Miraclesuit makes separates. Their bottoms work great for me. The right amount of lift, stretch, and coverage. (I think the smallest size is an 8, so won’t work if you’re looking for a smaller size.)

My behind isn't anything great to look at but I just wear normal swimsuits. I wear a pretty cover up when I'm walking around the pool, getting a drink, etc. otherwise I'm on my chair or in the pool or ocean. It's only a minute walking around with my behind in view and not a big deal when it is seen...

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has to hide their body but it’s worth questioning/exploring/criticizing why the prevailing swim attire for women is a style that requires pubic hair removal. And don’t be deliberately obtuse, people - you know I’m not using “require” literally. And yeah, to a pp’s point, other options do exist but it’s interesting that the options with more coverage aren’t the norm and are deemed frumpy/giving up/ashamed of body.

This 100 times. It's not like the skin tight athleta shorts posted above are "frumpy" because they have two extra inches of fabric. They're still skin tight, vagina sucking short shorts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we start a trend where women can look fashionable at the beach but also have their upper thighs covered like men do?

+100 I hate that anything with more coverage than underwear is deemed frumpy or assumed that you're trying to hide something.

On the flip side, because I am not super model perfect I have to hide my body???

People expend tons of energy buying clothes, make up, hair cuts, etc solely in order to look flattering. They choose one option over another all the time, in that quest. No one condemns that.

But for some reason, women's bathing suits -- the most exposing, unflattering, and impractical item of clothing in any woman's wardrobe -- we are suddenly accused of being body shaming because we're suggesting many of us would look better by wearing something with 2 extra inches of fabric over your bum?

No one blinks if a woman chooses a skirt two inches shorter, or two inches longer, because it happens to flatter her figure better. Or blinks if they choose a pair of shorts that sits a few inches below the butt crease instead of above it. In light of all that, I don't understand why women are clinging onto traditional swimsuits with such firm grips.

Nobody has to hide their body but it’s worth questioning/exploring/criticizing why the prevailing swim attire for women is a style that requires pubic hair removal. And don’t be deliberately obtuse, people - you know I’m not using “require” literally. And yeah, to a pp’s point, other options do exist but it’s interesting that the options with more coverage aren’t the norm and are deemed frumpy/giving up/ashamed of body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we start a trend where women can look fashionable at the beach but also have their upper thighs covered like men do?

+100 I hate that anything with more coverage than underwear is deemed frumpy or assumed that you're trying to hide something.

On the flip side, because I am not super model perfect I have to hide my body???

You should buy yourself a really flattering suit that's comfortable. I just bought these two and found them so high quality. Whatever, I'm 45 and I just want to feel as good as I can.

https://thehermoza.com/collections/swimwear/produc...ra-one-piece-swimsuit-red-pink

https://leftonfriday.com/products/peak-suit

I like both of these but have a big bust. Do these suits have shelf bras?

https://athleta.gap.com/browse/product.do?pid=384029012&vid=1&autosuggest=true&searchText=surge&position=0&results=2#pdp-page-content

these are good too.