then again wearing swimming trunks I had to as well, so that was just a fact of life. Things get soggy and they head south.
So that experience is what I’m basing my own personal judgement on, and generally I think the ground rules I laid out probably do coincide with your observations.
My rule can be condensed down to this: if a bikini won’t stay on while engaging in the planned water based activities, then it’s too skimpy.
I’ll go even further and note that not all women can wear the same kinds of swimsuits. My wife is rather busty and wouldn’t dare wear a 2-piece, but my daughter can do it all day long (at her current age) and do so with complete modesty.
As for the t-shirt comment, that was my way of imagining how uncomfortable some of the 1-piece deals may be – but again I defer to ladies on this as I have zero first hand experience on that matter…lol. I would expect some are more comfortable than others.
And I still think the author of this piece is too all encompassing in their criticisms.
One piece bathing suits are the standard for real swimming. You can wade in a bikini, but good luck keeping everything in place if you are swimming laps. Bikinis are not practical at all. Even when I was young and thin I did not feel comfortable in a bikini. However, for a casual day at the beach, there are more modest two piece bathing suits other than string bikinis.
The entire scandalous nature of the very first bikini (waaaayyyy back in 1946!) was the fact that the belly button was exposed.
That’s it – the navel.
That’s what set the world abuzz, and that’s what classifies it as a “bikini” in the first place.
Kind of silly when you think about it.
So when you talk about a “modest” two piece bathing suit, if the belly button is showing then you’re still talking about a bikini.
The “string” part is not a criteria for classification.
(It’s kind of funny, never thought this bit of old…ahem…’research’ would ever come in handy!)
May I ask a philosophical question? Stay with this for a minute. You have presented a behavior for our consideration; women dressing in a way that is sexually provocative. It is clear that you consider this behavior to be in some way different from its opposite, women dressing in a way that is attractive but not overtly salacious. Without making what we all refer to as “moral judgments,” in a religious sense, you clearly propose that a woman who avoids openly soliciting sexual attention from creepy men exhibits more self-respect. My question is simple; what is the organizing social principle upon which you base the differentiation between women openly seeking to elicit an unmitigated sexual response and others who wish to be considered more than a simple physicality? I am fascinated by the fact that we constantly act in view of objective moral norms, but cannot identify their root or origin. Why is it better for little girls to consider themselves more than objects? Why are girls who freely select attention that is 100% based on physicality considered lacking compared to those who want to be seen as total human beings? I am not at all advocating moral anarchy; I have deep convictions about this issue. Rather, I want to know why we all know that women being seen as toys is a “bad” or less human position? How do we instinctively react against the degradation of women?
No offense intended, but I think you missed the boat. Dave is trying to give you insight into a primitive, yet core, aspect of male sexuality. You want to intellecutalize and moralize and talk about drawing distinctions in a cerebral context. He’s talking about how certain types of visual stimulus from women will provoke a response in a primative (read, not conscious, intellectual level) fashion in men. It’s an automtic, pre-concious response, often based on visual stimuli, before conscious thought. Since humans do not have a “mating season” (unlike certain other animals), this aspect of male sexuality is always potentially ready to be triggered.
In a sense, it is biological and wired in. Something like getting hungry when watching a commercial about food. It doesn’t have to make sense. It just happens.
This is not to say that men are uncontrollable in this respect or that they are excused for their actions or that they *should* lustfully consider any female showing any flesh. It’s just what happens first, it is largely automatic, and it depends upon what he sees. What happens next depends upon the man and how he thinks.
If you can understand this about men, you will find them easier to deal with in social situations. You will also understand much of a father’s advice to his daughters, even if, as a female, it does not seem to make sense.
Jeanette, do you believe in thought crime?
Don’t have time for a fuller treatment, but I’d say the short of it is that (almost all) humans understand that humans have minds in a way that animals don’t. The mind is the locus of our sympathy for one another (though it should be more than only the mind).
The complex rules and norms that make even modern man’s primitive societies work do not get communicated by body. They get communicated by mind. Mind is what holds us together so that body can do its trick.
This is why pro-abortionists usually claim that the unborn are subhuman – failing to contain sufficient mind, and therefore can be killed willy-nilly in order to achieve some hypothetical socio-economic goal.
So, if Pedobear can’t see the girl as mind, she is being converted to a lower thing, something Pedobear can prey on. We do not want the girl to see herself that way because it reduces the frontiers of her experience, but also because she will act in ways that help Pedobear think of her in that way.
What people who throw the hijab flag can’t get through their teeny-tiny ganglia is that the hijab is worn so as not to corrupt men. What we’re saying is that men are already corrupted. We don’t need your help. If a girl – whether it is her intention or not – is handing out a peak at some tail and a handful of excuses, we’ll be happy to take them.
