Notification concerning Men's Dress Worn By Women

  • Thread starter Thread starter contemplative
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought he was addressing specifically

To the Reverend Clergy, (priests)
To all Teaching sisters, (nuns?)
sons of Catholic Action, (a specific order or something?)
To Educators intending truly to follow Christian Doctrine. (RE and parochials school teachers)

not

the general public…

and so, in that context, he makes sense.
 
40.png
BillP:
If you are insinuating that their minds are on some sort of immorality…SHAME ON YOU!
Click to expand...
I can’t believe the number of people shamin’ other people on these forums. :rolleyes: Over and over again I hear “SHAME ON YOU!” This must be the latest intimidation tactic.

I am glad that you think these immodestly dressed women are doing this…
I would imiagine that their minds are on the tasks they have in ffront of them, the traffic conditions that day, what they might fix for dinner, where they would go for lunch etc.
Click to expand...
But…
Do YOU have any EVIDENCE to the contrary for your uncharitable insinuation?
Click to expand...
I am a women… believe me I know what is on a woman’s mind if she is putting on a dipping neck line…short slitted skirt and gartered hose with a seam running up the back. Women that dress provocatively & immodestly mean mainly one thing.



These women are saying look at my legs, breasts, bootie, b. button and anything else you want to look at…even through the curves and sheerness of my fabric covered body. Come look and come ‘do me’.

I dare say that immodesty stems from lust
http://photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/th_lust.jpg

Hello World! I know what immodesty is because I been there…done it. I am not proud but …
I come back corrected and sorry for my ill ways to say that Cardinal Siri is on the mark! I know what he is talking about. He knows what he is talking about.

Come ‘Shame me’ now BillP.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
I thought he was addressing specifically

To the Reverend Clergy, (priests)
To all Teaching sisters, (nuns?)
sons of Catholic Action, (a specific order or something?)
To Educators intending truly to follow Christian Doctrine. (RE and parochials school teachers)

not

the general public…

and so, in that context, he makes sense.
Click to expand...
True Enough:

*This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, *

Yet he was telling all those folks what to tell the general public:

but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.

So in the end it amounts to the same thing.
 
40.png
BillP:
True Enough:

*This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, *

Yet he was telling all those folks what to tell the general public:

but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.

So in the end it amounts to the same thing.
Click to expand...
:yup:
 
40.png
contemplative:
…I am a women… believe me I know what is on a woman’s mind if she is putting on …-
Click to expand...
So your position is that since when you dressed immodestly it “stemmed from lust” then the same thing is true of every woman at every time?

Wouldn’t you say that that is fairly presumptuous?
40.png
contemplative:
I can’t believe the number of people shamin’ other people on these forums. :rolleyes: Over and over again I hear “SHAME ON YOU!” This must be the latest intimidation tactic. -
Click to expand...
Well, I think that this is the first time I’ve said (typed?) it. But I am getting rather exasperated by the strong undercurrent of judgemental ism and lack of charity that pervades this board.
 
40.png
BillP:
Look, if you women don’t want to wear trousers for whatever reason you choose that’s fine.

I object to Cardinal Siri imposing HIS (uninformed!!) views on “the way things ought to be” on the laity, going beyond what The Church, in her infinite wisdom, requires, by making up some kind of quasi-religiuous nonsense.
Click to expand...
.

Bill, Bill, Bill…quasi - religious nonsense?
The Dear Cardinal is not blind and deaf. I imagine he sees the fashion trends and he hears confessions of those who are seeking absolution for lustful thoughts and actions. I am not sure tight pants are helping the situation much. :rolleyes:
His job as Cardinal is to help guide our souls to heaven. If this is what he sees as a barrier, then let the man speak and guide.

Goodness gracious - there is a time and place for slacks on woman but do they need to be skin tight? And they clearly are in some cases.

I am not sure why you object so strongly as a man. I am a woman, who does wear slacks, and I have no problem with what he says. Can you be more specific as to what is bothersome about this?
 
