From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A possible extlink?[edit] has a detailed chronology of the development of the swimsuit, but some of the aspects of the site make me unsure that it is appropriate as an external link here. However, it does seem an interesting source.

Interesting it certainly is, but a lot of information is outdated and I haven't seen it being updated in ages. Elp gr 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag bikini offensive, illegal[edit]

It is a violation of federal law to make clothing out of a flag. 4USC8 "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery." I thought it was the height of foolishness to try Abbie Hoffman for wearing his flag shirt, but that doesn't make the flag bikini anything but offensive to lots of Americans, including yours truly, Ortolan88 03:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) What happened to the girl in the dog collar and bikini? That was kind of cool, but not this.

The person in this picture does not appear to be using the U.S. flag as apparel, or to have made clothing out of a flag. Rather, it appears to me that she is wearing a two-piece swimsuit made from a material that has been printed with a pattern that resembles a flag. That is not the same thing at all. I don't think there is any law against wearing clothing with red and white stripes or with white stars on a blue field. -- Dominus 13:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kind of a casuistical response. It's not illegal to make clothing out of bunting. That bikini is not made out of bunting. Ortolan88 16:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, and I also wonder if you know what "casuist" means. You're right; the swimsuit is not made of bunting, and it's not ilegal to make clothes out of bunting---which means that the thing about the bunting is totally irrelevant. The law makes it illegal to make garments out of the flag; that swimsuit is not made out of the flag; therefore the swimsuit is not illegal under that law. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it a crime. If it really bothers you, I suggest that you complain to your congressman. -- Dominus 09:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Casuist = "sophist, quibbler, rationalizer, using an arguing style more suited to determining the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead." The person above me was saying, without using the word, that the flag bikini was, in effect, bunting. I disagreed. The components of the suit, as stated in the caption, are "based on the flag of the USA, the 'stars and stripes'". I can see that the stripes are waney-edged (yet another word I know the meaning of) and the stars are disproportionately small, so, I guess you are right that it isn't literally made out of a flag. How about this? The flag bikini is in execrable taste and insults the country. By your lights, I am probably a left-wing nut. I object strongly to the flag-burning amendment as an infringement on free speech, but to me, as to the most rabid advocate of the flag-burning amendment, the flag is an important, meaningful symbol. I'm dropping this discussion at this point as it is going nowhere, but if I find a copyright-free picture of a cuter girl in a bikini, I'm dropping her in there. And what's that tattoo on the flag girl, a USDA meat stamp? Ortolan88 13:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt very much whether they made it by starting with U.S. flags and cutting them up. I would imagine they started with two bolts of cloth, one printed with white stars on blue, and another printed with red stripes on white. In this way, at no time is a U.S. flag either created or destroyed. A Google search finds many U.S. suppliers of "stars and stripes bikinis", some describing them as "patriotic wear". -- The Anome 16:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's how they make flags too. There are flag napkins too, and flag cakes, and flag paper cups. All direspectful by my lights. That's what makes the proposed flag-burning amendment preposterous. But I still don't like the bathing suit and I believe it and all this other disposable stuff are both offensive and illegal. Ortolan88 17:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How are they offensive? Seeing an attractive woman wearing an American flag bikini makes me damn proud to be an American. Sometimes you have to look past the ambiguous letter of the law and look at the spirit, and the spirit of that particular rule was that they didn't want old, tattered American flags being turned into wrag clothing. Of course, that's just IMHO, but if you just watched the massive crowd in Germany cheering on the USA team at the world cup, they were wearing American flag tank tops, bikinis, hats, you name it, and they were showing pride in their nation by doing so (NOT disrespect).

