I’d never heard the word “birkini” before this summer. In case you haven’t heard it before today, here’s a brief wrap on it — not that the clothing item is in any way a brief in the bikini sense. Indeed, the use of the “kini” part of the word should have all lovers of skimpy women’s beach wear concerned . . . but that’s another (grammar) story:
“The burkini — a swimsuit that covers the whole body except for the face, hands and feet — has this summer been banned in Cannes, Villeneuve-Loubet and in Sisco on the island of Corsica,” CNN reports.
Opposition to the body covering is growing in other places, too, including Quebec, where opposition party members in the provincial legislature are calling for it to be banned on public beaches as well. It seems its religious connotation (read: Islam) worries some some people, who see all things Muslim as directly connected to ISIS and fear the beach attire could “create . . . troubles of public order.”
Yes, blame it on the poisonous snakes in ISIS, who are making all Muslims look bad to many people. And blame it on the unreasonable fears and hysteria of officials.
But I’m wondering how many naturists are applauding, if only quietly, the calls to ban full (old-fashioned) bathing suits like the burkini from public beaches — not because they are worn by some Muslim women, but simply because such bathing attire seems so unnatural.
To the anti-textile crowd who believe less, as in nothing, is best, it doesn’t get much worse than the burkini.
Of course, there is a serious and wide difference of opinion between those who wear burkinis and those who go au naturel at the beach. The former feel the need to cover their bodies for whatever reason, the latter believe covering one’s body with any sort of textiles at the beach is nothing short of a sin against the natural order.
So, while naturists might partially support a burkini ban for their own anti-textile reasons, we have to wonder about the hypocrisy of public officials banning burkinis while all the while insisting that people wear some sort of bathing wear to cover their so-called “private parts.”
Indeed, if they are going to force people to cover up parts of their bodies at the beach, what difference does it make if they wear a burkini or a bikini or anything in between?
You are right on the money with this post. What it really boils down to is this: The clothing one wears at the beach should be that with which one is comfortable. Someone else’s clothing comfort level is irrelevant. There is room for all forms of dress!
The Achilles Heel of Western ‘Christian’ society. S*X. Or, “The S*X Lives of Monkeys”. I realize this is rather a facile response to a ‘complex’ human activity that of course is to make more monkeys %@
Clothed people always look more ridiculous than naked people especially when it is hot ;
Want to drive ISIS and Christian Taliban nuts? Make clothing optional everywhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol. Let’s do it!
That would show how fundamentalists are those complaining on Muslim fundamentalism. Best solution: clothing optional(ism) officially supported, encouraged and enforced everywhere and that everybody make their own choice.
I recently saw a photo of a group of nuns on a beach, wearing their traditional dress and head covering, some of them walking barefoot in the water, some frolicking (as much as you can expect nuns to do.) A playful scene. And, the caption read something like, “Should these religious coverings be banned on beaches by governments?”
Why forbidding non-clergy people to walk and bath covered on the beach whilst nuns and priests would be allowed to run around in their habits?
I recently saw a photo of a group of nuns on a beach wearing their traditional dress and head covering. Some were walking barefoot in the water, some were frolicking in the sand, (as much as you can expect nuns to frolick.) And, the caption read something like, “Should these religious coverings be banned on beaches by governments?”
Nice photo! (I have an affinity for the sisterhood, so can well imagine how it was for them on the beach.)
Why must it be either/or? Why “ban” anything? Why make such rules? Wouldn’t it be much better to say, “hey, you do your thing and I’ll do mine. As long as we’re not hurting anyone then that’s cool. If you want to be naked then be naked. If you want to wear a burkini then that’s cool too.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely! The title of this post was strictly tongue in cheek. I’ve always believed in “live and let live.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a person not having anything against naturists, also having enjoyed to lie naked in the sun and swim in my bare skin , I am not at all applauding the calls to ban full (old-fashioned) bathing suits like the burkini from public beaches. The opposite it disgusted me to see how several women were humiliated by men.
Those police officers who should try to bring order were treating people unequally, leaving stars of th show business walk and bath more clothed than Muslim women in burkini, a swimwear which has nothing to do with a burka.
Those insulting men also left the nuns bathing on the same beach, whilst they were more covered than those Muslim women. Would that not mean there is something alse going on and that we should speak of discrimination and racism?
As a nudist, being myself limited in where I can go naked, even less pl-aces than in the 1960-1970ies, though I am now becoming to old for running like that (and I must confess not any more so representable after 7 decades) I totally protest against such limitations in the freedom of people their own choice how to clothe themselves.
Some may think, or even you may think “such bathing attire seems so unnatural” but than they and you are totally mistaken or not aware that at certain moments we should not bring our bare skin under the sunlight. Even as nudists we avoided the midday sun-rays directly coming onto the skin and protected or children and ourselves when going into the water, by covering our body … using logic thinking and awareness to protect our body not catching skin cancer.
Everybody should be allowed to cloth him or her like they want. Clothing can not hurt somebody else. It may be a matter of choice and ethics, like I do not like those thorn jeans with all those holes in it, like I find the girls with the skirts so short that we can see their vagina more damaging than the naked person or the wholly covered up person. Is some want to run on the streets like whores, that is their choice, but they too should allow others to walk in their surrounding like they think decent dress is, be it covering more or less.
Good points. I agree with you.
Kim & I did a BNTT cruise in Europe last year and visited a number of beaches which were either clothing optional or nudist, and by nudist I mean nudity was required and you could be fined if you weren’t. The difference between the two were absolutely staggering. I’d love a few nude beaches here in Australia.
That said while I’d have no issue if all beaches were nudist I don’t think I’d support such a decision. I’d be happy with it being legal on all beaches and mandatory on a few. Though I suspect even that approach would still alienate many. Sadly I don’t think I’ll have to worry about that anytime soon.
Anyway the section of this article that got me thinking was this one:
“So, while naturists might partially support a burkini ban for their own anti-textile reasons, we have to wonder about the hypocrisy of public officials banning burkinis while all the while insisting that people wear some sort of bathing wear to cover their so-called “private parts.”
I don’t see this a hypocritical on the part of the public officials more a continuation of the same type of rules that ban nudity. They implement laws and regulations against things which may upset the status quo, or if you like be against current community standards as they perceive them.
Though I do wonder if naturists were to support a ban on the burkini, effectively telling one group what they must wear, while decrying the injustice they suffer being forced to dress in a way that goes against their preferences would that not be a better example of hypocrisy?
Of course the irony here is that 100 years ago wearing less than something equivalent to a burkini would have gotten you fined or arrested on those very same beaches.
You’ve made many good points, Peter. As I’ve said before, I do believe in live and let live. Personally, I couldn’t care less if someone wants to wear a burkini at the beach. I just wish officials in Canada and other places would allow us to have more official clothing-optional beaches. In Quebec, where I live, there is only one semi-official — though not fully official — clothing-optional beach, which is absurd in a province with so many lakes and rivers. Of course, many naturists in Canadago au naturel in our provincial and federal parks, anyway — but technically, we are breaking the law. It’s absurd. So, people being persecuted for wearing burkinis can now relate to the persecution experienced by naturists . . .
NPR reported tonight that there is quite a buzz in the fashion industry over the burkini with such design labels as Dolce & Gabanna, H&M, and others introducing burkini lines. So, Cannes is banning some famous names in fashion on their beaches!