40.png
BillP:
True Enough:

*This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, *

Yet he was telling all those folks what to tell the general public:

but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.

So in the end it amounts to the same thing.
Click to expand...
That’s not ‘telling’ them…it’s a call for those in these groups to teach by example. Big difference.
 
40.png
BillP:
So your position is that since when you dressed immodestly it “stemmed from lust” then the same thing is true of every woman at every time?

Wouldn’t you say that that is fairly presumptuous?

Well, I think that this is the first time I’ve said (typed?) it. But I am getting rather exasperated by the strong undercurrent of judgemental ism and lack of charity that pervades this board.
Click to expand...
I am a woman, and I know what I am wearing and the reason behind my selections. I do know that if I go on a date and wear a short skirt with a plunging neckline, I am conveying a message - attention from males. Trust me that we don’t usually wear plunging necklines to grab the attention of another woman.

Our society is so taken up with, “if you’ve got it, shake it”.

I have been guilty of this sad to admit.

I know that when women wear tights pants, they also know they are dressing provocatively. I don’t think young girls know this, but at the teen level and above, they absolutely know this.
 
While getting dressed:

As one of God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe me with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. (Colossians 3:12 )

"In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair or gold, or pearls or costly attire." ( 1 Timothy 2, 9 )

"A man is known by his look, and a wise man, when thou meetest him, is known by his countenance. The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, shew what he is." (Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 19:26-27)
 
40.png
jrabs:
.

Bill, Bill, Bill…quasi - religious nonsense?
The Dear Cardinal is not blind and deaf. I imagine he sees the fashion trends and he hears confessions of those who are seeking absolution for lustful thoughts and actions.
Click to expand...
I would be shocked if Cardinal Siri heard regularly the confessions of normal everyday people at that point in his career.
40.png
jrabs:
.Goodness gracious - there is a time and place for slacks on woman but do they need to be skin tight? And they clearly are in some cases.
Click to expand...
Read the letter again. He is specifically saying that Skin-tightness notwthstanding that wearing trousers, is

The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; *
secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes;*
Code: 
*t**hirdly** it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes.
*Even if the clothing would by standards of covering and tightness be otherwise okay.

That isn’t what the Church teaches.
40.png
jrabs:
I am not sure why you object so strongly as a man. I am a woman, who does wear slacks, and I have no problem with what he says. Can you be more specific as to what is bothersome about this?
Click to expand...
I object to men like Cardinal Siri making baseless pronouncements based on their personal preferences and wrapping them up in quasi-relisious nonsense to impose them on the laity. I object when these pronouncement tarnish the image of the Catholic Church by causing the percption that the CHURCH is anti-woman and misogynistic when it is only a few of her servants.
 
40.png
BillP:
That isn’t what the Church teaches.

I object to men like Cardinal Siri making baseless pronouncements based on their personal preferences and wrapping them up in quasi-relisious nonsense to impose them on the laity. I object when these pronouncement tarnish the image of the Catholic Church by causing the percption that the CHURCH is anti-woman and misogynistic when it is only a few of her servants.
Click to expand...
Are you sleepin’?!?! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/sleepingonthejob.jpg

Haven’t you heard what any of the posts say?http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/jawdrop.gif
 
I dont have the quote because I am at school, but it says in the bible that women are not to dress like men and men are not to dress like women. It’s there, I promise. It might be in the catechism too.

I totally get what he is saying. I wear pants when it is cold,. I’d wear skirts and boots, but my boots cause me pain, so until I get a new comfy pair, I have to stick with pants. Now, I make sure that my pants are not ultra-low or tight and I wear a jacket just to make sure. It is about intentions really, If a women’s intention is to get attention, then wearing the latest fashion would be sinful. If a woman wants to be respected on the same level as a man and thinks that dressing like one is the way to go, then that would be denying her womaness and therefore sinful. But, if a woman is hiking, or is required to wear pants by her employer, then it would be ok I think. SKirts and dresses remind us and men that we are women, it reminds (if they arent those short skimpy skirts) that we have dignity and we deserve respect. When we were little did we ever dream about being a princess and having a prince save us? In that dream were we dressed in slacks? No, we were dressed in long dresses with lace or gold and thick velvet fabric and long hair and graceful movements. That is what being a woman is about, being our husbands princesses and being God’s little princesses who bow before HIm in love and awe, honoring Him by looking our best for Him to be His masterpiece for all to see and say" SHe loves God look how she honors and cares for the gifts He has given her" the gifts being her body, soul and God-given beauty.
 
