I suppose when bikinis are banned women will just have to start going naked or like guys.

... when bikinis are outlawed, only outlaws will wear bikinis...

I can't watch the video (curse my dial-up connection!), but as I recall from swimsuit shopping last summer, there aren't many one piece suits to be found. And the ones I did find were usually less modest than the bikini I ended up buying: one pieces can still show plenty of cleavage and have a very high cut for your legs... The only extra skin bikinis necessarily show is on your stomach and back.

feminismforever-haha! I will be one of those outlaws. I love my bikini!

This is silly!

To the guy who said a bikini is the same as a bra and underwear...I could say the same about my husbands swimsuit and boxers. Not much of a difference.

Haha, yes because *outside* of Utah, the world is just one big cess pool of imodesty. Although Utah has one of the highest teen pregnancy and STD rates in the country in addition to droves of unprosecuted rapists in the FLDS community. Ahh, how I LOVE my state.

Like englishteacher said, there aren't many one pieces out there. There are monkinis, which are like bikinis only connected at the stomach, but I'm not sure if they'd count or not because I'm not sure what particular body parts the city council is protecting the children from.

As someone who bought a bikini top this year that I can't actually swim in (I may have accidentally flashed some children) I find this annoying. It's hard to find a swimsuit that's not going to expose a little something something. That's why I prefer clothing optional hot springs. Anything goes!

I live a bit north of SLC in Logan, and we've had a hilarious controversy lately over someone wanting to have a lady thrown out of the pool because she had a tat of a naked woman on her back. They thought the breasts were going to corrupt the children or something.

Utah is a funny place to live...

How many guys do we usually see wearing speedos in the US? Especially at a public pool, meaning this "ban" doesn't affect guys at all, it affects women, who I'm pretty sure don't wear bikinis with the sole purpose to show off their body and tempts other but because they might find them comfortable, might want to tan, etc.
Even if it is their religion, what happened to separation of church and state? Apparently our country doesn't follow that anymore ::cough, Busch, cough::

i hate bikini's. I find them so ick and gross.

Reminds me of living in the Middle East and the sort of oppression that goes on there. No tank tops, no shorts three inches above the knee. What's next?

Jesus fucking Christ! Did that wine I drank last night send me on a time warp to the 50's? How do I still have internet?

ilikebubbles makes a good point. Speedo's are few and far between, and if such a ban was proposed, guys would have no problem finding "acceptable" swimsuits. Personally, I wish there were more options for one pieces. I am rather well endowed in the boobie area (34-36 E or F, depending on the brand), and going to water parks or jumping off diving boards, or swimming in the ocean when there are big waves tends to be a bit difficult with the bathing suits that are available to me. I finally managed to find a suit that will consistently hold me in, but I would like some other options.

Another act of stupidity due to bad use of language.

Bikini... you know, break the word down "bi" as in two. A two piece. Tankinis are two piece but can cover just as much as a one-piece and I've seen one-pieces cover less than many bikinis.

I am generally in the "don't tell me what I can/cannot wear" category, but at pools safety is a concern (from my view as a former lifegaurd). As it was written "no bikinis or speedos" I'd want to smack the city council... but if it has banned say, string bikinis (straps or ties the same thickness as a spaghetti strap tank top) or tie-side bikinis (where the bikini bottom ties at each side of the hips) or any bathing suit (bikini, tankini, one-piece and anything else) that had small strings that hang off of it more than 2-3", I'd be for it. I've seen these 'strings' get caught in the sides of jets, in filters, and snagged/caught on the edges of everything else imaginable to have near a pool. I've had to cut people out of the filters and jets and several times had to rescue people who where drowning because of panic when their string bikini got caught in something (if they didn't panic and take it off ending up mostly naked in the pool).

Skirts and whole fabric while they can get caught, I've seen very few of these compared to countless times with the strings. And I still don't see anything wrong with speedos. They are safer than trunks (which often have the drawstrings which have the same problem as the strings on women's suits).

Just my two cents. Don't agree with them, but better thought out and better written they could have banned some of the more dangerous (and normally most revealing) of styles without resorting to religion as an excuse!

