I posted a comment on Facebook this morning that has proven quite popular:
If a woman’s chosen form of contraception is to keep her clothes on does her employer have to pay for her wardrobe?
It reminds me of the British slang for the rather sturdy form of women’s underwear: They call them “Passion killers.”
Certainly the swimming attire pictured here would help young men with the problem of lustful thoughts at the beach and pool this summer.
Seriously now, one of the reason for modest clothing is to focus the mind on something higher than the human reproductive organs. Modest clothing for men and women is supposed to accentuate their best features and either disguise or lessen their weaker or less attractive features.
So a good tailor could make most any man look rather dashing and a good dressmaker would bring out the best in any woman.
One of the great ironies of our age is that we are phenomenally richer than our grandparents and great grandparents could ever have imagined, and yet our clothes are by and large, grungy, cheap and immodest.
Good clothes are not just passion killers. They are an adornment to beautify the whole person, express their personality and bring forward all that is best about them.
They also have the very salutory side effect of being the most effective and most economical form of contraception.
This advice is not only for women.
When I was a high school chaplain I used tell the boys that they didn’t need a condom to prevent a baby.
They should use three other forms of barrier contraception: Their pants. Their zipper and their boxer shorts.