Women Preachers...The truth!

[Phil W]

The tradition rabbinical method required two witnesses, and in terms of expounding the scriptures that meant the law and the prophets. They were quite careful about the process.
πᾶσα γραφὴ in 2 Timothy 3:16 in its context suggests that it is referring to the Old Testament and given the experience of the times almost certainly it would be taken to mean the LXX (Septuagint) which includes the deuterocanonicals. I quite seriously doubt that the author had any idea that they would be taken to be implying that they were referring to their own writings.

Why wouldn't Paul think his writings were as much of God as any other writings done by those guided by the Spirit of God?

And you didn't include which word you are interpreting.

That could be a valid point, however there is a weight of scholarship which draws in conclusions based on the weight of evidence before them. If the letter to Timothy is in some way different to what has been observed elsewhere, then one must allow that there is a strong possibility that there were particular circumstances that Timothy was dealing with.

Where are the credentials of those who have chosen to cast doubt on the writings agreed upon centuries earlier as canonical?
Their motives are dubious at best.

I am assuming you understand my immediate response to this absurd statement, however I will bless and not curse, how ever I would like to let you know that your male chauvinism is showing.

As there is no record of what Lydia was doing at the river side, "where prayer was wont to be made", except that she, a seller of purple, was there, it serves no purpose to use her presence as an indicator of anything independent or counter culture.

The word I was discussing was αὐθεντεῖν

Which means nothing to me as I don't read...Greek (?).

It does seem to me that the barriers are broken down, Jesus is God, Jesus is truly human, and the enmity between man and woman (a mark of the fall) has been done away with for in Christ there is neither male nor female.

The enmity wasn't between men and women, but between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. (Gen 3:14-15)

You are of course on this point 100% correct. At the beginning of the very first second that ever was, God had a history, and at the end of the last second that ever will be, God has a future. Both time and being only have meaning in the context of God.
This message of reconciliation we are called to share has not changed, for it is eternal. We, the church, are called to proclaim the everlasting gospel in a world of time and space. In the world of 1st century Eastern Europe and the Levant the subjugation of women was a cultural norm. Jesus did not come into the world to endorse the cultural norms of that day and impose them on eternity.

​

I think this passage is quite informative about Paul and how he thought about culture. He sought to work within it in order that the light of the gospel might be seen. We all know that there are many counter cultural aspects to the message (love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you ...) yet it seems to me that Paul wanted people to hear the message where they were, physically (hence the missionary journeys, and culturally as he explains in this passage.

I am a long way from convinced that in the context of today Paul would do anything but support and endorse the ministry of women.
Peace in Christ

As God has yet to change, why would any culture's change impact a man of God's message?
If missionaries went to a slave based society, would we stoop to OKing slavery?
Should we be OK with drugs now that so many states are willing to risk a generation with them?
Or abortion? Or same sex marriage?
If we change our stance on one element of God's word, the whole foundation crumbles.
The source of our inspiration validated headship at the very beginning of creation, and it isn't our place to fiddle with something that isn't broken.

 

[Philip_B]

Where are the credentials of those who have chosen to cast doubt on the writings agreed upon centuries earlier as canonical?
Their motives are dubious at best.

No one has questioned the canonicity of the text and I earlier went out of my way to make it clear that 1 Timothy is canonical and has been accepted as such is the church since such matters became of concern to the Church.

Why wouldn't Paul think his writings were as much of God as any other writings done by those guided by the Spirit of God?

And you didn't include which word you are interpreting.

the word I was discussion at this point is πᾶσα γραφὴ (the greek words pasa graphae meaning all writing and in context often translated as all scripture.)

Which means nothing to me as I don't read...Greek (?).

I am sure you would find it quite helpful given you interest in the word. This issue at point here being that this is the only place in the New Testament where the greek word αὐθεντεῖν is used. As such we need some care in how we understanding its meaning. Outside of the New Testament its use suggests some kind of autocratic abusive power, such as would be entirely incompatible with Christian Ministry.

The enmity wasn't between men and women, but between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. (Gen 3:14-15)

I take the point, and that was careless of me, however the point I was making that it is following the fall that we get the he said she said approach, rather than what we find in Genesis 1 where the image of God is such that it is reflected in the 'male and female he created them'.

