Unf swoops in to save the day! I think my vote is ew, but I don't swim.
No linked photo? We need more data if we're to make an informed choice.
It is all depending. If worn by a man who thinks he is attractive in it, in earnest, an abomination. If worn by John Goodman, as a weapon, then a weapon it is, magnificent, deserving of awe and respect.
Need we make a religious commitment to affirm that it is, indeed, an abomination? I feel this is a false dichotomy, in more ways than one. I require clarification. I am willing to flounder indefinitely in epistemic uncertainty, as long as there's nobody wearing one of those things in the vicinity.
wow. slolernr rhymed epistemic uncertainty with vicinity. i think my brief rapping career should come to a close.
Why the either/or dichotomy? Can't it be both a hydrodynamic innovation and an abomination against God?
After all, from what I've read, getting you to swim faster was never really high on God's list of priorities.
In nomine patri, filii, et spiritu sancti, et mali parvi, it is an abomination against God and nature.
Plus, really. For hydrodynamics? Don't many of the Olympic swimmer wear clingy body suits?
('No, no. This is to get the Thorpedo to notice you.')
you also have to consider the hairodynamics when making that judgment.
sorry.
anyway, my answers are one word, no hyphen, and abomination before god.
Beyond abomination.
If society would require that the same amount of hairlessness apply to persons of either sex wishing to sport one of those things in public, the man-thong (with or without hypen) would disappear from the face of the earth.