Something that is strange about my country is that you sometimes happen to see people wearing clothes with American flags on them, but you never see people wearing clothes that have a German flag printed on them. It's weird, but I think it has something to do with Germany's lack of patriotism. -- (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, now I understand what Jack O'Neill did in Stargate SG-1 when Daniel Jackson decended from a higher level of existence. Jackson appeared naked in O'Neill's office and O'Neill broke a federal law by giving him something to wear for the time until Jackson had proper clothes. -- (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


I reverted the unexplained replacement of the male model with a female model. I see no particular reason why the bikini pic is any more informative, and I suspect some sort of bias in believing that somehow a woman in a bikini is more of a swimsuit model than a man in a low-cut suit. FCYTravis 03:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

But monokinis are only for women. Men have swim trunks. *Ulla* 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Image needed[edit]

Please can someone provide a photo of a woman in a one-piece costume? as worn for swimming rather than sunbathing. CarolGray 13:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, preferably to replace the image of the girl in the red bikini at the bottom of the page -- we do not need two images of females wearing bikinis. More interesting would be images of (a) the Pompeii murals (b) the 'sling bikini' Njál 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Monokini should not be merged[edit]

Monokini should not be merged into swimsuit as it is a different genre altogether . My point if bikini is granted a seperate page, Monokini should also be granted one.

Monokini should not be merged[edit]

If it is not merged, then the user can enter the term "monokini" and find it without having to think of the possibility of "swimsuit" and without having to wade through all of the other definitions and discussion of "swimsuit." Steve_geo1 1425, 22 February 2006

I agree. I will set up a vote to merge or not. Weirdy 23:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

Swimsuit and Monokini merge or not?[edit]

This article is for the vote of merging the Swimsuit article to the Monokini article or vice-versa ONLY. Anyone who wishes to post disruptive comments throughout the seven days of discussion will be either warned or blocked depending on how they vandalise this page/section. This talk officially started 20 May 2006 and shall end 7 days after that, which means the vote ends at 27 May 2006. Please correct User:Weirdy if he put the date wrong. Thank you. Weirdy 08:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

Over two months past the end vote, ore votes against making the change, removing the notice on monokini. - TJJFV 23:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Agree Merging[edit]

  1. Merge: Monokini is a short article referring to a type of swimsuit. Definitely belongs in the article. Abel 21:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What about the other article, Microkini? I personally think that they should be merged together. Microkini and Monokini are related pieces of clothing. Weirdy 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC).
Related, perhaps, but not the same. *Ulla* 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Merging[edit]

  1. I disagree merging these two articles because Monokini should not be merged into swimsuit as it is a different genre altogether. Weirdy 08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC).
  2. As far as I can see, a monokini is not a swimming costume/swimsuit. Therefore it does not belong in this article except possibly as a reference. Skittle 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. There's enough information for a complete article under monokini. Excessive merging only makes information harder to find in long pages, and they take longer to load. Links both ways are sufficient. Njál 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. "Swimsuit" is such a ubiquitous term that those looking for specific information on monokinis or microkinis would likely have trouble getting where they're going if it there is a merge. - Monokinis and microkinis are very much niche items and since neither are universally considered main stream, bundling the terms under "swimsuit" might do neither justice. Sort of like bundling 'hubcap" and "tire" under "wheel" and hoping people will find info they're looking for. [Unsigned]
  5. swimsuit is defined by its (wet) use, monokini by its size, clearly also for 'dry' use such as sun bathing or even parading. Fastifex 11:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. I think monokini deserves its own article. Sure, it can be said to be a form of swimsuit, but so can the bikini, and the bikini is not merged into swimsuit. IF monokini was to be merged, it would be better to merge it with bikini, since it is derived from the bikini. Also, the many different uses of the term monokini makes it deserving an article of its own just because of that. *Ulla* 16:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. the monokini is too much for a swim suit article. I was not expecting such a pornographic picture by reading about swimsuits. it should be separate or at least do not include the image, it is pornographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was Microkini merged with Monokini?[edit]