As God has yet to change, why would any culture's change impact a man of God's message?
If missionaries went to a slave based society, would we stoop to OKing slavery?
Should we be OK with drugs now that so many states are willing to risk a generation with them?
Or abortion? Or same sex marriage?
If we change our stance on one element of God's word, the whole foundation crumbles.
The source of our inspiration validated headship at the very beginning of creation, and it isn't our place to fiddle with something that isn't broken.

Having worked in an overseas missionary post I am very much aware that we constantly asked ourselves what is culture and what is Gospel, as there seemed little value in us transforming them to be europeans, so much as to be Christians within their own culture. And certainly some of the Gospel challenged their culture (cannibalism and polygamy for example) yet there was much that we could learn from their culture, including looking out for the weak in the tribe, and their manner of non-confrontational debate which I still wonder at.

Whilst I believe that the message of the Gospel is opposed to slavery, for much of the life of the Church slavery was one of those things that was endorsed, and understood or accepted as part of God's ordering of the Universe. We have much to be grateful for for the work of Josiah Wedgwood. Paul's letter to Philemon about Onesimus is very insightful, and I note on this very point Paul does not say that slavery is wrong. He does challenge Philemon to a yet more excellent way, however he chooses to work within the culture of his age. I strongly suspect he would take a different stance if he was writing in the current milieu and the moral position of slavery would have been more strongly challenged.

 

[Paidiske]

Your Athanasian creed is apparently not of God.
The Son is not coequal with the Father. Not yet. (1 Cor 15:28)

The persons of the Trinity are coequal from eternity. That Christ chose to empty himself in the incarnation was a temporary matter, not a statement about the ontology and relationships of God.

Woman is not coequal with man.
The wife is not coequal with the husband.

I utterly reject these statements not only for their inaccuracy but for the immense damage they do in stripping women of their human worth and dignity.

If she chooses not to marry, she should remain in her father or brother's home...or else she will have lost the source of teaching cited in 1 Cor 14:35.

Really, this view treats women as less than full persons in our own right.

 

[Strong in Him]

Women are responsible for how they present themselves and if they claim to be a Christian they would respect Christs teachings and help support the system he advocates,by dressing in a manner which does not cause the temptation of lust.

If you're saying that it's not a great witness for Christian women to wear very short skirts and blouses that leave little to the imagination; I tend to agree. Though I would still not tell them that they CAN'T - it is, ultimately, between them and God.
If you're saying that women have to wear long skirts and long sleeve blouses because otherwise men will have lustful thoughts, and it's the women's responsibility to prevent that; I couldn't disagree more.

Appealing to Islamic countries for some kind of a loophole to void Christs teachings isn't very Christ-like.

Accusing a fellow Christian of wanting to void Christ's teachings isn't very Christ-like.

Jesus did not teach on the subject of women's clothing, so there is nothing to "void" and no need to look for a loophole.
My point was that if men have lustful thoughts, that is down to them, and there are some who would have them even if a woman was totally covered up - fantasising about what she looked like.
Blaming a woman for a man's impure thoughts is wrong, and not very Christ-like.

 

[Daniel C]

If you're saying that it's not a great witness for Christian women to wear very short skirts and blouses that leave little to the imagination; I tend to agree. Though I would still not tell them that they CAN'T - it is, ultimately, between them and God.
If you're saying that women have to wear long skirts and long sleeve blouses because otherwise men will have lustful thoughts, and it's the women's responsibility to prevent that; I couldn't disagree more.



Accusing a fellow Christian of wanting to void Christ's teachings isn't very Christ-like.

Jesus did not teach on the subject of women's clothing, so there is nothing to "void" and no need to look for a loophole.
My point was that if men have lustful thoughts, that is down to them, and there are some who would have them even if a woman was totally covered up - fantasising about what she looked like.
Blaming a woman for a man's impure thoughts is wrong, and not very Christ-like.

Men will lust and obviously they are accountable for that. And women are accountable for how they dress. Dressing in a way that seeks to get attention from men is not innocent.

I think you are appealing to lawlessness. Every time I see you enter a topic it's to go against the word of God and not support it and when challenged you just a craft a unbiblical theory for your ideas.

This idea that a women can dress to cause a man to lust and not honour Christs system and it be between the person and God is just another example.

