The Great Pants Debate

[MoNiCa4316]

wow what a thread.....

here's my pov

I go to university (in Canada) and I'm noticing some fashions here... one I like, the other I don't. The trend I like is wearing long shirts or tunics over pants. I wear that because it makes the pants more modest, imo, and it's comfortable. The other trend is definitely not modest... it's wearing leggings or tights as pants, with a shorter top, (not a skirt), and it doesn't cover the hips. I think that looks bad... but it also shows the legs too much.

I think that modesty is very important.... and I actually like how the 'prairie' dresses look (some of them), and I like how people dressed in Biblical times, I also like what nuns wear..... but if I wore that, honestly that would NOT be modest because it would draw attention to myself and I would end up becoming terribly self righteous! (even more so than I am already). I think it's better to wear what people wear this century, but make it modest... maybe it requires some creativity... hey all the better!

for example...... it's VERRRYYYY hard to find modest clothing at the mall in my area.... if I buy a shirt, I almost always have to wear a tank top underneath (I like layering though), and if I wear pants I put on a long sweater overtop.

Yes I tried looking for skirts..... but I can't find any modest skirts. They're all above the knees, or office wear. I was looking for a dark A line skirt that covers the knees. Well that's not happening unless I sew one! I went through the whole mall and couldn't find a skirt like that... except in really expensive stores where a tshirt costs 50 dollars (no thanks). So that's why I don't wear skirts often, because I can't find skirts that look good and are modest and are for a good price. Hopefully at some point I'll be able to sew something. But honestly the skirts I see at the mall are LESS modest than pants..they are short, clingy, or tight.

I like the idea of wearing skirts but I don't think wearing a skirt is automatically more modest.... there are many immodest skirts out there, there are also modest pants, especially if they're worn with the right shirt.

EXAMPLE

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Here are examples of skirts/dresses that aren't immodest, imo, but are also pretty..

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Seeing as we've talked extensively about what is considered modesty for women, how about we talk a little bit about what is modesty for MEN.

For my part I guarantee I won't call anyone a harlot or tramp or jiggalo if they disagree with me, Even if they think rear cleavage is OK on a guy, which I do not.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Seeing as we've talked extensively about what is considered modesty for women, how about we talk a little bit about what is modesty for MEN.

For my part I guarantee I won't call anyone a harlot or tramp or jiggalo if they disagree with me, Even if they think rear cleavage is OK on a guy, which I do not.

Rear cleavage?



At church I am an usher and my attire consists of dress slacks and white button up with red tie and blue blazer and black dress shoes. Boring... I know.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This is very cute IMO:

My wife had me go shopping with her for clothes. It seemed like everything was low cut to show cleavage. Very frustrating because she was trying to find clothes that are modest. Five stores and several hours later she found an outfit. Yes, one outfit...


Makes you consider making your own clothes. But my wife is only 5 feet tall and it seems she is limited to what is available in her size.

 

[WarriorAngel]

see any men's clothes or stylish clothing on her??

How about her....?

St. JOAN OF ARC

 

[WarriorAngel]

Seeing as we've talked extensively about what is considered modesty for women, how about we talk a little bit about what is modesty for MEN.

For my part I guarantee I won't call anyone a harlot or tramp or jiggalo if they disagree with me, Even if they think rear cleavage is OK on a guy, which I do not.

Um back cleavage...?
ack!

This is very cute IMO:

My wife had me go shopping with her for clothes. It seemed like everything was low cut to show cleavage. Very frustrating because she was trying to find clothes that are modest. Five stores and several hours later she found an outfit. Yes, one outfit...


Makes you consider making your own clothes. But my wife is only 5 feet tall and it seems she is limited to what is available in her size.

Have your wife get cami's.
They are essential now, and definitely part of the fashion because they fill in the plunging neck lines.



I know right, the fashions today are calling for layered clothing. And if you do not do that - it may mean trouble.

I do like the run way pics.
I could never afford the cost - but i like the outfits.


WHICH is not vanity.

This thread is about clothing - one would suspect that would include that which is modest attire.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Feeling ALL philosophical here - but a thot came to mind Creed...
You desire, no want a woman to dress in a dress so she is 'feminine' meaning to have female qualities.

