176 thoughts on “FWOTW: cuteandcovered.com”

  2. She tells a lie in the first sentence, ”cute and fashionable.” Nope these are NOT fashionable.
    First?

  4. So if Bruce Jenner has known since he was 8 years old that he was a woman, shouldn’t he have to forfeit his Olympic medals?

    2. Please enlighten us about how this inane comment has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

      But because I can’t resist trolls sometimes… Now don’t be silly, you know the conservative talking point is to mis-gender trans* people and insist that they have always been and will always be whatever gender corresponds with their sex designated at birth. So by your own standards, the Olympic medals are subject to no controversy whatsoever, bless your little heart.

      1. Josh, I think the catch-22 is intentional. At least, I assumed greg was snarkily pointing out how the conservative position on gender was self-defeating in this (blatantly irrelevant) topic. Do you think he is actually against Jenner’s transition?

        1. Based on my interactions with Greg in the past, I doubt that.

    3. I think this falls under the same category as the guy who won a gold medal on snowboard while high as a kite on marijuana. If a guy can perform that well high on something that actually slows your reaction times, or if a woman can compete against men and win again and again, I think they deserve those medals. Because that’s just making it harder for them, not easier.

      1. Sounds about right. We all work under different handicaps, I suppose.

        I have come to the point where I am for the decriminalization of drugs, and possibly for their legalization — under heavy regulation for processing and with a good bit of taxation. I don’t like them, but making it so that they ruin a person’s life doesn’t seem to me to be just.

        Use the taxes to support treatment. But otherwise, users won’t be sacrificing their lives or freedoms for doing something dumb. And regulating production and sale will take profit out from the illicit drug trade.

        Prohibition never worked. It hasn’t worked in sports. It hasn’t really worked anywhere.

        1. http://chasingthescream.com

          Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari is a must read. It’s a thoroughly researched book on the history of the ‘war on drugs’ in the U.S. How we inadvertently gave rise to the cartels. How this war on dugs was birthed by the predecessor agency to the DEA, based on reefer madness. They said that if marijuana is legal, black men will impregnate white women who smoke dope with them. Pure unadulterated racism birthed the’war on drugs.’

          I can’t recommend this book highly enough.

        2. I am not in favor of allowing the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. It would create an unlevel playing field, with the advantage going to the drugged ones; forcing all athletes to use them just to stay competitive. Many of these drugs are not healthy.

        4. George! Quit it!

          The fact is that performance-enhancing drugs are already pervasive in sports at nearly all levels. The only question is who gets caught.

          Lance Armstrong used them. Yet for years, accusations and rumors were stymied by negative or inconclusive lab tests. Other “legends” have used them, and revelations have wiped out years of squeaky-clean reputations. No one in professional sports can be unsuspected. Even taking cold medicine can get you kicked out.

          So I would suggest we recognize that any attempt to prevent it has failed. All we are doing is pretending. Time to acknowledge that Sports is not a Clean enterprise. Legalizing drugs is probably appropriate.

          But since the athletes want to take them, make them into public lab rats! Advertise what they are taking, and keep track of the long-term physical effects. Make the drugs part of the TOPS cards. And when the crash comes as a result, make sure that is recorded, too.

          The truth shouldn’t be hidden. All we are doing is lying to ourselves. Our children know the truth. And the System only really succeeds in squashing bad news.

          Our desire to hide the truth as we pretend to keep control is part of the Fundy in us we must all fight.

        1. Oops. Having googled, I see she and Steve Anderson met in Bavaria. I wonder why her first name is the Hungarian form of Susanna?

  6. A long time ago, in a Fundy Camp far, far away, we were all told to wear one-piece swimsuits. The idea that the teen/college girls “understood” modesty was a given.

    It was also the year the movie “10” came out, which was followed by a famous poster of a lady in a one piece swimsuit that left little to the imagination.

    Many of the girls showed up at camp in said style of swimsuit. To say that the pastors and camp staff had major apoplexy would not aptly describe their reaction. T-shirts were immediately required for all swimsuits worn in the pool.

    My swimsuit was okay…not to because I was not interested in fashion, but my college church had done a good job of giving me some better clothing standards. It was also my last camp in FundyLand as I thought the whole thing was just ridiculous.

    1. Yeah let’s all put T-shirts on and jump in the water. What could not be modest about that? Makes me cringe to remember.

        1. No, the link is alive. You just have to get the full url in there. The clickable part has only part of the link!

          The swimsuit? Uhhh, Not Safe For Husbands when the wife is in the same room.

      4. Bo Derek is still alive, but I know what you mean … it’s the 1979 Bo Derek who is “hallowed in memory.”

        My favorite Bo Derek moment was when she was on a talk show (David Letterman’s?) and the host asked where she went to high school, and Bo said she didn’t remember.