You were trying to draw from Islamic countries for an example to use against biblical teachings. And it is very-Christ like for me to inform you when your false ways might cause me to stumble Matthew 18:15. I don't want to erase Christs teachings because of absurd comparisons to Islamic countries or your own personal defiance against him,so I tell you it's wrong.

How about you offer some scripture up which supports lusting or women dressing how they like and it being supported by God rather than personal commentary.

 

[Strong in Him]

Men will lust and obviously they are accountable for that. And women are accountable for how they dress. Dressing in a way that seeks to get attention from men is not innocent.

They might be dressing that way because they believe they look good, or want to wear a particular fashion. I have bought skirts because I like them, even if they are 1/2 inch or so shorter than I might normally wear.
Assuming that women who "dress a certain way" are doing it only to get attention from men is not helpful - it's assuming a motive that women might not have.

I think you are appealing to lawlessness.

There is no law on how women should dress. I've asked for Scripture which gives details about the length of women's clothing and no one has been able to give it.

Every time I see you enter a topic it's to go against the word of God and not support it

That's not the case at all; you can't read that many of my posts.
Stating that not every word in Scripture is not meant to be applied by, or to, us today is not going against the word of God. Reading Scripture in context, understanding who it was written to and asking the Spirit how, or if, it applies to us today, is not going against the word and is not wrong.

and when challenged you just a craft a unbiblical theory for your ideas.

That's how people who take a rigid, and literal, approach to Scripture may see it; clearly.
Doesn't mean that that is the case.

This idea that a women can dress to cause a man to lust and not honour Christs system and it be between the person and God is just another example.

Nonsense.
I didn't say that a woman SHOULD dress in inappropriate clothing that may give men ideas, nor that they SHOULD NOT, and then men won't have lustful thoughts about them.
I didn't say, "there are clear guidelines in Scripture about the length of women's skirts and the types of blouses they must wear - but I'm not going to obey them; neither should any woman."
I was answering the person who said that we are commanded to dress modestly, and asked if he could provide, from Scripture, a definition of the word "modest".
He couldn't.
Neither could he give Scripture which sets out the exact measurements for the length of a woman's skirt/dress.

So as there are NO Scriptural commands or teachings about how a woman should dress in the 21st century; what she CHOOSES to wear, IS between her and God. If she is comfortable wearing a blouse which others may believe exposes too much; that's her choice. If God were to speak to her about it and say it was inappropriate, it would be for her to deal with.

I notice we're not having the same debate about men.
Does that mean that men can't wear shorts in case women lust after them?
Would you go round in a long sleeved shirt on a scorching hot day because removing your shirt might cause women to have impure thoughts?

You were trying to draw from Islamic countries for an example to use against biblical teachings.

I was NOT.
I was saying that even wearing a garment that fully covers a woman is no guarantee that men will not attempt to rape them. I only said "Arab countries" because that is, typically, when women who wear such garments come from.
They would have worn this type of dress in Bible times too - it didn't stop Amnon from raping Tamar.

And it is very-Christ like for me to inform you when your false ways might cause me to stumble Matthew 18:15.

It is your perception that I have false ways.
Show me, from Scripture, what the length of my skirts should be and I will gladly obey - obviously.
Give me a Scriptural definition of modesty - not what you, or the dictionary say it means - and I'll make sure I stick to it.

If you could see me, or if I went into details about such things, I'm sure you'd say that I dress very conservatively. I don't like anything low cut or too short, so it's not as if I'm trying to make excuses for the way I dress.
I'm saying that to imply that men's lustful thoughts, or attempts to rape, are the fault of women is wrong. To blame a woman for men's thoughts, or her own rape, and imply it is her fault for not obeying Scripture, when there is no Scriptural teaching on how a woman should dress, sounds very much like passing the buck. Adam did this "the woman you gave me ....", Genesis 3:12 - i.e "it's her fault, and yours; not mine."

How about you offer some scripture up which supports lusting or women dressing how they like and it being supported by God rather than personal commentary.

How about you provide some Scripture which sets out in detail how women today should dress, or which gives a definition of the word "modesty"?

 

[Daniel C]

They might be dressing that way because they believe they look good, or want to wear a particular fashion. I have bought skirts because I like them, even if they are 1/2 inch or so shorter than I might normally wear.
Assuming that women who "dress a certain way" are doing it only to get attention from men is not helpful - it's assuming a motive that women might not have.