Obviously, this inspires you to feel all fuzzy inside because she is FEMALE and has obvious female qualities about her - which involves - needless to say - her curves.
You cannot have female or a feminine woman without curves... no matter how hard you try to say otherwise.

Now if pants make you think of maleness - then its obvious that you are not interested in the female because she inspires male traits - therefore; less attractive to you - therefore less of a temptation.

just saying....

 

[_Shannon_]

This is very cute IMO:

My wife had me go shopping with her for clothes. It seemed like everything was low cut to show cleavage. Very frustrating because she was trying to find clothes that are modest. Five stores and several hours later she found an outfit. Yes, one outfit...


Makes you consider making your own clothes. But my wife is only 5 feet tall and it seems she is limited to what is available in her size.

I am only 5'2", and I love it, because it means that skirts which would be too short otherwise--fit me great! LOL!

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I am not saying that what women wear has no effect on men...but theologically without intent you can't bear culpability.

yes culpability is an issue here. If a woman is wearing a miniskirt, or some cut off shirt she is knowingly causing herself to be a stumbling block for others. Such are the effects of vanity. She will have to answer to God for the people who she had caused to stumble.

If you think we're the only three who disagree with you I'd like to point out I don't see too many people agreeing with you either...

I really think that any point that could be made against this has been made already. I'd tell you to re-read the thread, but you have understood not a single word of what we have been saying. So let me repeat: your opinions remain opinions, not facts, and they are so insulting and extreme that I really don't feel like wasting any more time on it.

Toodles.

thats a good sign. As the road is narrow and few attain it. I do not try to conform to the ways of the world like others ..

 

[WarriorAngel]

we don't really know what St Joan of Arc really wore. She was definitely an exception however due to the circumstances at hand. However what she wore was because of battle to protect her. It wasn't to make some stupid fashion statement or to rebel against the traits of modesty.

God required her to wear battle gear, to fight with men as like a man.
To dress accordingly shows us God does not judge us on wearing male attire...

Her judge was a corrupt Bishop bought by England...and so she was judged on her attire as being for men.

So - conclusion - men think that a woman should not dress as much - yet God asked her to.

That's the point.

You show us Saints who conform to the ideas of being covered as though only women should be, and i am showing you that in God's eyes it is about the heart as much as modesty.
Or Joan of ARC would not be a Saint...although modest, she wore the battle gear known as MALE ATTIRE.

If we as women must cover our every nuance - then also men must too. Because Biblical times - men covered.

If 'we the society' conform to the culture - as men deem they must disrobe for the use of pants - then also women may too.

But do not forget St Joan of Arc - when you want to hold up Saints - against what you conceive as what is womanly attire.
And do NOT forget she was condemned to death for wearing 'men's attire' by men - although sanctioned from God to do so.

 

[_Shannon_]

yes culpability is an issue here. If a woman is wearing a miniskirt, or some cut off shirt she is knowingly causing herself to be a stumbling block for others. Such are the effects of vanity. She will have to answer to God for the people who she had caused to stumble.

thats a good sign. As the road is narrow and few attain it. I do not try to conform to the ways of the world like others ..

I'm sorry, but you cannot judge the extent of another person's knowledge. Only God can do that.

We need to have knowledge/intent, freedom, and matter for there to be sin. As human beings we can definitely judge the matter (and are called to)...but we can never, ever know the extent of another's knowledge/intent or level of their freedom. It's really basic level Catholic moral theology.


It is a shame so many Christians mix up being disliked for their beliefs, and being disliked because they're just really abrasive.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

God required her to wear battle gear, to fight with men as like a man.
To dress accordingly shows us God does not judge us on wearing male attire...

Her judge was a corrupt Bishop bought by England...and so she was judged on her attire as being for men.

So - conclusion - men think that a woman should not dress as much - yet God asked her to.

That's the point.

You show us Saints who conform to the ideas of being covered as though only women should be, and i am showing you that in God's eyes it is about the heart as much as modesty.
Or Joan of ARC would not be a Saint...although modest, she wore the battle gear known as MALE ATTIRE.

If we as women must cover our every nuance - then also men must too. Because Biblical times - men covered.