Actually, what works best for swimming is nude. The whole conversation here is based on differences that exist only in the mind. Eye of the beholder and all that.
A pedophile is not going to be deterred by any sort of swimsuit. Coach Jerry and his Catholic brothers are only stopped by jails. That is because ropes are not PC.
Females are genetically driven to attract males. If they think a ‘T’ back or throng works for them, that is their business. Although I will admit that the thought of Hillery in a throng boogles the mind. Maybe Janet likes it.
Civilization depends on the male female paring. EVERYTHING else builds off that.
Good marriages come about because the man loves the woman enough to die for her and the woman loves the man enough to live for him. If a few scraps of cloth makes the difference, Hooray!
Dave, if you ever do have a little girl who spends a lot of time at the beach or pool, you may well change your mind about a blanket rule against bikinis and tankinis.
I have a 3 year old, and it’s a lot easier to get our little potty trainee to the bathroom in time when I’m not peeling a sand and sunscreen encrusted crossover tank on and off! It also depends on how closely your kid matches standard clothing sizes, as skinny girls can wear bikinis in a smaller size than a tank suit (our 3T tanks are too wide and the 2T tanks are too short, but a 2T two piece works great).
But I agree that young girls Shouldn’t wear the skimpy leopard print styles in public, even under close parental supervision – there are too many creeps out there.
Your examples are not consistent with each other, and in no way equitable to the ones you had for the children.
First off, the first one appears to be some kind of sporting suit. Someone wearing that is not at a beach to swim, but to surf or snorkel, or is at a pool to swim laps or perhaps do some diving. Anyonne else wearing that is either trying to pretend to be into sports, or thinks they are somehow being modest, either of which is functionally showing off. Further, that first model is built distinctly differently from the other two. If one of them were in that suit the effect would be significantly different.
The second one is clearly in a pose to show off. Whether that suit is suitable for frolicking in the surf is pretty much secondary given what it is being used for, and that is to display female flesh.
As for the third one, while points could be brought up regarding cultural differences, once again we can tell from the pose that the only purpose being demonstrated there is display. Further, that display is significantly more “aggressive” than the display in the second. While I might expect to see the second pose at a beach I would never expect to see the third unless I had intruded on a private area, someone was playing at being a model, or the person was actually a prostitute, though clearly they’d be a high end “escort” type.
The thing is, which of those are you saying are equivalent to the ones you displayed the other day?
Even the most “extreme” one that was provoking your prior outburst is far less revealing than the thong and string combo in the third picture here.
They were a bit less than the first one here, though the builds are similar. That leaves the second, where the difference in build makes the comparison pretty useless.
Maybe if you used photos that were closer in basic form and appearance your point might seem more reasonable, but comparing the photos you have chosen I see nothing comparable, and have to wonder why you would want to stretch so far to try and make this point to begin with.
“Maybe if you used photos that were closer in basic form and appearance your point might seem more reasonable, but comparing the photos you have chosen I see nothing comparable, and have to wonder why you would want to stretch so far to try and make this point to begin with.”
What is the point you think that this article is dedicated to making that you find unreasonable?
One of them is a patriotic American like yourself, another apparently lacks the funds for sufficient clothing and should apply to the government for funds, and the third deserves to have her picture horizontally decompressed.
In what way you think this comprises an argument escapes me, but if you want to post pictures and discuss bikinis at great length, don’t let me stop you.
What photographs would you use to illustrate the difference between a modest 2-piece swim suit, a sexy bikini, and a slutty bikini?
No such thing as a “slutty” bikini. There are just minds that see any bikini as “slutty”. Draw your own conclusions about what that says about such a mind.
BTW, are you Muslim? There are no “slutty” women. There are only men that see women as “slutty” to disguise their own mental issues. Ask a woman about that, or any normal man.
You need help Bro. Find a good P-shrink. One that can help a Misogynist.
What term rather than “slutty” would you prefer to use for the style of swimsuit or clothing worn by prostitutes?
You can probably google “slutty clothing” and get some pictures, or take a ride down Hollywood Boulevard, or consult your favorite movies and see what they use. If anything, tends to be overly elaborate, plus or minus strategic holes.
The problem is a bikini is by definition small, and it becomes a sport to make it smaller, and exhibitionism isn’t exactly sluttiness. Pretty much any girl is going to go through a, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it” exercise. Men, too, I suppose, though it’s not quite the same, [insert boring academic lecture here].
Bikini is pretty much standard fare at 90% of the beaches, pools, and olympic beach vollyball sites in the (non-Moslem) world. Just doesn’t equate to slutty.
Actually, wet t-shirts, now, … I suppose we all have our own fetishes.
… though I suppose it’s also situational, even a modest two-piece *swim* suit would be “slutty” if worn to a black-tie (for men) dinner. OTOH, look what the women *do* wear to such occassions. I mean, seriously.