There is no law on how women should dress. I've asked for Scripture which gives details about the length of women's clothing and no one has been able to give it.



That's not the case at all; you can't read that many of my posts.
Stating that not every word in Scripture is not meant to be applied by, or to, us today is not going against the word of God. Reading Scripture in context, understanding who it was written to and asking the Spirit how, or if, it applies to us today, is not going against the word and is not wrong.



That's how people who take a rigid, and literal, approach to Scripture may see it; clearly.
Doesn't mean that that is the case.



Nonsense.
I didn't say that a woman SHOULD dress in inappropriate clothing that may give men ideas, nor that they SHOULD NOT, and then men won't have lustful thoughts about them.
I didn't say, "there are clear guidelines in Scripture about the length of women's skirts and the types of blouses they must wear - but I'm not going to obey them; neither should any woman."
I was answering the person who said that we are commanded to dress modestly, and asked if he could provide, from Scripture, a definition of the word "modest".
He couldn't.
Neither could he give Scripture which sets out the exact measurements for the length of a woman's skirt/dress.

So as there are NO Scriptural commands or teachings about how a woman should dress in the 21st century; what she CHOOSES to wear, IS between her and God. If she is comfortable wearing a blouse which others may believe exposes too much; that's her choice. If God were to speak to her about it and say it was inappropriate, it would be for her to deal with.

I notice we're not having the same debate about men.
Does that mean that men can't wear shorts in case women lust after them?
Would you go round in a long sleeved shirt on a scorching hot day because removing your shirt might cause women to have impure thoughts?



I was NOT.
I was saying that even wearing a garment that fully covers a woman is no guarantee that men will not attempt to rape them. I only said "Arab countries" because that is, typically, when women who wear such garments come from.
They would have worn this type of dress in Bible times too - it didn't stop Amnon from raping Tamar.



It is your perception that I have false ways.
Show me, from Scripture, what the length of my skirts should be and I will gladly obey - obviously.
Give me a Scriptural definition of modesty - not what you, or the dictionary say it means - and I'll make sure I stick to it.

If you could see me, or if I went into details about such things, I'm sure you'd say that I dress very conservatively. I don't like anything low cut or too short, so it's not as if I'm trying to make excuses for the way I dress.
I'm saying that to imply that men's lustful thoughts, or attempts to rape, are the fault of women is wrong. To blame a woman for men's thoughts, or her own rape, and imply it is her fault for not obeying Scripture, when there is no Scriptural teaching on how a woman should dress, sounds very much like passing the buck. Adam did this "the woman you gave me ....", Genesis 3:12 - i.e "it's her fault, and yours; not mine."



How about you provide some Scripture which sets out in detail how women today should dress, or which gives a definition of the word "modesty"?

A lawless person doesn't see the Bible as authority, so scripture doesn't apply to them.

 

[Strong in Him]

A lawless person doesn't see the Bible as authority, so scripture doesn't apply to them.

In other words, you can't provide the Scripture I've asked for but rather than admit it you turn it back on me and claim that I wouldn't obey it anyway.

 

[Daniel C]

In other words, you can't provide the Scripture I've asked for but rather than admit it you turn it back on me and claim that I wouldn't obey it anyway.

I already quoted scripture but you have ignored it, here it is again- Matthew 5:28

If Jesus tells men not to lust after a women or else he has committed adultery in his heart, do you not think women should hear Christs message and assist men to obey Jesus? Or just present themselves provocatively to create lustful feelings?

I asked you to give scripture to support your position that women can dress without restraint and it appears to be absent,so there's no support presented for that idea.

You are just playing with words like you always do and everyone can see it. The only people who would give an amen to that are the people who also distort the Gospel and play with Gods words to suit themself. I would rather be rigid and obedient than lean towards my own ''understanding'' which some people favour and unfortunately all too often goes directly in opposition with Gods instructions.

I want to give some personal feedback and I hope you don't find this offensiveness,it's not my goal. Based on your behavior you come over as a manipulator and overly argumentative. And it's worth noting every time these dialogues arise between you and I it is always initiated by you, so by now I think it's reasonable for me to give some feedback.