  7. I challenge everyone to ignore the comment from a certain troll. Let’s all starve it to death.
    Agreed?

    2. My apologies, I didn’t read the whole thread before responding. Strangely, though, as I look back up, I see nothing. What are you talking about? 😮

      1. No problem Josh. I am really trying not to interact.

        Notice even more comments further downthread. He is obsessed with this topic, as are many fundies in my circle. I know they are equating Jenner’s gender identity with his sexuality. They think it is a “gay issue”. Typical fundy reaction to something they do not understand. Demonize the person/thing and spiritualize their stance on the topic.

        1. Of course, fundies tend to be clueless about the differences between the spectra of biological sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression. This case in point is no different.

  8. Come on, that was kind of funny. Unless its a manifestation of the inability to modulate passion based on importance. Then it’s just sad.

  9. Only in fundyland is modesty an issue with little kids. In their zest to demonize everything (while at the same time spiritualize everything they do), they have actually made something innocent (little kids swimming) into something sexual.

    1. Brother Scorpio, are you backsliding? Don’t you know that an 18month old in an immodest swimdress will tempt a man to sin?

      Honestly – she sells them for 18month old babies. Frankly, if it wasn’t for the sun, I’d let them run around naked at that age.

      1. Precisely. The sun. If I had an 18 month old daughter, I wouldn’t mind putting her in something like that, because of the sun.

      2. Catherine, thank you for the rebuke. I have forgotten that toddlers are temptresses.

        And lets be honest, the “lame stream media” just propagates the image and puts pressure on those toddlers to be symbols and put out. What kind of exploring is Dora really doing?

    2. That is interesting. One only sees children as “sexual” if one has a particular bent that way, I would think. So those who obsess with the “modesty” of children are likely pedophiles?

      Of course, it seems that some of the Great Fallen Heroes of Fundamentalism were (are) pedophiles.

    3. It’s been observed many, many times before that Real True Christians accuse everybody else of wallowing in lust and perversion while they’re the ones who can’t stop talking about it!

  10. I feel so sorry for Jenner’s children…imagine waking up and realizing your father’s whole entire life was nothing but a lie….what must that do a child?

      1. I believe all of her kids are grown adults. In which case they probably had some private moments together (except for the Kardashian side of the family which airs all of their laundry publicly), possibly grieved in some way but eventually came to the realization that this is who their father is. And then they carried on with their lives. I doubt there is the handwringing and anguish exhibited by some folks who do not understand the spectrum of sexuality, gender identity or expression.

        1. I find it interesting that so many “Biblical Scholars” don’t “understand the spectrum of sexuality, gender identity or expression” that was present in Biblical times.

          What we are seeing today is extraordinary only because we have the liberty to make personal decisions on a scale never before seen in human history. We have the resources to allow for personal introspection and individual differences.

          Human freedom is a powerful tool. Like any powerful tool, the results of its use might be unexpected.

    1. Pondering this comment and the em-fassis…
      what must that do TO a child?
      I think choice “c” is what he was going for…
      a. WHAT must that do to a child?
      b. what MUST that do to a child?
      c. what must THAT do to a child?
      d. what must that DO to a child?
      e. what must that do TO a child?
      f. what must that do to A child?
      g. what must that do to a CHILD?

      1. Interesting analysis rubicon. However the emphasis on “TO” was a result of the omission of the word “to” in the original comment.

        We usually just blame george.

        2. Well, I sit corrected. Never even saw the first comment–but now that I have, it doesn’t help matters.

    2. to a child? Might be confusing. To grown adults, they know their dad better now. “Hey wow, dad has a freaky side; when does the Laker game start?”

    3. Eh. I found when I was about twenty-two that both my parents had been married before they married eachother. They were terrified it would devastate us. We were both more like, “Oh. Ok. Whatever.” It explained some stuff, but that’s about it. Granted it’s not quite the same thing as your dad announcing he’s actually a woman, but I think some of his kids, all of whom are adults, have known for years. So this was hardly sprung on them.

    4. I find that children are able to understand a lot more than we think. Your constant “what must that do to a child?” simply indicates that you are trying to deflect your own uncomfortableness. You have been taught that gender issues are black and white. The world is presenting us with evidence that gender issues have gray areas. Its ok to be uncomfortable. Its not ok to push your feelings onto others.
      I don’t see Jenner’s life as a lie. I see it as a journey to understanding herself and all that was going on. We are not concrete blocks. We discover more about ourselves everyday. A child understands that because they are always exploring and learning something new everyday. We adults forget what that feels like because we think we have arrived and who we are is set in stone. That is never the case.

  12. When at home I spend the majority of my time in underwear. Boxer briefs, I like the support and comfort. When swimming I generally wear a longer and baggier short. So then, by comparison my swimsuit is more modest than my underwear.

    None of you asked for this information. I realize that but I am a Pharisee and therefore I do say as I please. Does this upset you? Ha! Talk to my wife. She’s in the kitchen.

