I’ve talked about this here a little bit before, but most of the debate is over at Elizabeth Hillgrove’s blog where she has a whole category for all things bikini related. Click here and scroll down for her thoughts (about both female and male modesty in swimwear), lots of combox discussion and some links to others defending the bikini.
Given this ongoing debate, I thought it was funny today when I came across a video in which widely popular YouTuber Philip DeFranco attempts to answer a viewer who asks: “Bra n Panties vs. Swimwear, What’s the Dif? Help Me Out”
I think DeFranco’s viewer’s question is on the right track, but should be flipped around. He asks: if there’s no difference in coverage, why is it unacceptable for women to go out in their underwear? When it should be: if there’s no difference in coverage why is it acceptable for women to go out in bikinis when they wouldn’t go out in their underwear? When and why did this style of bathing attire become so mainstream? Does being made of different material and having a different purpose really make that big of a…well, difference?
Once again, what do you think? Some of you might not care, but of all the modesty debates I’ve seen, I think this is probably the most worthy of being discussed. We’re not just talking about whether something is a little too short or low-cut, but literally whether it’s appropriate to leave the house wearing nothing but your underwear.
4 Comments on “TOB Tuesday: Revisiting the Great Bikini Debate”
DeFranco’s video actually unintentionally answers the flipped question. He says there is no difference and the topic caused him to think about naked women.
So, if you want a guy to think of you as a sex object…
Christina: thank you for pointing out what he said about thinking about naked women. I thought about mentioning that myself, but didn’t for some reason. Might do a quick edit and put that in there.
Well, if a young man is outside in a pair of swim trunks, he is often showing about the same amount of skin as if he were in his boxers. (And it’s true even if he wears a shirt: he looks like he’s in his undershirt and boxer shorts.)
I suppose a key difference is that the fabric of a swimsuit makes it seem as though this is okay to be seen in public, whereas the fabric that says “this is underwear” tells us we shouldn’t be seeing it. So, while a young man or woman wearing average beachwear isn’t covering any more skin than a young man or woman just in underclothes, the sight of one just wearing underclothes appears more risque. That’s my theory.