Personally, I wish there were more options for one pieces. I am rather well endowed in the boobie area (34-36 E or F, depending on the brand),

MLEmac, I know your pain. In American sizes (I live in California but I buy british bras, better made and they actually fit!) I am a 34J (a brit 34h). I got a lovely tankini through www.Bravissimo.com . They speacilize in clothes, lingerie and bathing suits for us with big boobs. If you want to order a british bra, the band measurement should be you underbust measurement though if you measure an odd number, go up to the next even number. The cup size is then the inch difference in measurement between the band measurement and the measurement across your nipples in your best fitting bra. Yes, the band will be snug! But it also won't move and it will last a lot longer. The bra or bathing suit (mine has a built in underwire bra in my band and cup size) should sit flat against your chest wall in the front center, if it doesnt, the cups are too small. If the band rides up the back, the band is too big.

And here I go again on another bra thing. I should do a community post about bra practices for comfort and sanity lol.

Just a minor linguistic point: Although the company is known for its small, tight-fitting men's competitive swimwear, Speedo is a brand name for a wide range of athletic garments. In fact, their racing suits cover quite a bit more than even a standard one-piece suit.

http://www.speedo.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet//Category3_10151_10202_33340_33310_-1

I wonder if city council was considering a ban on "Speedos" as written, or if that's just the word the news report used. It's important, because a badly written law could have caused confusion or a lawsuit when someone wearing an off-brand tight small men's swimsuit was kicked out, but someone wearing a Speedo one-piece was allowed to stay in the pool.

Also, I wonder, does the ban specify genders for the types swimsuits one is allowed to wear? I'm thinking of the woman who wears a perfectly compliant and modest pair of "men's" board shorts without a top.

Well, I can't watch the video because, I'm at work, so I can't see what town this is happening in.

I'm from southern Utah County and I've never heard about this becoming an issue, which is really surprising judging by the Mormon mono-culture of the place.

Funny Utah bikini story though:

My friend told me about sitting in the testimony meeting of her ward one Sunday (ward is like the Mormon equivalent of a congregation), and one 40ish year old woman, while bearing her testimony
of the truth of the LDS doctrine, mentioned that she knew some in the ward judged her for wearing a bikini to the public pool, but that she knew God would want her to show off her fantastic body at that age, and that the other ladies of the congregation would too if they only had her figure.

Oh, it's a bizarre place to live at times...*sigh*

Aaaahhhhh! Women's bodies! Must protect the children! Must protect men from temptation! Run! Flee!

On a side note, if they're really that concerned about modesty, someone should have words with that large fellow with the hairy back. Yeesh.

Borat wears a one-piece.

NSFD (not safe for digestion)

http://www.gadgetshop.com/media/gadgetshop/products/ProductGalleryImage1/322586.jpg

NSFW (tushie)

http://justjared.buzznet.com/pictures/2006/05/borat_neon_green_swimsuit/borat-neon-green-swimsuit19.jpg

not surprising considering the geriatric misoginists who run the show in most of my fair state.

there was a recent uproar about a local paper that published a lesbian wedding announcement.

sorry, misogynists. hopefully i got to this one before the spelling police.

What was up with the woman in the bikini & see-through white tank top defending the bikini ban?

And do they really define "bikini" as a two piece and not just a particular style of two piece? Cuz ya know, those of use who are different sizes on the top and bottom really can't wear one-pieces.

I moved to Utah a little more than a year ago. I moved here for work and I am not LDS. I have always lived in conservative areas so I wasn't really worried about it but WOW it is different here. I was at a church event (United Methodist) and they were talking about the LDS church and the pastor said something that made my jaw drop. She said "We are living in a theocracy." I was shocked because it was true. The LDS rules this state with an iron fist. My boss doesn't understand why I really want to leave, even though I love my job. DON'T MOVE TO UTAH!

This is not exactly a feminist issue is it? I mean they wanted to ban skimpy bathing suits on BOTH men and women. You know what you will never hear on this story, men demanding their rights to wear speedos. I always find that interesting. I say you go girls who long to wear bikinis, however I am whatever it is that longs to see men longing to wear speedos. :-)

All I can think of after watching this is my experience of running around a huge mall in Quatar looking for a one piece bathing suit. (This was, at the time, the second largest mall in the world.)

The pool I used regularly did not allow women to show their midrifs, and swimming in shorts and tee shirt is not fun. I think this policy was aimed at keeping deployed millitary persons from thinking about sex. I remain somewhat dubious as to effectiveness of said policy.