  14. But some if these bathing suits expose the knees and have the girls wearing britches, both of which Anderson expressly preaches hard against as being the attire of an HARLOT! So one has to question their motivation, are they trying to turn girls into harlots using deceit?

    1. I mentioned before that I made the mistake of wearing white speedo-style swimming trunks to a public swimming pool not long ago. Bad idea. I bought then a few days before. They weren’t as skimpy as my previous (green) trunks and were “double_lined to preserve modesty” They didn’t. When wet they basically disappeared at the back, and were not entirely legal at the front. I didn’t stay long, and a don’t think I’ll go back to that particular establishent.

      1. I feel your pain…I lost the bottoms to my two-piece suit when I was about 12 jumping off the diving board.

        My sister still remembers…..

        1. I will never forget, nor will my FIL, the time racing from the sauna to the lake, thankfully in the dark, the elastic on his swim trunks let go. I ran to see why he had fallen and he screamed in a panicked falsetto for me to get away from him.

        2. Serves him right for wearing clothes in the sauna. Everybody knows you aren’t supposed to do that.

      3. When I was a teenager I was swimming with some friends. One of the more adventurous decided to dive off the top board, which gave me vertigo just looking up at it. His dive was perfect, but unfortunately his very modest swim shorts bobbed to the surface before he did. The were a lot of people swimming that day.

  16. So far, Zsuzsanna’s new site doesn’t make my computer self-destruct the way her old one did, but just to be safe, I won’t click on it again (I did it this time before I remembered).

    1. Serves your right Gary for having one of those evil new-age version computers 🙂

      “Use KJV to preserve thy PC”
      Riplinger 16:11

    2. It was the nastiest, most extensive system crash I’ve ever experienced.
      Being foolish, I thought it was fluke and tried going to the site again. Same result.

  17. Funny how modesty is only for women. Can the fundy guys get away with banana hammocks?

  18. I for one am zso glad Zsteven Anderzson’zs wife izs God’zs arbitor of modezsty regarding wimminz! Zshe probably juzst parrotzs what Zsteve tellZs her azs he zscreamzs at her from that clozset he inzsist on keeping himzself in 🙂

    “Zsuzsanna!!!! coverezst the youngun’zs!!!! And make zsure I never come out of the clozset!!!”

  19. Oh Zsuzsanna!

    The IFB spends so much time preaching modesty, yet so many of its pastors are sexual predators and pedophiles.

    Perhaps if there were more men that would stand up and piss against the wall (© Steven Anderson) … and little 8 yr old girls would just cover up their midriff while swimming (© Zsuzsanna Anderson)… then all would be well in fundyland.

  20. “Oh Zsuzsanna,
    now don’t you lecture me.
    For I covered up my midriff
    so the pastor not to see” 🙂

        1. That’s my state, and yeah, sometimes I think we’re in a contest with Florida to see which state can be the most effed up…

  21. I don’t want to sound petty but I wonder if this video was shot in the Anderson’s back yard. If so, why does he have such a hedonistic, worldly item as a swimming pool? If it’s not his pool, why would he allow his kids to potentially share the same water as non-KJV heathens? There’s no chlorine strong enough to wash the apostasy away.

    1. Anderson’s have a pool in their back yard. It doubles as a baptistry pool although I haven’t seen recent vids of such. Surely baptisms haven’t slowed down!

  22. At my fundy church and school, the girls had to wear t-shirts and those abominable culottes for swimming. And even then, we weren’t allowed to swim at the same time as the girls. Guys, meanwhile, were required to wear t-shirts and shorts.

    The one exception was those glorious youth group car washes. There was never a shortage of guys showing up for those because it was the one time we’d get to see the girls in wet, soapy t-shirts. Somehow it was ok for us to see them then, since it was raising money for God’s work.

  23. Do the men’s swimsuit allow a man to pee standing up? Heaven forbid he has to sit down to pee! Next thing you know they’ll be reading the NIV (nearly inspired version) of the bible!!!!

  24. I’m going to bring up a couple of points I bet most of you never thought of.
    1. Zsuzsanna’s kids are half German – in other words, with very light complexions, because their father isn’t very dark either.
    2. The sun in Phoenix in the summer is very bright and burns light colored people very easily.
    I’m glad she covers her kids; even though she doesn’t do special patterns for the boys, they also wear swim shirts as well as trunks. You don’t want pale midriffs showing in the bright sunshine! (Unless you want to totally goop on the sunscreen, and covering up is easier than that and better for the water balance.) As far as the fact the girls’ swimwear is dresses, well, that’s a little different, at least with the length of the dresses.
    I also live in Southern Arizona, also am of German descent, and wear a swim shirt in the water unless I am in the pool early in the morning or right before sunset, or unless I put a shade up over the pool. I do wear bikini bottoms, but am thinking of switching to swim shorts.

