April 19

Tags

Swimsuits & The Undressing of America

Posted by on April 19, 2012 in General | 5 Comments

1922 swimwear

[ The following are excerpts from a short, 29 page work by Jeff Pollard (link at end of article). I would encourage every woman – young and older – to read this important work, and pass it along to others! – JT ]

Modesty is not first an issue of clothing. It is primarily an issue of the heart. And if the heart is right with God, it will govern itself in purity coupled with humility and will express itself modestly. Calvin observes,

“Yet we must always begin with the dispositions; for where debauchery reigns within, there will be no chastity; and where ambition reigns within, there will be no modesty in the outward dress.” He concludes, “Undoubtedly the dress of a virtuous and godly woman must differ from that of a strumpet…if piety must be testified by works, this profession ought also to be visible in chaste and becoming dress.”

Again, this applies not only to corporate worship, but also to daily living. Though it is true that one may dress modestly from a sinful and prideful motive, one cannot knowingly dress lavishly and sensually from a good one. Thus, the purity and humility of a regenerate heart internally must ultimately express itself by modest clothing externally.

Therefore, since modesty has several definitions, we will draw ours from the Biblical material: Christian modesty is the inner self-government, rooted in a proper understanding of one’s self before God, which outwardly displays itself in humility and purity from a genuine love for Jesus Christ, rather than in self-glorification or self-advertisement. Christian modesty then will not publicly expose itself in sinful nakedness….

Nakedness was good until Adam and Eve rebelled against God. At that point sin entered and shame followed… Because of their fall into sin, God covered
Adam and Eve’s nakedness. The knowledge of their sin transformed their experience of “good” nakedness into stinging, humiliating shame. Blushing and disgrace entered history; but thankfully, the story does not end there. In His great mercy, God provided a gracious covering….

God used this literal event to teach us a spiritual truth. He replaced Adam and Eve’s loincloths with “tunics of skin.” Although Adam covered his loins, God covered him from his neck to his knees. This is not insignificant: the work of Adam’s hands was not acceptable to God either spiritually (his works righteousness) or physically (his nakedness); only the covering that God Himself provided was sufficient for both. While Adam covered his privates, the Lord covered Adam’s body. Alsop observed that “our first parents, in that hasty provision which they made against their shame, took care only for aprons: but God who had adequate conceptions of their wants, and what was necessary to supply them; of the rule of decency, and what would fully answer it provided for them coats; that so the whole body . . . might be covered, and concealed.”

Though we have no “snapshots” of Adam and Eve’s apparel, the word coats is consistently used throughout the O.T. to mean a tunic-like garment. Coats in Gen 3:21 is kuttonet from an unused root meaning to cover. …

Here lay the heart of the challenge [to the garment industry, ed.]: with men and women freely swimming and playing together in the water, there had to be a garment that would liberate the body for movement. Yet woven into the fabric of our society were the vestiges of a Biblically-influenced modesty. The Christian perspective emanated from the Scriptural account that God gave garments to cover the body, but the demand for greater body movement required this new garment to uncover the body. Fashion designers understood that this seaworthy apparel would have to conceal, yet they well knew that to give its wearers liberty of movement, it would by its very nature reveal. “This amphibious costume would have to be something of a sartorial paradox, a form of undress that functioned as a symbol of dress.” Once men and women were no longer segregated in their seaside activities, an inevitable aquatic striptease began. The remaining attempts to retain some trace of modesty and yet liberate the arms and legs explains why early swimwear had the awkward and bulky appearance that our culture presently finds so amusing. Nevertheless, we must not miss this point: these early, funny looking swimsuits were, at least for a time, an attempt to continue the time honored, Christian ideal of covering the body. …

Fashion designers did not view swimwear as simply functional garments with a specific use like overalls. They envisioned their creations as highly fashionable garments, and therefore designed them both to reveal and arouse. What they clearly understood is that this new aquatic garment was merely a symbol of dress. This is why swimwear ultimately evolved into a form of nakedness thinly disguised as dress. Moreover, they were aware that they were undressing the American public and constantly challenged the legal limits of public nakedness. I challenge you, dear reader: read the books penned by the fashion industry; read their histories of the trade; you will discover that fashion’s guiding perspective is often sexual attraction, not the Word of God. And this is an underlying theme in this article: instead of being guided by God’s Word, the voice from heaven, American culture is driven by Fashion, the voice of fallen men….

Though the Word of God commands, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God,” the American fashion industry began to ape European fashion.

Swimwear manufacturers knew exactly the course they planned to follow, and it wasn’t the Word of God: “. . . in part thanks to the influence of the more daringly cut French swimsuits, the American bathing costume underwent a revolution. Until that time, bathing attire had been modeled on streetwear . . . by the 1890s, however, underwear began a relentless if slow migration outward that would come to a full, triumphal exposure in the bikini of the 1960s” It should be no surprise then for us to learn that “what the conceivers of the suit strove to suppress was the natural association between underwear and swimwear, a cogent and undeniable comparison. It was also true that the women’s swimwear industry in its early stages was closely affiliated with the bra and girdle industry, just as men’s wear for swimming was intimately, as it were, connected with the underwear business.”