[insert boring academic lecture here on how to marry a millionaire, women's text]
Is that “slutty” or does it get a pass just because the outfits cost five and six figures, not to mention the jewelry?
It’s complicated, Dave, is what it comes down to. Ain’t everything?
It’s only complicated when people want to avoid the point that’s being made
Clothing sends messages. Context partly determines the meaning of messages sent. So what’s new about that?
“It’s complicated, Josh, is what it comes down to. Ain’t everything?”
So was going to the moon, but that didn’t prevent us from trying, and succeeding. There were a LOT of options, but the goal was to get there, they picked one, and got there. Same here: lots of clothing to send all kinds of messages. David just has to pick one out of a range that gets him to his goal, and he has a good chance of getting there. Just because you try to push someone into Analysis paralysis to argue that he shouldn’t make ANY choices doesn’t mean he’ll agree to behave as stupidly as you WANT him to.
How interesting: the fact that there is grey proves the existence of black and white, so there is no such thing as sight? The fallacy of false alternative: demand that lines be drawn to demarcate “regions” when blocking out regions based on reasonable messaging and context is more than sufficient. What I find intriguing is that those who argue for regions of grey actually REFUSE that a Father should stake out a region of grey, but deliberately do all they can to paint him as being on an extreme.
Comments send messages about the commenters. Just sayin’
No such thing as a “slutty” bikini. There are just minds that see any bikini as “slutty”
And you apparently believe that there is no such thing as a father concerned about the subliminal messages sent out by certain kinds of clothing his daughter MIGHT wear. Your statement says that you believe that there are just muslims and taliban and fathers who are subliminal pedophiles. Is the next step to go apesh*t crazy and burn everything down around you to convince the authorities that you are right and that David should be arrested?
Of course i don’t believe you have that sort of courage: what I see is someone Offended by David affecting the living vocabulary and meaning of words by STATING the obvious link between certain kinds of Bikinis and the messages they send. This is how languages and culture evolve, and you simply don’t want David’s two cents being heard or heeded. Its all about control of the narrative and the vocabulary, and you resent David using the obvious to establish the obvious that you want obscured, hmm?
Clothing sends messages.
Question: Pedophiles don’t just target little girls. So why is there no discussion of what’s appropriate swimwear for little boys?
b/c the choices for boys in america are baggy, baggier, and baggiest shorts.
Europe seems to like speedos. You can find the little boys with parents who came to town on an engineer’s visa, b/c they are wearing speedos the first week. after that, they pitch a fit, and their mom buys them a baggy pair of shorts. They sell them at grocery stores, for goodness sakes.
Because there isn’t a push to make little boys wear skimpy swimsuits that would look sexy on men. And attracting pedophiles isn’t the big issue here.
I can’t believe the fairly obvious has not been mentioned- Elizabeth Hurley rocketed to fame and fortune by dressing like a tart- she was the live-in girlfriend of a second-rate British actor. She went to a movie premiere in a black dress with giant safety pins on it. Her photo shipped around the world. Her boyfriend got credit as a hound-dog who could attract tramps- he headed off to Hollywood fame, fortune and transsexual hookers- and she went on to being a tart in films.
She then had a child by a committed Democrat billionaire- one Mr Steve Bing- and lives on child support.
There isn’t a reason she would edit a little girls outfit to not include tartiness, since that’s how she’s buttered her bread for so long.
Mr Swindle wishes to have a daughter, at some point, and raise her to be marriageable. That is quite an entirely different destination. It has different ports of call along the way. It’s what makes Gigi by Colette so very funny. The girl is being raised as a tart, and yet manages to marry, b/c she has retained enough innocence to attract a suitor.
In different neighborhoods, different suits send different signals. I can tell you the girls that the moms say they want their daughter to head to college- they are in one-piece swimsuits, here. I would think in California or Hawaii, anything above naked would count as conservative. I have odd questions about the modest swimsuits- I mean, really- who has the way-back machine going on? and what on earth? But- we also have juvenile muslimas and strict fundamentalists swimming in leggings and shirts here. As well as sunburn shirts on people- long sleeve, turtlenecks over bikini bottoms topped with shorts. There’s at least one mom swimming in a sari ( for real) and her daughter wears a one-piece.
So I’m thinking the sort of person who has a bunch of small children- the more libertine ones- maybe aren’t having so many kids as in the 70s, while the more modest ones are having kids? I don’t know. My objections- I had bikinis in the 70′s, and they just don’t photograph well. I look like a junior trailer-ho, instead of a sheltered young lady.
Thanks Ari. I appreciate your comments.
Hard to believe so many people would consider someone like Annette Funicello a “slut”, “tramp”, or “tart” for wearing a bikini…..
Hmmmm….just had a thought.
Is a “Baywatch” bathing suit, since it’s one piece, considered “modest”???
Especially when worn by someone like Pamela Anderson?