First of all, microkinis are NOT women-only designs, unlike the monokini. Second, women's microkinis come in two formats: bikini and one-piece. The bikini format, however scant, certainly has nothing to do with the monokini category. The one-piece version, on the other hand, either provides coverage for the nipples - and thus is NOT a monokini - or, if it does not cover any part of the woman's chest, it is usually purchased/sold as a set with a bikini top, in which case we again cannot identify the microkini with the monokini. Third, the mere fact that so many microkini manufacturers out there (and even some whose main target market is NOT microkini wearers, but do cater for them as well) offer extremely skimpy bikini (i.e. microkini) tops to be sold as sets with their microkini bottoms, separates microkinis from monokinis entirely. Elp gr 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just moved microkini to its own article. *Ulla* 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we need two Speedo pictures?[edit]

I think the model in the designer speedo is more than sufficient, why dont we use the space the lower speedo photo takes to show what men's Boardshorts look like? Lemon-lime 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • We did, and used another, utterly waste blank space Fastifex 13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If we need to use the blank space, post an image of a Women's one-piece. I don't see any didactic value in having another speedo picture at all.

Why have we messed up the formatting of the page with this speedo picture, or does it only seem like that on my screen? Skittle 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it really need to be so in-your-face?[edit]

Does the extreme closeup of some man's goodies really need to be the first thing one sees on this page? csiefken

I do agree with this sentiment. It'd be better to find an example of a thicker and therefore less-revealing Speedo garment to illustrate this; if that's even necessary given the 'Speedo model' pic further down. Sinnyo 14:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It can be very hard to illustrate the details of Speedos without illustrating the details of what's under the Speedos. — Northgrove 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:One-piece suits[edit]

(Reply to comment in edit summary by Bardsandwarriors)

Categories should be excluded if there isn't a reasonably good reason for *in*cluding them. (Wikipedia:Categories advises restraint, and makes the point that the more categories you put an article in, the less useful they are.) Some swimsuits may be "one-piece suits", but the connection (if any) between the general topic of swimsuits, and the category of "one-piece suits" seems to me to be highly tenuous at best, and not strong enough to justify the category placement.

As far as people browsing the category, they'll come across the one-piece swimsuit article, and if they want to know more about swimsuits in general, they can follow the link from there. Anonymous55 07:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. As I've said, I was making a quick run through a lot of things. I didn't realise I had already put "one-piece swimsuit" into the category. I will revert my own reversion now. Bards 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sling bikini" -- real item?[edit]

I've taken the liberty of adding a "fact" tag to the "sling bikini" paragraph, as the only photographs I've ever seen purporting to show such an item were obvious Photoshop jobs. It seems to me that such an item would serve more as floss than coverage. Cactus Wren 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of Googling for "sling bikini" shows that garments of that description are certainly manufactured and sold. Whether anyone wears them outside of a sexual context is another matter. -- The Anome (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

English Language mix-up[edit]

It appears that somebody, try as hard as they might, has edited the latter end of this article and made some sentences very difficult to understand. I can appreciate not everyone speaks fluent English, but is this really acceptable for an English-language article? I've tried, but I can't make sense of a lot of this. If someone could re-interpret the 'maintenance' paragraph in particular, I'd certainly be grateful.Sinnyo 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I did my best to de-engrish the section, let me know what you think. Personally, I'm not sure if this paragraph is even merited in the article at all. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Lemon-lime 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yup, looks infinitely more readable to me. It seems to be useful information, but I guess Wikipedia guidelines would suggest it not read so much like a so-called 'housewife's manual', not that I wish to stereotype anything in saying that. I guess if somebody truly objected to its format now, we'd hear about it. :) Sinnyo 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


This picture was discussed here. I have to concur with the slashdot poster in question: it does appear to be a BDSM pic that has been badly photoshopped to remove visible restraints. Which is doubly ironic as it was apparently used to replace an image described as "too licentious". See also this search. Any chance of replacing it with something more appropriate? JulesH (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this already when the image was added. The image is fine and replaced an image that was inappropriate. Bringing up old discussions just because Slashdot claims it was photoshopped is disruptive. It does not matter what has supposedly been removed. We are simply using someone else's commercial image to illustrate a type of swimsuit, as long as the swimsuit is in view we see no problem. I have placed a warning on your talk page about causing disruptions. You may want to review Wikipedia's editing policies. Consensus is that the image stays up, you may want to read the archives before adding more disruptive comments to the discussion page. -- (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Christ, take the stick out of your crack. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Beachwear article merge[edit]