    1. I gotta agree. There’s something to be said about having kiddos wear a rashguard. My kids always do when swimming not for modesty’s sake, but for sun protection. It makes it so I just have to put sunscreen on their heads and arms.

      And..drumroll please…I have one of those “modest swimsuits” AND I wear it when I go swimming.

      I got mine from simply modest a few years ago, and I like it well enough. But I love the more rashguard-style suits that have since come out, and would like to get something like this one:
      http://hydrochic.com/amphi-spirit-athletic-skirted-capris.html

    2. I always wear a shirt and a hat at the beach, not because of modesty, but because I have practically no melanin in my skin and I get a sunburn if I see a magazine with a picture of the sun in it.
      That still isn’t a good rationale for wearing a long dress in the water, though.

      1. There are good reasons to cover up in the sun. Everyone who doesn’t live under a rock knows this. We all know that this website isn’t about covering up for protection from the sun. Read the FAQ page, she covers the also rans, sun protection, medical reasons etc. Pretending this is about something other than cover female skin is simply disingenuous.

    3. I’m half Irish and half Scandinavian, which means I pretty much burst into flames in the sun. I wear a rash guard shirt for surfing, snorkeling, diving and boating. Protecting yourself from sun damage is the smart thing to do, no argument from me.

      But come on, that website isn’t about preventing skin cancer. It’s about forcing an extreme version of modesty onto INFANTS, for pity’s sake. It’s nothing more than Fundies reinforcing the idea that women are responsible for every impure thought men have, and reinforcing the Fundy male’s stranglehold on women’s bodies. That’s it and that’s all.

      2. You’re absolutely right, seanchaigirl. I never meant to imply otherwise.

      3. seanchagirl – The fact that your screen name has the word “girl” in it has caused me to lust. Because of my stumble I demand that you change your screen name immediately. I’ll pray for you sister.

        😉

  25. Once when I was at a water park out here, I saw a man in his early to mid 20’s swimming with long pants and a long sleeved shirt. I didn’t, and still don’t, think it was due to modesty.

  26. I can’t help but point out: once again we have a site for “modest clothing” with absolutely no men’s suits mentioned anywhere. Certainly, we all know modesty is all about the women’s clothing. *grrrr*

    1. How about we not post a disguised link to Borat in a swimsuit and say we did? 😮

      Anyway, your point stands. I see some folks saying that in their fundyspheres boys were made to wear shirts while swimming, which is at least a veneer of equality, if nonetheless equally silly. In my fundy past, the standards were unequal, though they were pretty uncomfortable with “mixed bathing,” which circles back to wondering why they were so concerned about the girls’ swimwear after all…

      1. I grew up in that environment as well, and suffered with the shame of living in a female body for many, many years. That’s the danger in this site. Truly, think about the little girls affected by this.

        1. Yes, indeed. Even if fundies do obsess over men’s clothes as much as they do women’s (which they don’t), it’s still always the woman’s fault if the man is tempted. Purity culture can go [bad words] itself. :-\

        2. I am sick of how my daughter was treated. I fell into the trap for a while, but my wonderful wife never bought the clap-trap, and she taught my daughter that she was a beautiful young woman made in the image of God and she did not need to hide herself in a burlap sack.

    2. Frustrating, yes. Modesty is supposed to be for everyone.

      She’s missing out on a market by not offering knee-length swim trunks and rashguards for men & boys. T-shirts do work in a pinch, but they’re not too comfortable and become see-through once they get wet and they stay wet longer than swimsuit material.

    1. I don’t remember the country, but there was an Islamic international swimming competition where the woman athletes wore suits of this type.

      I don’t think they set any world speed records, but as far as I know, none of them drowned.

    2. There was also a friend who packed a “burkini” for her trip to Greece so that she could go to the beach with her Greek relatives who would otherwise have been scandalized by her full-body tattoos.

      1. Huh. My vacation on a Greek beach involved endless casual nudity. I think the laws are different there, or else I *just happened* to hit every nude beach from Athens to Mikonos. Oddly, though, I don’t remember seeing a single tattoo (apart from the other Americans I was on the trip with).

        1. I’m not surprised that a proctologist would find all the nudie beaches.

  28. Here’s my take on clothing in general. Perfection in clothing construction and design was achieved in the 1940s. Clothes were designed to be stylish, attractive, and long-lasting. Fabrics were great quality.

    The femininity of women’s clothing at that time was fabulous. Clothes weren’t meant to be seductive, but they let the personality shine. I love the skirts and dresses women wore back then. Even the shorts and blouses for outdoors activities were well-designed.

    And I dearly wish for those styles — even though I never lived that time.

    Even the swimsuit styles of that era had a nice balance to them. They didn’t cover everything up. There was variety. The whole direction of the styles seemed to be serviceability and confidence.

