You can wear whatever you want, but what's being sold is not a bikini. I remember bathing suits like that from the days — 1950s and 60s — when few women wore bikinis. What I'm seeing at the link are what were traditionally called "2-piece bathing suits." The bottoms come up to the waist. It's hard to see why that looks prettier than a 1-piece. Is there something special about the section of skin between the bottom of one's bra and the waist? Is isolating the bra from the bottoms a good idea when the shape of the bottoms ends up being granny-panties?
Here's a NYT article from May 24, 1961: "The Novelty Has Worn Off, But Bikini Remains Popular."
Several years ago, the Bikini was de rigueur on some parts of Fire Island and for theatrical people and models... And each year, there is slightly more acceptance, although the novelty has definitely worn off.Note the capitalization of the word, which was a place name (associated with atomic bomb tests).
"On the other hand," [said Jack Vane, Lord & Taylor's sportswear buyer,] "I can't give a conventional two-piece suit away. The customers won't have it, but they'll buy a modified Bikini."
Although he would never say who should and who should not wear a Bikini, Mr. Vane did say a woman should look before she leaps into on.That's obviously not 8 to 16 in the sizes we see in shops today. The article goes on to note the various fabric patterns: "and yes — even polka dots." That was — speaking of de rigueur — the necessary reference to the 1960 pop song "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini."
"We have them in sizes 8 to 16," he said. "I won't stock them in larger sizes."
And here's a NYT article from 1960 displaying the "more modest two-piece suit" that American women wore in response to the "arrival of the Bikini" (and that one year later Jack Vane, above, said he couldn't give away). You can see from the photos that the "more modest two-piece" is the configuration seen in today's so-called "fatkini." Note that the caption refers to the bottoms as "trunks," a word that strikes me as way too masculine (perhaps because I associate it with elephant appendages).
Scroll down for an article titled "Fate of Daring Bikini May Be Decided Today."
The Bikini, the little suit that got the big promotion from the sportswear industry this year, has not lived up to expectations. Is it the weather or our Puritan heritage?...That was the oft-repeated commentary: preserve the "mystery" of the female body by keeping it covered. Nowadays, we Americans — despite "our Puritan heritage" — like to think the notion of covering up the female body belongs to other cultures that have yet to advance to our stage of freedom. But in 1958, if you showed up in a Bikini, you were asked to leave or take cover.
Bendel's and Bergdorf's say that some of their customers buy Bikinis, but only for wear on penthouse terraces, patios and backyards....
"Women who have lived abroad buy them without a quiver. Now they're catching on among the young theatrical and artistic kids too."...
"Two years ago, people looked down their noses at you if you showed up in a Bikini. You were asked to leave or take cover. This season no one even looks at you."
Bikinis have been spotted at the Hamptons but mostly on "artistic" types, models and Europeans. Those who will not wear them are talking about them.
"There's no advantage in a Bikini," asserted on young matron. "If your figure is that good, it's smarter to be mysterious."
I love the references to "artistic" and "theatrical" people, especially as contrasted to the "young matron." These days, no one — young or old — gets called a "matron." And everyone's so artistic and theatrical that it's not worth saying.