I found a slew of bikinis, which seemed sort of odd when all the local women wore head to toe back volumius robe-like things. I did find one, which remains my only one piece bathing suit.

I object to the idea that women's bodies are inherently immoral and especially to the idea that they are damaging to children. I mean, remember where children come from?

I think more casual, non-sexual nudity would be good for our society. We need to learn that real people -- people we like and respect -- don't look like the airbrushed folks in magazines. In fact, studies show that all-female nudity (even a single occasion of it) improves girls' self-esteem.

Vanessa: Kanab is actually way out in the middle of the nowhere in southern Utah, and is actually geographically closer to Vegas than to SLC. Culturally, it's nothing like either city.

He keeps talking about the majority to justify imposing his beliefs about modesty on others.

I thought one of the points of democracy was to avoid squashing the rights of the minority?

The majority does not need protecting.

I'm fine with the thong bikini ban. But come on, since when is showing your navel distrubing children. Hell, I haven't worn a one-piece swimsuit since I was 8.

I kind of feel like they threw the speedoes thing in there just so if a woman confronted them about this rule being sexist they could say, "No, see??? We won't let men wear small bathing suits either!!!"

And as for the one girl in the video who was supporting an idea... I don't really see how a clingy, wet, white tank top over a bikini is really any more modest than a bikini itself.

Lately the only one pieces I've been seeing in stores are the "monokinis" - which are basically a bikini with a strip of fabric running up the center front. Wonder how they feel about those... haha.

I love how our 'secular' society keeps on serving up these bits of religious ideology -Oy!

I grew up Mormon (left five years ago) and was taught that there was only one standard of moral dress; we had it just right - not too overdone (like the Amish) and not too hedonistic (like everyone else). While I respect the right of individuals to live according to their own measure of morality, I object to those that declare their standard the one and ONLY correct/godly way of living... thereby 'justifiably' holding everyone else to the same measure.

Is morality so black and white? Is my personhood tarnished because I like to wear a tank top, shorts that show too much thigh or, heaven forbid, a bikini? Not in the universe I live in… and not to the God in whom I want to believe!

I love how our 'secular' society keeps on serving up these bits of religious ideology -Oy!

I grew up Mormon (left five years ago) and was taught that there was only one standard of moral dress; we had it just right - not too overdone (like the Amish) and not too hedonistic (like everyone else). While I respect the right of individuals to live according to their own measure of morality, I object to those that declare their standard the one and ONLY correct/godly way of living... thereby 'justifiably' holding everyone else to the same measure.

Is morality so black and white? Is my personhood tarnished because I like to wear a tank top, shorts that show too much thigh or, heaven forbid, a bikini? Not in the universe I live in… and not to the God in whom I want to believe!

It is heartening to see so many posters seeing the folly in this rule. However, I can't noting that, in a different context, there would be just as many posters describing the bikini as a symbol of our exploitative patriarchal society. One can get whiplash trying to follow the issue and trying live in a way that is free but not sexist.

I don't think anyone is trying to laud the bikini as a symbol of liberation. And you could make a fine argument that to the extent that it is ingrained in women that they must wear a bikini and look a certain way in one, the bikini can be a tool of sexism. But that's not really the point here, and I don't think it's really too hard to follow the reasoning. Don't tell people how they have to look, and don't tell them how they can't look. Let us keep as much positive and negative freedom as possible.

Oh, bloody hell! Still no thongs! It's oppression, pure and simple! Rise up, my feminist sisters, and throw off this misogynist yoke by flaunting your butt cheeks in thongs!

Or, y'know, cover yer ass to keep pervy men from staring at it. It's your call.

BalletBoy and brad make good points, y'see - most other times, the bikini is a tool of sexism and a patriarchal anachronism that reinforces negative body image on young women and leads to eating disorders.

Personally, I like it when women wear them there old fashioned "Granny Clampett" bathing suits.

Vanessa,

After I learned that this bill suppressed the rights of both women AND MEN, I was surprised to see your post expressing outrage at the "ban on bikinis" rather than your expressing outrage on a ban against bikini AND SPEEDOS. Not that your post was unique in that regard; many of the other expressions of concern I've noticed also ignore the ill-effect the bill aimed at men. It gives a bad impression--a somewhat sexist, anti male impression. I was surprised and disappointed.