 

[Strong in Him]

I already quoted scripture but you have ignored it, here it is again- Matthew 5:28

I didn't ignore it.
I didn't quote it because it doesn't concern the matter in question.
Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he commits adultery in his heart; fine.

If Jesus tells men not to lust after a women or else he has committed adultery in his heart, do you not think women should hear Christs message and assist men to obey Jesus?

How can women be accountable for what men think?
If I walk through town wearing a perfectly respectable skirt and top, how do I know what men are thinking as I walk past, and why are their thoughts my responsibility?

My point; my only point, was that some men are no doubt capable of lusting after women, whatever the woman is wearing - full length gown, even.
Other men may be able to look at women in bikinis and have no lustful thoughts at all - it's down to the man, not the woman.

I asked you to give scripture to support your position that women can dress without restraint and it appears to be absent,so there's no support presented for that idea.

Just as I asked you to provide Scripture about the length of women's skirts, how to define "modest" and no Scripture was presented there either.
That was portrayed as my fault, however; you judged that I am lawless and would take no notice of it if it were.

You are just playing with words like you always do and everyone can see it.

Can they - have you asked them?

One last time - because this is a ridiculous argument:
1. Scripture tells women to dress modestly - I have no problem with that.
2. Unless you have a Scriptural definition, instruction or command that says otherwise, "modesty" is subjective. Some people think a knee length skirt is fine; others wouldn't touch it. Some might think a mid calf length skirt is old fashioned; some wouldn't wear any other kind. Same with tops; some may think a 'v' necked top is fine, others would say that even the highest 'v' neck is still too low. Some ladies might wear a high necked, but sleeveless t shirt; others would say that too much flesh is exposed and it's still not modest attire.
3. If a woman is dressed in a way that a man thinks is immodest and he has lustful thoughts about her - that is HIS responsibility, not hers.

I want to give some personal feedback and I hope you don't find this offensiveness,it's not my goal. Based on your behavior you come over as a manipulator and overly argumentative.

No.
I've got no interest in manipulating anyone - I know no one on here, and how you live your Christian life is nothing to do with me.

And it's worth noting every time these dialogues arise between you and I it is always initiated by you, so by now I think it's reasonable for me to give some feedback.

I don't remember what topics I've debated with you before. I hardly ever start threads on here, so it's not like I write on topics with you in mind.
If you write something in a thread and I disagree with it, I will, probably, say so, as I would with anyone. These are public debating forums; that's the idea. Responding to a post that you have written is not me initiating an argument, it's me replying to something you have said which I believe to be incorrect. You are free to agree or disagree with me, just as I am with you.

 

[Sparagmos]

I want to give some personal feedback and I hope you don't find this offensiveness,it's not my goal. Based on your behavior you come over as a manipulator and overly argumentative. And it's worth noting every time these dialogues arise between you and I it is always initiated by you, so by now I think it's reasonable for me to give some feedback.

Daniel, I’ve been following this thread, and I couldn’t disagree more. @Strong in Him has a consistently patient, thoughtful style and as far as I can see, follows the “rules” of debate. You, however, are making an unwarranted ad hominem attack on her. If two people continue the argument, they are both being argumentative, and on a forum where people debate things, why is that wrong? You are making an accusation- that @Strong in Him is unlawful or promoting unlawfulnesss, and cannot name the law being broken! That would frustrate anyone and yet she is being quite patient IMO.

 

[Daniel C]

Daniel, I’ve been following this thread, and I couldn’t disagree more. @Strong in Him has a consistently patient, thoughtful style and as far as I can see, follows the “rules” of debate. You, however, are making an unwarranted ad hominem attack on her. If two people continue the argument, they are both being argumentative, and on a forum where people debate things, why is that wrong? You are making an accusation- that @Strong in Him is unlawful or promoting unlawfulnesss, and cannot name the law being broken! That would frustrate anyone and yet she is being quite patient IMO.

Ok, you've been following this thread. Are you aware of the previous exchanges that have taken place between me and the member that go beyond this thread?

 

[Sparagmos]

Ok, you've been following this thread. Are you aware of the previous exchanges that have taken place between me and the member that go beyond this thread?

No I am referring to this thread, and what I’ve seen here. But I’ve seen @Strong in Him post in other threads and she comes across as quite patient and rational, even when faced with derogatory, discriminatory, and mean comments about her gender.