    Today’s fabrics are cheap and wimpy. They do not hold a crease, do not iron well and often look slovenly. We have become accustomed to cheap clothes. Even the more expensive clothing is inferior to the clothing designs and fabrics of years gone by. Clothing is shoddily made. We import it from countries using slave labor.

    Ever notice that how you dress affects how you feel about yourself? I am not talking about modesty issues. I am talking about self-perception. You can dress “well” even for grungy tasks. But the quality of the clothes you wear, the goodness of fit, the serviceability all make a difference in how you see yourself!

    There are outfits today that tell you that people (men and women) do not take themselves very seriously or see themselves as being more than slobs. I hate the “blouses” used by women in the medical assisting (and now nursing) fields.

    And perhaps the Fundy issues are a misguided attempt to get back what they don’t quite realize they have lost. They know something is missing. They know something is wrong. So they put it down as a lack of modesty, problems with temptation, and all that rot. Frankly, if some of them did understand the problem correctly they might still miscast it, since a lot of “leaders” don’t want people to be enabled to feel good about themselves! You have to be beaten down to wallow in the misery of your sinfulness, and good clothing would defeat that purpose.

    Of course, if I were to show this musing to my wife, she would probably scoff at me. I tried to express these ideas once to my wife and daughter — but I muffed it pretty badly and was told to back off. They would dress as they chose. I felt that they never did get my point.

        1. I prefer a derby to a bowler, but really like wearing a fedora. A quality hat is never out of style.

        4. Whenever I see someone wearing a baseball cap back to front I want to turn that person’s head around so that the peak points in the right direction…

    3. Totally agree. We were at the mall last night picking up my husband’s new glasses. He wanted to walk around for a while to get used to them, and I was doing some window shopping. I stepped into Forever 21 (which I haven’t done in a while) and noticed how ridiculously flimsy the clothes in there were. I have two kids and two left feet which means I’m hard on my clothes. The shirts in there looked like they’d unravel the day after they were bought.

      Also, if I could wear dresses everyday I would. I love the same styles you were describing. I only worry about looking (or feeling) like a fundy.

      1. If you wore dresses made in that style, “fundy” is not the description people would use. That clothing looked good on people, and I am pretty sure Fundies in that time objected to the flattering and form-fitting fashion. Fundies have always liked baggy and I’ll-fitting clothes to hide their women.

      2. Unravel the day after buying them? That would surely be a longevity record.

        As for looking fundy in those dresses, just make the neckline a bit lower and the hemline a bit higher. Maybe even a slit! And eliminate the sleeves. Throw in a tat on your arm and peeptoe slingbacks and the fundies will run! Right after they scream “Jezebel!”.

  29. We are taking my 8 yo daughter to the beach this summer. Mom hasn’t taken her swimsuit shopping yet, but if the selection is the same as the trends for girls of her age, we may be looking for something similar to these types of suits. The trends I am talking about are where some clothes look like something a slut would wear. Not cute on any 8 year old. So I don’t laugh at fundies about this, even if I am more relaxed with our home dress standards. Even if I actually HAVE had fundies tell me My daughter is dressed in liberal clothes.

    When they try to make little girl’s fashion look like stuff that full grown women wear to look attractive, well I say THAT is a lot closer to sexualizing girls than a fundy mother keeping her children covered up.

    And, no. It isn’t a problem or temptation for me, but if you check out your local sexual offenders list and read what they did and who they did it to, you will see a lot of pre pubescent girls and boys have been harmed. Considering that, I see no reason to let her have a two-piece.

    1. I agree, to a large extent. I do tend to think that the trend to “less cloth” and “older” styles for younger children is more due to cost-cutting and profits than to anything else. But it works out to be just as offensive as if they were trying to sexualize children.

      Still, I won’t preach at parents whose kids are dressed that way at the beach.

      And while I understand the reaction to the Predators Out There, there is a very real danger in letting our choices be a result of reaction to them instead of good decision-making on our part. Our present-day “blame-the-victim” culture says, “IF only you’d dressed more modestly you wouldn’t have gotten raped.” That is nonsense, because rapists and molesters can and do go after the “modest” ones as well as the ones clothed less so.

      If we let child molesters and rapists make our clothing choices for us, we might be insisting on burqas for our women and treating our women and children like property under the guise of “protection.”

      1. I think we are closer in opinion than it seems. I am all for my daughter wearing what she wants to wear, but I have a line that she cannot cross. As I said, some of my own family has “joked” about how liberal we let her dress.

        And I do agree, it’s not just the less clothed who are preyed upon. See the numerous websites of abuse in the church. But until she is legal age, I am responsible for her safety. We talk to her often about safety. But the flip side of that is the blaming of the victim for “tempting the aggressor.” Nothing angers me more than when victims are blamed. See the Bob Jones University GRACE report. See Wartburg watch, see Jeriwho.net, etc. it goes on and on under the radar in churches.
        I never judge people if their kids aren’t as covered as mine at the beach, it’s their choice. But I don’t think I will let my daughter wear a two piece until she is old enough to make that decision for herself. 45. Lol, just kidding.