@Sky: If you're getting an anti-male impression, it's because you're looking for one. You're on a feminist site, so the focus is going to be on how certain things affect women, and if you watch the video its fairly clear that the AND SPEEDOS was an afterthought, the ban was all about bikinis in the first place. Speedos and bikinis are fairly different things, being that bikinis are the standard for female bathing suits and come in varying degrees of modesty (heck, my bikini is shorts and a halter top!), whereas speedos tend to be limited to serious swimmers and at their most modest are skintight shorts. The ban disproportionately affects women, so our outrage is proportionately for the bikinis part.

Furthermore, if you're looking to see how we feel about men, I suggest you surf around and find the community posts supporting men. Because, y'know, even if we're not yelling about banning AND SPEEDOS, we actually don't want those banned either. Maybe you could have made a productive comment and pointed out that a speedo ban is stupid, too, because speedos are what the professionals wear and it's stupid to equate a desire to reduce water resistance with immodesty.

nightingale,

when i read Vanessa's post, I felt a slight impression of anti male sexism. you shouldn't react by disparaging me and implying that my comment was not productive. my expressing an impression of sexism is certainly a legitimate expression on my part and is within the realm of productive commentary. obviously something I wrote was true enough to anger you to cause you to disparage my comment as unproductive. that is disturbing.

Sky, I don't know where you got an anti-male message from. Vanessa didn't say anything that couldn't also be applied to male swimwear. I really think this is just a case of you over analyzing what was actually said.

It's interesting that they are banning certain items, when even on a religious ground, they aren't being consistent. A bikini covers all the female naughty bits that a one piece covers, and the only extra skin is in the belly area. Guys can show their tummies, so that clearly doesn't make sense. If the problem is that while bikinis and speedos actually cover the genitalia, they still cling in a revealing way, well, one piece women's suits still do that too. I've also seen one piece suits with a thong, and have a hard time finding any suit, one or two piece, that my breasts can't manage to fall out of at some point.

What are the lawmakers proposing to make it easier for people to comply with the new laws? Because men have no problem finding trunk shorts, and a harder time finding a speedo, I imagine, the opposite is usually true for women. Will they require stores to only sell one piece suits? Or will women continue to find very few one piece suits, that often do not fit well? Will women that continue to purchase two piece suits, by choice or by lack of alternatives, be forced to wear a cover up while in public? Even with the inclusion of the speedo to make it gender inclusive, this new law is still extremely sexist in that it unfairly creates an extra burden on women.

@sky: "obviously something I wrote was true enough to anger you to cause you to disparage my comment as unproductive. "

Wait, you truly equate an angry reaction with a tacit commentary on the merits of your argument?

That reminds me of the kids back in junior high who would make jokes like "Your momma's so fat, she..." and when the listener would become incensed, the jokesters would gleefully carol, "see? you're getting all mad, 'cause you know it's true!"

By the way, I didn't think nightingale's response was all that angry.

Also, can you respond to this part of nightingale's post? : "The ban disproportionately affects women, so our outrage is proportionately for the bikinis part."

Thanks.

"being that bikinis are the standard for female bathing suits and come in varying degrees of modesty"

Even if they come in varying degrees of modesty, this in of itself is kind of sexist. WHY do men get to wear like long shorts and t-shirts, and women have to scrape around to find a decent 1 piece?

I mean what is that? Isn't that kind of sexist. Like watching the beach volley ball teams at the Olympics. The girls are in 2 pieces and the guys' uniform are long shorts and a t-shirt. Why can't the female players wear shorts and a t-shirt?

Anyway, I think the law should go more clothes on women and less on men. However, if you want to wear your bikinis I say go for it.

http://www.swimsuitsforall.com/products.asp?product_id=102479&dept_id=100066&parent_id=100003

If you look at the back view of this one-piece, I don't know how this can be seen as that much more modest than a tankini with boyshorts. Just sayin'.

The AND SPEEDOS part is a joke. It has to be. I don't think they have a big problem with men like the elder they kept interviewing whipping out a blue speedo for the family pool. However, for those of us who need a different size bottom than top (you know, because not all women have perfectly-proportioned measurements), finding a one-piece swimsuit is more trouble than it's worth.