 

[Daniel C]

No I am referring to this thread, and what I’ve seen here. But I’ve seen @Strong in Him post in other threads and she comes across as quite patient and rational, even when faced with derogatory, discriminatory, and mean comments about her gender.

Well I would say if you are coming from a place where you do not know the history between me and the other member it would be an error for you to try and make a judgement call as you have only seen a part of it and not the whole history.

How can you make an assessment of something if you only seen one part of it and not all of it?

 

[Phil W]

No one has questioned the canonicity of the text and I earlier went out of my way to make it clear that 1 Timothy is canonical and has been accepted as such is the church since such matters became of concern to the Church.

Why then did you even bring it up?

the word I was discussion at this point is πᾶσα γραφὴ (the greek words pasa graphae meaning all writing and in context often translated as all scripture.)

As we agree then that 1 Tim is from God, then we also agree that 1 Tim 2:11-12 are ordained of God, and in essence, relieve women from authority over men.

I am sure you would find it quite helpful given you interest in the word. This issue at point here being that this is the only place in the New Testament where the greek word αὐθεντεῖν is used. As such we need some care in how we understanding its meaning. Outside of the New Testament its use suggests some kind of autocratic abusive power, such as would be entirely incompatible with Christian Ministry.

Why would "all writing" or "all scripture" be abusive or incompatible with Christian ministry?

I take the point, and that was careless of me, however the point I was making that it is following the fall that we get the he said she said approach, rather than what we find in Genesis 1 where the image of God is such that it is reflected in the 'male and female he created them'.

You lost me here.

Having worked in an overseas missionary post I am very much aware that we constantly asked ourselves what is culture and what is Gospel, as there seemed little value in us transforming them to be europeans, so much as to be Christians within their own culture. And certainly some of the Gospel challenged their culture (cannibalism and polygamy for example) yet there was much that we could learn from their culture, including looking out for the weak in the tribe, and their manner of non-confrontational debate which I still wonder at.

Are not tending the weak and nonconfrontational debate part of the Christian demeanor after rebirth from God's seed?
I think so.

Whilst I believe that the message of the Gospel is opposed to slavery, for much of the life of the Church slavery was one of those things that was endorsed, and understood or accepted as part of God's ordering of the Universe. We have much to be grateful for for the work of Josiah Wedgwood. Paul's letter to Philemon about Onesimus is very insightful, and I note on this very point Paul does not say that slavery is wrong. He does challenge Philemon to a yet more excellent way, however he chooses to work within the culture of his age. I strongly suspect he would take a different stance if he was writing in the current milieu and the moral position of slavery would have been more strongly challenged.

Slavery was never endorsed by the Church by Christ Jesus. (Eph 3:32)
Paul writes..."Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved,..." (v 16)
How that got retranslated as "slave" astounds me.
And how the "body of Christ" ever got charged with advocating slavery is truly a work of the devil to discredit Christ Jesus.

We are getting really far off the OP, so, back to the show!

 

[Phil W]

The persons of the Trinity are coequal from eternity. That Christ chose to empty himself in the incarnation was a temporary matter, not a statement about the ontology and relationships of God.

I just can't find the word "trinity" in scripture.
Jesus is not God made flesh, He is the Word made flesh. (John 1:14)

I utterly reject these statements not only for their inaccuracy but for the immense damage they do in stripping women of their human worth and dignity.

What statements?

Really, this view treats women as less than full persons in our own right.

What view?

If you can't provide the "boxed" items you respond to, it isn't a conversation anymore.

 

[Strong in Him]

How can you make an assessment of something if you only seen one part of it and not all of it?

How about you share some of the other posts here, and remind me of what I've said?

 

[Strong in Him]

No I am referring to this thread, and what I’ve seen here. But I’ve seen @Strong in Him post in other threads and she comes across as quite patient and rational, even when faced with derogatory, discriminatory, and mean comments about her gender.

Thank you.

 

[Strong in Him]

I just can't find the word "trinity" in scripture.
Jesus is not God made flesh, He is the Word made flesh. (John 1:14)

I can't find the word "trousers" in Scripture - doesn't mean they don't exist and you can't wear them.

 

[bmjackson]

I can't find the word "trousers" in Scripture - doesn't mean they don't exist and you can't wear them.

Especially short trousers