Swimsuits which show so much of a person's thighs and shoulders can never be described as modest, just because it shows less than a bikini does not make it modest.
If you wouldn't wear it to buy grocery's in you shouldn't be wearing it to the beach either.
If you are plagued by certain weaknesses, then it would probably be wise to avoid posts with the word “swimwear” in the title.
Thanks for your concern.
The problem with suits that have sleeves is that it limits your range of motion.
True but this doesn't need to take away from the enjoyment of swimming, modesty is far more important than swimming technique.
This is not modest? Geesh, I have many temptations too, but this is the least offensive-at least for me-that we could see here. Unless we go back to the full body 1920's suits
No it is not, because it is nothing compared to what be are normally forced to endure does not make it modest.
he has failed to make the distinction between a day at the beach and a night out.
There is no distinction to be made, clothes are either modest or not, would you argue that it is modest to go to a nudist colony in just your underwear because everyone else there is naked, of course you wouldn't because it would be absurd.
This bears repeating:
That is not modest, and is not appropriate for swimming. Rather, swimming does not "excuse" from modesty. This is why swimming in mixed company is a bad idea. If it is to be done, however, clothing will be necessary that is much more modest than that little thing is. I would also point out that "sunbathing" is an immodest moral abberation. It's fine in the privacy of one's own property, or wherever one will be unobserved, but it's not fine at any public venue, such as a pool or beach, with mixed company. Instead, one should always cover oneself when one's "out of the water," in addition to the modest suit necessary. Forgive the rhetoric, but I am very tempted to write that I cannot believe any of you ladies would happily consent to having men see you dressed like that, perhaps even perfect strangers. If you would not have them see you dressed in such a way walking down main street, then I think "the moral suspension of rules which automatically happens wherever sand meets water" is not a good justification, due to the novelty and inherent immodesty of the proposition. Is there a pressing need to take off a good portion of the clothes which preserve modesty, dignity, and decorum, to swim in mixed company? Or is it perhaps a modern "luxury?"
Is modesty completely relative to external circumstances and based soley upon societal trends?
No, God's standard of modesty is the same as it always has been, God does not change.