Well, unfortunately for LDS governance is not necessarily supposed to be a "majority rules" which is what really got me about the mayor's 'justification' for the ordinance. In fact, it is part of the duty of those in power to protect rights of their constituencies who are minorities. Otherwise why wouldn't we just all gang up and have a brawl to determine which laws to pass and which to not pass.

Moreover, I hate when people, like the woman at the end, try to justify social prejudice in the name of the children. Children don't care if that funny lady or man is showing a bit of skin. They don't even notice for the most part and if they doo they just find it funny, not sexual. It's maybe just the 13 + year old boys and girls who are going to start to care and only because their exploring their sexuality which is totally normal.

Thirdly, this ordinance is written on the pretext that naked skin = sexual provocation and therefore the more skin the more provocation. Sexuality is more complex than this and there are multiple sexualities. I think the mainstreaming of this notion is really harmful as it creates ways of contrtolling men's and particularly women's bodies. I'm afraid people will see this news clip and engage in a debate of whether people do or do not have the right to be "skany", rather than whether or not we all have a right to dress by choice and to choose what is sexually relevent to ourselves.

Lastly, Speedo is a brand, not just the coloquialism for a man's high cut briefs. Being on co-ed swimteams for years really takes the edge out of this phenomenon for me. It's not just worn by "perverts". Check out Mike Phelps or Ian Thorpe.

could someone please explain to me what the issue is? how is this a feminist issue? as they said no bikini's and no speedo's, its not a sexist thing. also i'm in the uk, and there are many alternatives to bikini's. i think its a little extreme to compare it to the middle east, and i think there's more serious issues going on in the world.
i honestly don't understand the outrage.

I prefer to wear “speedo” (form fitting) type swimming suits over trunk style swimming suits for the following reasons:
1. for the support
2. faster drying and therefore I do not get as cold (I have very low body fat)
3. less drag of water and air while swimming
4. less chaffing or rubbing

My wife believes this style is immodest. She asked me to put on a trunk style swimming suit while I looked at her and could clearly see the outline of her breasts and nipples, and to an extent her vulva.

I feel our culture has an unfair double standard in that it is acceptable to see the outline or bulge of the woman's body (breasts and sometimes even the vulva) in a one piece or a two piece swimming suit but most people are not comfortable seeing the outline or bulge of a man's body.

Do we have an aversion to the male form? Why can a woman wear a form fitting swimming suit right next to her skin but not a man?

I asked my wife what is the difference between most women’s style swimming suits that are next to their skin and genitalia and men’s “speedo” style swim briefs? She agreed there was no difference then she told me she now intends to wear a more modest swimming suit -- one with layers.

I believe in practical modesty; I believe a form fitting ("speedo" type) swimming suit that does not needlessly outline body parts should be acceptable attire for swimming and getting in and out of the water. I encourage men and women to compare wearing a form fitting swimming suit to a trunk style swimming suit.

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my perspective and I would appreciate hearing the opinion of others.

Thank you again for your respectful discussion.

My wife and I have had a conflict. I prefer to wear “speedo” (form fitting) type swimming suits over trunk style swimming suits for the following reasons:
1. for the support
2. faster drying and therefore I do not get as cold (I have very low body fat)
3. less drag of water and air while swimming
4. less chaffing or rubbing

My wife believes this style is immodest. She asked me to put on a trunk style swimming suit while I looked at her and could clearly see the outline of her breasts and nipples, and to an extent her vulva.

I feel our culture has an unfair double standard in that it is acceptable to see the outline or bulge of the woman's body (breasts and sometimes even the vulva) in a one piece or a two piece swimming suit but most people in North America are not okay seeing the outline or bulge of a man's body.

Do we have an aversion to the male form? Why can a woman wear a form fitting swimming suit right next to her skin but not a man?

I asked my wife what is the difference between most women’s style swimming suits that are next to their skin and genitalia and men’s “speedo” style swim briefs? She agreed there was no difference then she told me she now intends to wear a more modest swimming suit -- one with layers.

I believe in practical modesty; I believe a form fitting ("speedo" type) swimming suit that does not needlessly outline body parts should be acceptable attire for swimming and getting in and out of the water. I encourage men and women to compare wearing a form fitting swimming suit to a trunk style swimming suit.

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my perspective and I would appreciate hearing your perspective and that of your readers.

Thank you again for your respectful discussion.