Here is an attractive bikini swim suit with a neat feature to it: beads on the bra and bottom string ties that change color depending on the UV Intensity level. This allows the user to see at a glance when she needs to use sun block or to retreat into the shade. The beads are an attractive feature that creates interest in what is otherwise an ordinary swimsuit but is also practical.
I'm afraid that the same cannot be said for something described as a "microbikini." I recently received an email offering such garments (?) for sale. Now I'm comfortable in a bikini; but this kind of swimsuit can only be described as LEWD! It consists of a patch barely covering the vagina, and two patches not completely covering the nipples and aureolas! It is the most offensive thing I could imagine someone wearing. As a matter of fact, a decent woman would not appear in one in front of her husband, much less in public!
I won't illustrate this travesty; but I'd like to reflect a little.
Why is complete nudity somehow less offensive? Because nudity can convet a sense of naturalness and innocence in certain contexts. In Titian's Sacred and Profane Love, the nude woman represents Sacred Love, the one lavishly clothed represents Profane Love.
But there's some other dimension; perhaps what Jonathan Haidt referred to as the "moral emotions" -- some things just feel "wrong," but you cannot account for that feeling totally rationally. Consider these examples:
A family's beloved pet dog gots run over. All were sad at the loss. But a family member remembered hearing that dog meat is delicious. [It's eaten in some cultures.] So they made and ate dog stew.
A brother and sister were traveling in Europe together. The decide, just for the experience, to have sex together. Both agreed to take precautions against pregnancy, they have their experience together and feel closer as a result. They both enjoyed it and felt no psychological consequences or physical consequences; but they agreed to make it a one-time thing. They never told anyone; and they felt that they have done nothing wrong.
A homeowner, needing some rags for household cleaning, used an old, worn out U.S. flag for the rags.
How do you feel about these vignettes? Do you feel that there is something, somehow wrong, though you can't put your finger on it?
I do; as a matter of fact, I'm somewhat creeped out by each. That's the point.
These feelings are not based on rational considerations. Haidt called them "moral emotions" or "moral intuitions." These may be an underlay in our ethical judgments. Sometimes things just "feel wrong;" and can't be explained. But these feelings are there and should be taken seriously.
I won't illustrate this travesty; but I'd like to reflect a little.
Why is complete nudity somehow less offensive? Because nudity can convet a sense of naturalness and innocence in certain contexts. In Titian's Sacred and Profane Love, the nude woman represents Sacred Love, the one lavishly clothed represents Profane Love.
But there's some other dimension; perhaps what Jonathan Haidt referred to as the "moral emotions" -- some things just feel "wrong," but you cannot account for that feeling totally rationally. Consider these examples:
A family's beloved pet dog gots run over. All were sad at the loss. But a family member remembered hearing that dog meat is delicious. [It's eaten in some cultures.] So they made and ate dog stew.
A brother and sister were traveling in Europe together. The decide, just for the experience, to have sex together. Both agreed to take precautions against pregnancy, they have their experience together and feel closer as a result. They both enjoyed it and felt no psychological consequences or physical consequences; but they agreed to make it a one-time thing. They never told anyone; and they felt that they have done nothing wrong.
A homeowner, needing some rags for household cleaning, used an old, worn out U.S. flag for the rags.
How do you feel about these vignettes? Do you feel that there is something, somehow wrong, though you can't put your finger on it?
I do; as a matter of fact, I'm somewhat creeped out by each. That's the point.
These feelings are not based on rational considerations. Haidt called them "moral emotions" or "moral intuitions." These may be an underlay in our ethical judgments. Sometimes things just "feel wrong;" and can't be explained. But these feelings are there and should be taken seriously.
11 comments:
In many peoples' opinion, the tawdry string bkini you posted would also be lewd! No daughter of mine would be allowed to wear such a travesty. I thought you had conservative values, but you should be ashamed. And you go on and on about these grotesque hypothetical situations that make you feel uneasy. You need to adjust your values and priorities!
Geesh! What wild conclusions. The yellow swimsuit with the beads is really cute, Angel -- and you raise an interesting idea that there are some natural emotions.
You might want to consider moderating the comments to your blog. Just sayin.....
Don't feed the troll.
Some cultures do eat animals that we consider household pets. I think there's a real barrier against eating animals that we know by name. Old Bossy can provide milk, but not steak. I guess the incest taboo is nearly universal. I think some cultures have less of a reverence for their national flag, particularly if it's divided into different groups.
I need a string of those beads around my neck so my face doesn't turn bright red.
Some asian cultures breed dogs to eat. They're called yellow dog.
Oh and about the dingbat anon above.
"You need to adjust your values and priorities!"
He meant to say you need to adopt HIS values because he's right about everything. So get hoppin'.
"Why is complete nudity somehow less offensive?" I don't find nudity, complete or partial, to be offensive ... unless, of course, the individual engaging in it has no business appearing in public in such a state. Having lived in Europe for many years and had he experience of visiting beaches where going topless (or more-less) is unremarkable, my observation is that most people who appear unclothed in public shouldn't. My own personal preference is for some degree of covering, as wrote about in my post on "The Degree of Gasp" last month ... I think a beautiful lady wearing the right thing can be much more attractive (may I say, sexy?) than the same lady naked. And I say that as one who looks MUCH better with clothes on. Trust me on this one. Good post ... thanks ... and ignore "dingbat anon."
Elvis, Duckbutt, Mike, and Bilbo, thanks for your moral support. I really think that the swimsuit in question is not out of line with what women wear in the South nowadays, and that what one wears should be a matter of comfort. If someone feels stared at or feels that what one is wearing reveals one in a bad light, then wearing something less revealing is a good way to deal with it.
How effective the beads are in warning against overexposure, I don't know. Perhaps some product review will disclose that information.
No one should ever find fault with anyone wearing that pretty bathing suit. You go, girl!
Those microbikinis I've seen I wouldn't wear.
Better to go completely naked.
Post a Comment