        1. Oh, and we definitely WONT make her swim dressed like the poor girls had to dress at the fundy church camp pool. One wonders how they weren’t water-logged and pulled under. Again, my protective side coming through. 🙂

      2. One last thought: If we shouldn’t judge people who let their children dress less modestly, then why are we judging those who have their children dress more modestly?

        1. I don’t think it is quite *that*, although I can see a fundy putting the question that way.

          I think that I would challenge the idea that fundies have the right to make the definitions or set the standards for “modesty.” Modesty is always within a cultural context, and fundies do not actually get to define cultural norms. They are allowed to pretend they do. We are allowed to ignore them if we like.

          I judge fundamentalists because they think their “standards” somehow produce “righteousness.” I also judge them for blaming the victim instead of the victimizers. I judge them because they not only want to dress themselves and their children a certain way, but because they want to make the rules for how other people dress and behave.

          I am not trying to tell them what to do. They are, in fact, trying to take away the power of decision making from everyone else. Their excess of zeal shows them to be in the same categories as the clerics of fundamentalist Islam who issue their fatwas, their edicts, their commands and expect to be obeyed.

          So you see, you asked the wrong question. You actually asked the question fundies want you to ask because it is a matter of misdirection. It is the logical sleight-of-hand sending people off on a tangent and leaving unanswered the real issues. We keep falling for such tricks — which is why we keep getting drawn back into their thinking.

        2. However, the idea of parents protecting their children from overexposure to the sun is compelling to me now in my late 50s. As a child of Alabama, constantly bareback in the southern summer sun, I now watch any spot on my skin for signs of skin cancer. Not a religious thing at all.

        3. Rtg, you make a good point, and I get it. It’s not modesty that is the problem, it is that they say they are the authority on what is modest and what is immodest.

        4. Bald Jones, My wife has always slathered our kids with spf50 or whatever is the strongest stuff out there. I wasn’t going to say it here but that is another reason to consider covering up that is very valid.

          I worked for almost 18 years out in the elements. In the summer (even in Ohio) my face arms and neck would get dark tan. But I started noticing the older men’s necks looked like an old dry piece of leather. That’s when I started wearing sunblock and a neck protector that made me look like a guy from the Middle East.
          Now I work inside and all my old coworkers comment on how white I am. I always notice how quickly they are aging. That sun is dangerous in high doses.

        5. I judge people who make their girls and women dress in a way that makes them stand out whenever they go out in public but let their boys and men dress in clothes that more or less blend in. It is no fun looking like a freak all the time. Also, at what stage do we give women autonomy over their own bodies? According to many if not most Fundies, the answer is never. That is so dangerous. Little girls should be raised in such a way that they know they own their bodies. Girls who are treated as objects, either to cover up, or dress up, are at danger of thinking other people can own them. The resentment this causes is so damaging. It is about so much more than clothes.

        6. Very well said.

          We need to remember that the “issues” aren’t really the point. The Fundy objective is Control.

          Clothing and Modesty are means to an end, unimportant in themselves and only useful as a hook to control people with.

          Abortion and birth control are also hooks for control. Limiting education is a hook. Sending jobs overseas is a hook for control. Making war a perpetual thing is a part of controlling others. Look at virtually any conservative position. Strip away the religious veneer of piety or what have you, and all you are left with is the decision to limit the rights of the individual so that Control is in the hands of a Few. They want one thing, and one thing only. Control. Ownership of People. Slavery. All in God’s Name and their Bank Account.

          Mind you, giving control back to the individual is messy. Freedom is unpredictable. Outcomes are never perfect. But removing control from the hands of the oppressors is right.

        8. I agree MiriamD! I am actually glad that my daughter wasn’t born until I was an older father. My two older boys went through my fundy parenting mistakes and I am glad that my girl was spared the drama. I am still very protective of her, but hopefully don’t come across as possessive.

          I realized how important this is when I verbalized to my wife that she was free to do whatever she wanted to in life. She could pursue her own goals. She broke down in tears and said how important it was for her to hear that. It wasn’t that I was giving her permission, it was that she saw that she did not need to seek my permission.

    2. My girls wore suits that look a little like scuba wear because I didn’t want them to get burned. The issue is that Fundies are forcing girls to cover up because modest. You know the story of my darling girls. They were molested. I dressed them modestly always in public and in front of the man who molested them, they were never less than covered. Pedophilia is not about the victim, it is about the sick mind of the criminal. All the temptation these people need is for a child to exist. Please do not fall into the trap of thinking that modesty will protect your daughter. Don’t trust anyone. That is the only way she will be safe. I wish it were not so, I trusted my sister.

      1. True. No matter how modestly a woman or girl dresses there will always be some creepola who uses immodesty as an excuse for heinous, terrible acts.