The beachwear article is short, discusses most of what is already here, and since its inception, that article has had its problems, judge from its discussion page. Civil Engineer III (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge. The Beachwear article says most of what is already here. AdjustShift (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Swim jammer[edit]

The Jammers article is very short and mostly reiterates what exists here. I proposed the merge. --Terrillja (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I actually think the other way around. I think the content of the jammers article which currently gets redirected to the swimsuit article should be merged into swim jammer, and the combined article should perhaps be renamed jammers instead of swim jammer.Jammers are notable enough to have an their own article. I don't see why should they be stuck in the swimsuit article.Farine (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

illegal copying from[edit]

it is against the COPYRIGHT. maybe he got permission —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

More like is a copy of the text from the Swimsuit article. It happens a lot, and since all text in Wikipedia is released under GFDL, there is no copyright issue. However, quite why a supposed astronomy site needs a page about swimsuits is beyond me. Astronaut (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Is there any evidence that these are actually worn as swimwear in any culture? The article claims they were 'popularised' by the film Borat - yes they were, but as fancy dress items! If no one can provide any kind of citation that these are actually worn as swimwear I think this section should be removed. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this notion... It's just a costume, not an actual swimwear. —Peco! Peco!TALK 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Stock-photo-17479206-young-woman-showering-outdoor.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Stock-photo-17479206-young-woman-showering-outdoor.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

History: Wollen Swimwear[edit]

let's have a bit of history too: woollen swimwear anybody? -- Tarquin 21:00 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Monokinies for pre-pubescent girls[edit]

Does any culture make swimsuits for pre-pubescent girls that don't cover the breasts? Or is anything you wear while swimming a swimsuit? Rmhermen 21:35 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Anything you wear while swimming, since the article talks of men's shorts or briefs. We should probably mention that that swimsuits are also worn on beaches (even if no swimming is involved), and that children of both sexes should probably wear t-shirts outdoors to protect from sunburn. -- Tarquin 22:08 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
Here in Germany (just to give one example), it is considered acceptable when girls below the age of 6 swim topless, although most girls above the age of 3 use to wear a bikini or one-piece suit. And yes, we got topless swimsuits for girls of that age. See here: -- (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This image creeps me out![edit]

I'm sorry, but right|250px|Naru kigurumi in a swimsuit just creeps me out: the person is wearing the swimsuit over a whole-body bodystocking, and is also wearing a whole-head mask. On the other hand, it would be an appropritate illustration for both the cosplay and spandex fetish articles... -- The Anome 15:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The rest of the article is about swimsuits worn by humans, not anime characters; the illustration just doesn't go with the article. And Zanimum, I think adding it was not a "minor" edit. -- Infrogmation 15:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


I'm not happy with the line "garments designed to reveal as much of the body as possible without actual nudity" If skin is shown, isn't that nudity? I'd prefer to say "actually leaving the genitals or nipples visible". But I don't feel like changing it just yet. Moilforgold 21:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly change it to without full nudity? Anyway, the link to nudity makes it clear that what we're talking about is the state of wearing no clothing or of exposing the bare skin of intimate parts. Also, covering the nipples is far from universal. Several European countries have wide-spread topless sunbathing, for instance. Fishies Plaice 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sun protection suits[edit]

This article says nothing about Sun protection suits as they're common in australia. (See here: ) The suits on these photos are only two-piece, but there are also one-piece sun-protection suits. -- (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is mention of these over in the article on Rash guard, perhaps a reference is mentioned in this article, but I believe the main content does belong more with rash guard than with swimsuit, as the sun protection suits are not primarily for swimming, rather sun protection during various outdoor sports which may or may not include swimming or bathing. —Peco! Peco!TALK 04:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

seems to be missing something[edit]

i have seen a type of bathing suit that looks kind of like a blend of a one piece and a dress. i do not know its name but i was unable to find it in the article. (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)