This whole conversation is really silly….
just out of curiosity, why the sneering at Baywatch? It had one of the most classically tight premiere scripts written. The scripts held up, the standards held up. It’s one of the most franchised, successful series in the world. The characters, while on the beach, had to make moral choices each and every week. Ronald Reagan was a lifeguard.
The actors taped down their suits, so that there would not be wardrobe malfunctions. Ms Anderson was also the “tool girl” in Home Improvement. She did start in Playboy, but that’s not all that she’s done. And, for better or worse, Mr Hefner has been a talent scout for poor but pretty and ambitious girls for decades. It’s the same scouting pool as some modelling agencies, according to watchers of the industries. Mr Hefner finds West Coast girls with a more conventionally pretty face, and Hollywood dreams.
I would not wish my daughter to run that gauntlet, but, that’s the thing- my daughter has a very present mother and father- while Jenny McCarthy, Pam Anderson, and other Baywatch actresses were not so rich in “social capital.” They used what they had, to get to where they are. Jenny McCarthy is funny- have you read her books on parenting? And entrepeneurial- she’s got a fitness set for Kinect and Wii. We might not like her origins, but she’s certainly gone on to do better. Consider it like vaudeville- television sanitized most of the early stars’ origins and life stories.
It’s not the path I’d wish for my daughter, but I don’t spit or sneer at women who’s main asset is their face, body and personality.
And, again, that’s grown women. Little girls, even future tarts, deserve to keep their childhood innocence.
Lol, you might want to cool your jets and go back through what I’ve previously written and reconsider whether or not I was ‘sneering’ at anyone.
and good grief, in the West we’ve mostly figured out rape is a crime.
I don’t think there are enough hijabs in the world to save another human from a crazed muslim mob. These folks raped—a news anchor while the camera was filming – in a group rape- so no fastidiousness there, Muammar Ghaddafi- a man- leader of his country last time I checked- and our ambassador- a man- who probably went to work in a grey business suit. Add in the articles about women getting groped on the bus, and camel-boy attendants, add in the fatwa about how many hours dead a wife can be sexually approached- I’m not exactly seeing a limit on where these guys want to poke their privates.
We depend on far more subtle cues in the West. These things get talked about. Tats? under forty mean something different than over 40. Star Wars- same thing. Pregnant stars? High heels,low heels, sensible heels, Doc Martens on millionaire film-makers vs Doc Martens on yobs vs workboots on Cybill Shepherd…..
“This swimsuit was so cute and fit perfectly. I am 5’6.25″ and weight around 135lbs. I ordered a medium and it fit perfectly. The cut on the bottom is very flattering. I decided to return it because I swim at the local YMCA and this suit is too sexy to wear there. I’m 23 years old and most of the other swimmers are older than me and I didn’t want to offend them.”
That’s a comment from a customer that the swimsuit pictures link to (at Amazon), and that’s how I tailor my dress, according to what others find acceptable.
If I’m swimming with my hippie friends (not in a public place), I swim naked, because that’s what we do. If I’m on a public beach I dress so as not to offend others. That’s pretty much my only gauge when it comes to swimwear. When in Rome…
As far as little girls goes: If a little girl, eight years of age, was in my charge, I would allow her to wear swimsuits cut like the ones on the left, but not the one on the far right. Why? Because it’s too revealing, IMO. That’s why. And, my opinion WILL prevail, when I’m in charge of minor children.
Personally, I think Dave Swindle is a little too uptight, but when it comes to his daughter, if he ever has one, it’ll be his decision, not mine…and that’s how it ought to be.
I think part of my problem with all this is that I raise my kids, David, not TV, not internet ads. I don’t have to worry about my kids getting ‘slutted out’ because I raised them to respect themselves.
If that’s the case then why do you feel like you’re the one I’m attacking?
I think I’m questioning your judgement–I don’t think you’re attacking me–I think your perception is skewed–possibly because you live in the San Fernando Valley. I think you see ‘sexualization’ far too readily because you live within a culture that is highly sexualized.
Again you’re making an ad hominem argument. That I live in the San Fernando Valley has nothing to do with the merits of my arguments. Evangelical Christians who live in small towns have the same position on this as me.
Mr Swindle, you’re making a concealed moral argument. Making moral arguments is evil.
Keep up the good work.
Dave,
You’ve chosen a slippery slope here. In general, women who are ovulating (i.e., are fertile right now tend to wear more revealing clothes (“skimpy”). It doesn’t necessarily make them automatic sluts, tho. It’s just biology.
The problem is, I’m sure, they do this to signal men that they are fertile, which usually means they’re more sexually “receptive”. I suspect that us poor guys view the clothes-to-receptivity ratio as inverse.
Important safety tip for everyone.
And, dress your daughter as you will, and good luck.
Just wait till she gets to law school… (heh).