        For example the FLDS. At one point FLDS women dressed more or less like fundies. When the current “great leader” took over was when they switched over to the big hair and pastel prairie dress look.

        Or even dress standards for women under the Islamic State. Not content to just have them wearing a hijab, they move on to insisting that women wear niqabs. Then only in a certain color. And with shoes that don’t have high heels. And gloves to cover up those lust inducing hands. And a double veil so you can’t see their eyes. All while not leaving the house without a male relative. During the day only, of course.

        Anything else would be an excuse for men behaving out of control, right?

        Granted, this is extreme, but it is the same mentality behind the fundy (fundy of all stripes) excuse of men not being able to control themselves around “immodestly” dressed women. Seriously this is a really, really lame excuse and an even lamer reason to dress modestly.

        And MiriamD–I am so truly sorry about what happened to your dear ones. NO ONE deserves to have that happen to them. Ever. And there is NO excuse for that type of behavior. Ever. I hope that you and your family can find healing.

      2. MiriamD, I am so sorry about what happened to your daughters. I didn’t mean to bring up something that is a painful memory. Please accept my apology.

        Your perspective helps me weed out the wrong notions that have been pumped into me in my fundy years. My perspective with my children has generally been like you say, “don’t trust anyone.” I believe that will be much more effective in protecting them than how modestly they dress.

        1. Thank you, Eric. What happened, happened and nothing can change that. Yes the memories are painful and always will be but the only thing I can do now is to warn other parents of the hidden dangers in this kind of thinking. I wish you and your family the best of experiences with your daughter, much joy and freedom.

  31. Isn’t one of the Fundy definitions of modesty that the garment should be loose? No matter what you wear, the minute you get wet, it’s no longer loose. So doesn’t going swimming defeat the purpose of this ensemble? Then again, in Fundy land, mixed swimming is forbidden so I guess it doesn’t matter.

  32. But you can swim if the swimming pool is at the Pastor’s house, because proximity to the Holiness of his house nixes all wrong.

  33. I noticed know these people preach the first half of Proverbs 31 the part about the beer

  34. I’m wondering what Darrell has against swimwear made of watercolor pastel flowers…

  35. Ok looking at the website…..the fabric and the patterns seem to be priced reasonably….but ready made swimsuits are $70! I understand that these are made by hand and I am sure Zsuzsanna’s time is very limited since she is homeschooling and caring for 7 (?) children…..but $70 for a child’s swimsuit?! Wow. It would be cheaper to dress the child in a regular swimsuit with shorts and a tee shirt over it.

    1. You can’t compete with mass production pricewise. The best you can do is make it a moral issue to encourage folk to do business with you instead of with the stores.

      This is the equivalent of bringing in the moneychangers into the temple and making the Lord’s House a house of commerce (or a den of thieves — take your pick!).

      I have nothing against people trying to make a living. I believe people should be able to make a good living. What I object to is the attempt to make a style a moral imperative and (conveniently) having the answer for the low-low price of ….

      2. I completely agree with you. I just am wondering who can afford to buy swimsuits for children at the price of $70–especially the people who would make this fashion a moral imperative–fundies who are against any form of birth control or the quiverful movement–$70 a suit every year is quite pricey for more than one child.

        1. Awww, come on!

          After all, the Pastor got you to double your commitment to the building fund. You are working overtime to help pay for that! Of course, you were able to get a few hours free to do Wednesday night AWANA and Saturday visitation!

          So what’s a few more bucks to buy Godly Swimwear! Besides, to afford that place at the beach you had to coordinate with 2 other families to share the place the same week. You wouldn’t want your children to run around half nekked in front of their teenage boys, now would you? And with the money you save by having the little women cook for everyone (it is VACATION! after all! For the men, at least!) you can afford it. Besides, you can claim the money as a ministry contribution on your taxes.

          Yes, Steve Anderson will shortly have his new, Godly Tax Service up and running! Every expense a deduction!

        2. sorry, I guess I was just raised poor….there is no way my folks would have been able to pay $70 for a bathing suit for me or my sister.

          but I get your point. I suppose the guilt of not wearing the proper swim suits would be awful. But then again, more than likely a good fundy wife would probably make the swim suit. I am not sure she would be a good wife if she didn’t

        3. LeAnn, I was raised poor, too. Without a job, I am heading there quickly. And I hope my teasing doesn’t or hasn’t created any hard feelings. But Fundies do that sort of thing, and the poor really suffer for it. You have to do this and you have to do that. You are a bad parent if you don’t give your children this or that. Guilt trips galore and a lot of manipulation.

          I am feeling the pinch in some areas myself. I have left fundamentalism, only to find I can’t get very far away since my wife and daughter won’t go.

