The first time I saw the burkini – the controversial swimwear worn primarily by Muslim women, whose ban on French beaches was recently overturned by a French court – I thought, if I wasn’t often so hot, and not in a good way, I would definitely wear one.

Indeed, when I first hit the beach in Bali – the Hindu island of Muslim Indonesia, where everyone lets it all hang out – I was dressed in a one-piece and a sarong, accessorized by a beach umbrella.

I cannot have the sun beating down on my head – I take my daily constitutional with an umbrella or parasol in the warm-weather months – and I don’t want my skin overexposed to Mr. Sun either.

I’m not alone. British chef Nigela Lawson sports a burkini at the beach to shield her fair skin, and the swimsuit has been championed by members of both sexes and several major religions, along with lifeguards in Australia, where it was designed by Lebanese-born Aheda Zanetti.

The suit, which covers everything but the hands, feet and face, is similar to a wetsuit except that it is not made of neoprene but of swimwear material. It would seem ideal for those who suffer from skin cancer and other related diseases.

But, of course, that’s not the issue. The issue is that it singles out Muslim women – which allies the French with certain feminists. The French, who have done a poor job assimilating Muslims, don’t want them coopting their culture. Feminists don’t want women covering up merely in compliance with the traditions of the patriarchal Abrahamic faiths.

But what if this is the preference of the wearer? What if she – or he for that matter – cannot expose his skin to the sun? What if he or she is conscious of body image?

What if he or she simply wishes to adhere to the modesty of religious faith?

The issue seems to be one of choice. As long as it’s the decision of a man or a woman and not imposed, there’s nothing wrong with the burkini.

It is, however, more complex than this. Choice is often born of tradition and habit, no pun intended. And too often it has been the burden of the female sex, lest they entice the male of the species into carnal thoughts and actions. (Or so patriarchal thinking goes.)

But how much enticing does it take to turn men into Anthony Weiner? Apparently, none at all. A recent New York Times article told the particularly nauseating story of female toll takers for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, who have been subjected to drivers’ lewd comments, groping of their hands when they make change and flashing of private parts. These workers wear loose clothing, headsets, no makeup and preoccupied expressions – all in an attempt to avoid harassment. Some have gained weight to appear, in their thinking, less attractive. Some even wear the hijab for religious reasons. And yet, the lascivious behavior of male drivers continues.

Perhaps the issue, then, is not what women choose to wear but how men act and react to it. It reminds me of a well-known story about Golda Meir when she was prime minister of Israel. She was asked to place a curfew on women to help end a series of rapes.

But it is the men who are attacking the women,” she replied. “If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home.”

Precisely.