The reasons for this “suppression” should be obvious: undergarments have a blatantly erotic appeal. And American culture, with its “decency” theory of clothing, was not prepared in those days for such a flagrant display of sensuality. Clearly the purpose underlying swimwear design was exposing human anatomy in a more sensual package. This could not be successfully achieved on the streets of the city. But in the name of recreation and especially sports, an amazing dichotomy of thought began to permeate our society. At the turn of the century, what was naked and lewd in the city was suddenly perfectly justifiable and permissible at the beach.

This should make the child of God think. This shift from streetwear to underwear as a model certainly can’t be defended as a move toward modesty. Moreover, in the name of sports, recreation, and following suit with European fashion, Americans began legitimizing public nakedness.

As one account aptly puts it: “The history of the American swimsuit is the square- inch-by-square-inch story of how skin went public in modern times.”
During the 30s “the upper torso became the new focus of concern, and male swimmers who bared their chests in public not only forfeited respectability but faced the penalty of arrest as well . . . . the `nude look’ in swimsuits made a mockery of the laws. Apparel Arts in 1932 reported that `many of the bathers of this year . . . swam shirtless, wearing only a pair of Trunks.”‘ Swimwear designers “fashionably” pressured men to go topless and offered them two-piece swimwear. This “Depression Suit,” as it was called, had a removable shirt which could be tucked in, buttoned, or attached to the trunks with a zipper. This was no small contest in the long civil war for modesty: “For nearly three decades, a battle of decency, decision, and decree were fought at the water’s edge. In the fourth decade, women’s bathing attire changed little in terms of decency, but men’s chests became the new field of skirmish … Hollywood’s men went topless in the 1930s (though airbrushed into the 1950s to avoid the brutality of body hair), and the nation-wide trend, expressing physique while suggesting sensuality, followed with alacrity.” In other words, when swimwear designers and their Hollywood connections pressured men into the strip show, they eagerly cast off their tops along with their manhood. Why? Because they followed their hearts instead of God’s Word. It’s what they wanted.

Guilt for this decaying and debauched state must not be laid entirely at the feet of women, as it often is. The problem lies squarely with the men in the pulpits and homes of this nation. With the near dissolution of Christian manhood in this century, American males have become feminized sex-worshipers who do not lead, but are led. They have followed their silver-screen icons into nudity, and not the purity of Jesus Christ. Had they followed the God of holiness and governed their hearts and eyes as instructed by God’s Word, the present lascivious culture simply would not and could not exist. Nevertheless, any who dare to speak against public nakedness are quickly decried as legalists, Pharisees, and worst of all -fundamentalists. How pathetic that so many pulpits and youth groups today are governed by the desires of the women and children of the congregation and not the Word of God. As the Prophet Isaiah said of his day, “This is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits” (30:9,10). …

We live in a pornographic society. Nevertheless, the children of God are called to purity and holiness. Perhaps because they are drowning in the ecstasy of a sexually debauched culture, some preachers gaze upon its endless parade of sensuality and conclude that swimsuits, short skirts, and other immodest clothing aren’t so bad after all. Accordingly, some pastors and youth leaders urge young women to wear “modest, one piece” swimsuits before they lead them to the beach. However, I hope by now it is clear that such a thing is fiction. “People are more body-conscious these days,” explained Peggy Gay, a beachwear buyer for Saks Fifth Avenue during the summer of 1977, “and there is a certain sleek sexiness in a one-piece that doesn’t exist in a two-piece.” This is undeniable. Modern one piece suits are true masterpieces of sensual camouflage, because most women’s bodies simply cannot slake the public’s thirst for the perfect figure. A one-piece is designed to make the best of “what a woman has.” If you doubt that, read your local department store advertisements:

OUR SWIM SHOP IS NOW OPEN

See the difference the right fit can make!

Our Fit Specialists are specially trained and ready to help you determine your correct swimsuit size. They know how to select a suit that really fits through the hips, waist, and bust. And we have a specialist in every store. *******’s takes the guessing out of selecting swimwear. We know that when you are choosing the bare minimum, you want a fit that plays up your assets, not one that calls attention to those less-than-perfect areas . . . on every hang tag, you’ll find one or more colored dots to help you find the suit that best flatters your figure.”

Bare minimum? Best flatters your figure? What “assets” are you “playing up,” ladies? Does this sound like a garment that promotes inner self-government which outwardly displays itself in humility and purity from a genuine love for Jesus Christ? Or is this the very essence of self-glorification and self-advertisement?

A yard or so of stretchy material that exposes the body underneath is not modest. Does anybody reading this really think it is? When virtually every curve of a woman’s body is packaged for a sensual public display? A careful study of the literature, images, and photographs from the earliest eras in the evolution of swimwear reveals that controversial zones of the body were progressively laid bare: upper arms and thighs, shoulders and backs. Inching away from the Biblical standard, suits crept up the thigh and down the shoulders to the bosom. Yet for all this daring display, the last sensitive region was for a while still protected: the groin. Throughout the early decades of the 20th century both men and women’s suits decently covered this portion of the body. Nevertheless, even this last holdout was unveiled and is now prominently displayed.

– Excerpts from Jeff Pollard’s Christian Modesty: Undressing of America

You can read this short but important book here.