  37. All I can think about (as an EMS provider) is the high risk of drowning while wearing this swimming outfit. Plus the total silliness of it all. If you think souls will be harmed by dressing in an appropriate manner for an activity, then why are you seeking a way still join in with that activity? Doesn’t the very nature of swimming tell you how evil it is? Dressing in less, even if less for you is still a lot, swimming in mixed company, GETTING WET! Good heavens when will the downward spiral end? The Fundies are flirting with the edge, a hundred years ago women wouldn’t have been able to bare so much leg. Lordy, she needs to add matching stockings to that outfit to prevent any unseemly display of ankle.

    1. At night or indoors, yes.
      In sunlight, not necessarily.
      (See: skin cancer)

      1. Probably not a good idea to skinny dip for long periods outside during the day in summer if you live somewhere like Arizona. There are some places you don’t want to get sunburnt…

  40. …..and some Jewish modest ladies swimwear. My point is all religions address modesty. I wonder if the more “contemporary” of the respective religions make fun of their more modest counterparts.
    http://aquamodesta.com/

    I remember in the 1970’s when Nixon first went to China. They sent their acrobats to the US. Both men and women athletes wore concealing loose fitting coveralls, which some of my friends snickered at. Funny, none of our gymnasts could come close to the stuff they were doing. In this case, the Chinese practiced modesty, but not for religious reasons, unless you would consider communism a religion. In that same time period I was in college and knew some Thai students who were appalled to learn we had mixed swimming at the pool. Seem at that time in Thailand the beaches were gender segregated, and they were Buddhist.

    2. Fundamentalism in any religious flavor has certain distinct traits. One of the most obvious of those traits is to deny women’s rights, focus on women’s “modesty,” blame women’s attire or behavior if they get attacked by men, deny women the right to vote or other rights of conscience. They strive to limit women’s economic, political, social, religious, and health rights on the basis of religion. Nearly all claim women should be subservient.

      American Christian fundamentalism, Jewish orthodoxy (and especially the ultra-orthodox), and Islam (which has no liberal wing at all and precious little moderates) all share those same attitudes toward women.

      Those attitudes are not right. I don’t care how culturally ingrained those attitudes are, they are not right. “Religion” has historically been used to keep people in “their place” and deny them freedom of self. Listen to a typical fundy sermon and it is all about not thinking for yourself, but “following” this teaching or belief or idea as if the Preacher were delivering the words of God Himself. And God is a Man, you know!

      1. ……which is one of several reasons I left fundyland. Now that longer skirts are in style again I still have a little trouble putting one on. If it is “boho” or “hippie” full length, no problem. Forget the denim fortress. I mostly just wear “britches”. Just to reiterate how arbitrary fundie rules are, please have patience to read this….

        When I was in jr high I had learned to sew and was so excited about it. It was the late 60’s and the miniskirt ruled which of course meant all us fundie girls wore dowdy skirts at mid knee. So, when the maxi skirt/dress was introduced I was thrilled, remember I’m 14. So I made myself a maxi dress and wore it to church. Mom thought it was fine, Dad was silent on the issue. Wouldn’t you know that one of the particularly stuffy deacons informed my mother that a maxi skirt (which covered my entire legs already) was “extreme” and the Bible says “let your moderation be known unto man”, and since it was “in style” and therefore “heathen”, it was not acceptable. I’m thinkin’ the maxi skirt deprived the fundie men of what little leg they could see under a “moderate” skirt length. I kept wearing it anyway. So there you have it. And that scripture isn’t even saying anything about clothing. So, fundyland is the land of lose-lose. Yuck.

        2. Only until you remember that fundamentalism is a reactionary form of thinking. In fundamentalism one can never be “for” something. One is always “against.”

          So if a style changes, you have to be “against” it. Your position is controlled by the world. It is like being in perpetual rebellion, throwing an unending temper tantrum, and forever committed to being a pest. “Good” is seen as the defeat of “evil,” not a process in and of itself. “Light” only exists if it contrasts with the “dark.”

          But that is how they think. That is how I thought at one time.

        3. Apparently that is a typically Fundy reaction to the maxi length skirt though! I have told this story before, a friend wore a not terribly mini skirt to a Brethren meeting. An elderly man told her that she was immodest, (why did he not get his wife to do so, I wonder). So she wore a maxi skirt to the evening meeting. The same man told her it was fashionable and worldly. Next time she went she wore the maxi skirt, walked over to him and dumped a handful of safety pins into his hands and said, ”Put it where you want it.”

  41. Well, that particular deacon was pretty weird. He and his wife could be best described as “solemn”, she was the classic doormat. I don’t think I remember seeing either of them or their two kids laugh, maybe barely crack a smile when the preacher made a joke. It was the 1960’s and they all dressed like they walked out of an early 1950’s movie. (The rest of the congregation’s clothing was fairly contemporary, with careful attention to ladies’ skirt length, of course. ) They had money, he had some kind of high-powered gov’t job so, needless to say, they were valued members.

Comments are closed.