If 'we the society' conform to the culture - as men deem they must disrobe for the use of pants - then also women may too.

But do not forget St Joan of Arc - when you want to hold up Saints - against what you conceive as what is womanly attire.
And do NOT forget she was condemned to death for wearing 'men's attire' by men - although sanctioned from God to do so.

It is true that during her trial Joan refused to take off her male attire which became a point of conflict between her and Bishop Cauchon. It was only as the trial dragged on and she was pressed more and more frequently to take off her male attire that Joan began to see her male clothing as a symbol of her loyalty to God and her mission. Yet, Joan insisted that if her voices had commanded her to 'put off,' in other words, stop wearing, male clothing she would have swiftly complied to their order.

Hence it was only by private divine revelation that Joan did that. hence she is an exception to the norm. Not the norm. There were doctrinal exceptions for her case..Joan did not conceal the fact that she was a woman and a virgin. On the contrary she purposefully called herself, the Maid, because she wanted to emphasize that she was a woman and a virgin. At her trial she proudly proclaimed her expertise in sewing and spinning.


However, most of the posts directed against me come from people who grew up in western culture and the The West is the only part of the globe to promote tarty promiscuity for women as the preferred show of defiance to male hegemony, and such a promotion has, by extension, infected a most sacred tenet(modesty) of its official religion. In some ways I don't blame them because that is probably what they have been around most of their lives

At the end however, we still have the hundreds of female saints who adhered to the biblical traits of modesty, considering they did not go to war.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It is true that during her trial Joan refused to take off her male attire which became a point of conflict between her and Bishop Cauchon. It was only as the trial dragged on and she was pressed more and more frequently to take off her male attire that Joan began to see her male clothing as a symbol of her loyalty to God and her mission. Yet, Joan insisted that if her voices had commanded her to 'put off,' in other words, stop wearing, male clothing she would have swiftly complied to their order.

An order NOT forthcoming. Why?
Because God didn't find it offensive - obviously.
Obviously a precursor to women not having separate attire than men.
Or if it offended man or God it would have never occurred.

If it was offensive at all - she would not have been asked to do so by God.

She is a Saint - someone we should emulate...so you cannot take her away from the rest of the Saints you continue to insist we follow.

Hence it was only by private divine revelation that Joan did that. hence she is an exception to the norm. Not the norm. There were doctrinal exceptions for her case..Joan did not conceal the fact that she was a woman and a virgin. On the contrary she purposefully called herself, the Maid, because she wanted to emphasize that she was a woman and a virgin. At her trial she proudly proclaimed her expertise in sewing and spinning.

And wearing what men deem is their attire no less.
Obviously God doesn't see it that way. God doesn't judge women based on whose attire one claims is whose.

Are you saying she is not to be revered because she wore pants and therefore an exception?

Are you holier than the Lord Himself?

If the LORD thought it was too provocative - He would not have had her wear it.

At the end however, we still have the hundreds of female saints who adhered to the biblical traits of modesty, considering they did not go to war.

And all of them modest for their era.
Including St Joan of Arc.
Who could have undoubtedly told the men what to do without dressing like them if pants were for men only by God's choice.
But we see that is just NOT true.

St Joan was to do God's will in pants.
Seeing the connection?

They are human attire.
And the fact you insist women are wanton and unholy wearing pants - yet God Himself saw fit to have St Joan wear pants - A SAINT!!!!

If attire is wrong - it is wrong. Both male and female wear disturbing outfits.
Bicyclists wear spandex that show everything.

You are telling us that men don't have holy restraint in these matters?

Scrupulosity, Creed.

I showed a Saint chosen by God - doing His will wearing pants - nuff said.

 

[Rebekka]

I am only 5'2", and I love it, because it means that skirts which would be too short otherwise--fit me great! LOL!

Yes, same for me. I'm 5'6'', which is short for the Netherlands, so most skirts cover my knees.

Creed, if you think that misogyny is only a word (in other words, that it doesn't exist in the real world) that was invented by feminazi's to make men and the church look bad, then I give up, there's no reasoning with you.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has been cleaned up and closed, due to the number of rule violations it contains.
Please review the rules, and remember:

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments, and innuendo

.

Mod Hat Off ​