40.png
BillP:
If you are insinuating that their minds are on some sort of immorality…SHAME ON YOU!
Click to expand...
And yet you’re okay with passing judgment on the good Cardinal who wrote the piece under dispute. Interesting.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
BillP:
I would be shocked if Cardinal Siri heard regularly the confessions of normal everyday people at that point in his career. .
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter who’s confessions he is hearing - How do you know that he doesn’t hear confessions of his peers? Even his peers are keen to their surroundings and affected by them. My point was that the Cardinal is not cloistered and sees the what is taking place.
40.png
BillP:
Read the letter again. He is specifically saying that Skin-tightness notwthstanding that wearing trousers, is

The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; *
secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes;*

thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes.

Even if the clothing would by standards of covering and tightness be otherwise okay.

That isn’t what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Good point about the tightness. OK. Thanks. Yet I still agree with the Cardinal.

Please tell me, then what the church teaches. I am more inclined to believe the Cardinal and follow his ideas and opinions.
 
40.png
BillP:
Lets try this AGAIN. Why don’t you show me some definitive Catholic teaching that says women aren’t supposed to wear trousers.
Click to expand...
Again

**As one of God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe me with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. (Colossians 3:12 )

“In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair or gold, or pearls or costly attire.” ( 1 Timothy 2, 9 )**

"A man is known by his look, and a wise man, when thou meetest him, is known by his countenance. The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, shew what he is." (Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 19:26-27)

I can’t post pants crotch and bootie shots on these forums…I don’t want to be suspended.

Put your imagination to work (picture in your mind a few panted crotch - bootie shots) and then read the Bible passages above.
 
uh Bill, read the Bible ok? Look it up in the index in the back…try modesty or women and there should be a whole bunch of them. Sirach will probably have it, as should Wisdom. oh, and try and find the Modesty pamphlets that are circulating, they explain how women are supposed to dress with a Mary-like modest and mindset. When I get home I’ll try and find all of this for you if I can
 
Remember this?
Hot pants were the rage in the early 1970s having found great popularity years earlier among European prostitutes. Hot pants were the successor to the miniskirt, succeeding in showing more leg, more cheek and more attitude than had been previously displayed.
While very popular among many young women (and most young men,) they were frowned upon in the workplace as well as in many social arenas (a number of prominent restaurants forbade them from being worn by patrons.) Some businesses took full advantage of the fad (notably Allegheny airlines, even made them a part of the company uniform.)
Click to expand...
or this?
Much like the afro was to Black males, the miniskirt was for women, a tool of rebellion. Wearing a hemline at mid-thigh, these women sneered at the social rules put in place by the “wholesome” members of society and decided they would dress as they liked.
The height of the miniskirts popularity was around 1967, when it was practically the only type of skirt being sold to young women. At this time, when many young people were “letting it all hang out,” women had grown tired of having to act proper and demure and sought to have the world appreciate them on their terms.
Click to expand...
badfads.com

This way of dressing gushed in and hasn’t subsided…immodesty has a greater hold on youth today than ever before. The items many young women choose to wear resemble lingerie rather than modest, constructive, protective clothing.
 
Karin said:
COMFORT 😃
Click to expand...

Contemplative’s comment was with regards to tight slacks and low shirts in the work environment.
I’m thinking that low plunging sweaters and super tight pants worn to the office don’t provide for comfort. Well, at least I know that I’d be uncomfortable as heck in tight pants at my desk all day long. Egads! Probably a wee bit cranky too, from discomfort. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top