Notification concerning Men's Dress Worn By Women

[shannin]

contemplative:

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.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/eyeball.gif

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’.
QUOTE]

To be honest and quite frank, I think most women have been there to varying degrees. I know I have . And, believe me, we know EXACTLY what we are doing .

The fashions and styles for young girls today are quite shocking though, not surprising when you look at their role models. I would hate to be trying to raise teen-age boys :ehh:

 

[Karin]

jrabs:

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.

Well I was replying in regrads to when I dress in the morning I think about comfort.
Pants (loose) are comfortable and that is what I wear.
I own several dresses, or sari’s for “special” occasions but day to day I wear PANTS!
Wearing a skirt or a dress with a toddler at the park is not really practical…can you see some gal in her skirt hanging upside down on the monkey bars .

---

 

[shannin]

Wearing a skirt or a dress with a toddler at the park is not really practical…can you see some gal in her skirt hanging upside down on the monkey bars .

:bigyikes:

 

[jrabs]

Well I was replying in regrads to when I dress in the morning I think about comfort.
Pants (loose) are comfortable and that is what I wear.
I own several dresses, or sari’s for “special” occasions but day to day I wear PANTS!
Wearing a skirt or a dress with a toddler at the park is not really practical…can you see some gal in her skirt hanging upside down on the monkey bars .

Ohhh yeah, then I totally agree with you. I also dress for the cold and I have to admit that while I wear tights in the winter with skirts, it just doesn’t cut it sometimes here in the cccccold north east.

But don’t you feel completely different feminine when you have a great dress on or go to an event wearing a nice skirt.

My boys do treat me differently when I have a skirt on then when I am wearing everyday pants.

 

[Anglican77]

contemplative:

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

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.

So is it about dressing modestly or just banning women from wearing pants? I wear professional pant suits more often than skirts in my office because they are more comfortable and it is always cold in the office here. I am not married and do not have children so I’d like to know the reasons why I should not wear pants.

 

[BillP]

Look this is getting away from my point.

My point is not that we are not called to modesty. We are.

I am aware of no Church teaching that it is inherently immodest for a woman to wear trousers. Nor am I aware of any Church teaching that it is a sin for women to wear trousers.

Cardinal Siri was simply wrong to write that piece and attempt to issue directives to the laity (through other religious to be sure) that aren’t truly based on the teachings of the Church but instead on his distaste for women dressed in trousers.

 

[BillP]

Anglican77:

So is it about dressing modestly or just banning women from wearing pants? I wear professional pant suits more often than skirts in my office because they are more comfortable and it is always cold in the office here. I am not married and do not have children so I’d like to know the reasons why I should not wear pants.

According to the Cardinal, it’s about banning women from wearing pants.

 

[TarAshly]

Agreed! I hate dresses and skirts i ESPECIALLY hate panty hose. they make my tooshy itch. Besides I often think that a classy pants suit in a business meeting makes a better statement than some frumpy old dress.

Thanks but I will NOT give up my jeans or any other pants that I wear!

 

[jrabs]

BillP:

According to the Cardinal, it’s about banning women from wearing pants.

Forgive me, but I failed to read the word ban in the Cardinal’s address.

Please help me and point this out to me.

Clearly, the Cardinal is urging against the wearing of pants. He was also providing reasons for such request.
But ban? Maybe I missed it??? Sorry if I did.

 

[TarAshly]

What’s wrong with panty hose with a seam running up the back? the few occasions I wear a dress (and believe me they are few, I think most dresses are frumpy and old ladyish) I wear the stockings with those seams, I think they are lovely.

contemplative:

I can’t believe the number of people shamin’ other people on these forums. 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…

But…

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.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/eyeball.gif

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.

 

[jrabs]

TarAshly:

What’s wrong with panty hose with a seam running up the back? the few occasions I wear a dress (and believe me they are few, I think most dresses are frumpy and old ladyish) I wear the stockings with those seams, I think they are lovely.

I think yoiu failed to read the rest of the post which described the short skirt WITH the hose. You lost the context.

There is nothing wrong with those hose. I think they can be cute too.

 

[TarAshly]

I agree with Bill on his general idea, It seems masojinistic to me as well. I am no less a wife because i hate ugly dresses, the few pretty ones I find are fit more for sunday mass and nice events, not for everyday wear to work. I work in a male dominated industry, so i have to run with these guys to compete, but even if i didnt i still wouldnt wear a dress or a skirt everyday. I live in Texas and live in my blue jeans when im not working. My husband swears he thinks nothing looks better on me than a pair of jeans and my cowboy boots and one of his old t shirts. and its his head I wanna turn so no one else really matters when it comes to what i wear. I dont go out in boxers and flip flops, I always make sure i am put together one way or the other but that RARELY includes a dress and heels.

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. I am not sure tight pants are helping the situation much.
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?

 

[deb1]

My only real problem with the Cardinal’s letter is that he equates pants with male clothing. For many, many years men in the middle east wore robes and didn’t wear pants. This makes the issue of what constitutes male/female clothing to be cultural. In today’s world pants are not considered masculine on a female.

 

[BillP]

jrabs:

Forgive me, but I failed to read the word ban in the Cardinal’s address.

Please help me and point this out to me.

Clearly, the Cardinal is urging against the wearing of pants. He was also providing reasons for such request.
But ban? Maybe I missed it??? Sorry if I did.

What does this sound like:

*We have said that those to whom the present Notification is addressed are invited to take serious alarm at the problem in hand. Accordingly they know what they have to say, starting with little girls on their mother’s knee.

They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as a general rule.

They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions*

Sounds like he’s trying to get the Notification addressees to put a stop to it to me.

 

[shannin]

deb1:

My only real problem with the Cardinal’s letter is that he equates pants with male clothing. For many, many years men in the middle east wore robes and didn’t wear pants. This makes the issue of what constitutes male/female clothing to be cultural. In today’s world pants are not considered masculine on a female.

Great point. Some priests also wear long robes with no pants.

 

[deb1]

jrabs:

But don’t you feel completely different feminine when you have a great dress on or go to an event wearing a nice skirt.
.

It depends on the situation. When I am going to mass or a special event then yes, a dress is appropriate and makes me feel great, just as doing my hair and wearing a bit more makeup does.
I don’t want to dress this way everyday, though.

For three years I belonged to a fundamentalist church and wore long, loose dresses every single day. I have never felt so ugly in my life. Yes, I was modest…to an extreme… but I certainly didn’t feel feminine. Plus I stood out so strongly that I wonder if my attire didn’t make me immodest in some ways. There was also a change in my mindset. I am not saying this for any woman on this board that wears dresses everyday. Please do not believe that. I just noticed that I, personally, became more judgmental of other woman. I began to judge other people’s, women’s especially, spirituality by what they had on. I am not saying that any of you will act this way…I am only admitting my own personal fault and reaction to an extreme form of modest dress.

 

[jrabs]

BillP:

What does this sound like:

We have said that those to whom the present Notification is addressed are invited to take serious alarm at the problem in hand. Accordingly they know what they have to say, starting with little girls on their mother’s knee.

They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as a general rule.

They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions

Sounds like he’s trying to get the Notification addressees to put a stop to it to me.

Yep - just as I thought. The word ban never appeared in the Cardinal’s address.
I guess I am still confused as to why you felt you needed to add that particular word for extra emphasis. The Cardinal did not use it.

 

[jrabs]

shannin:

Great point. Some priests also wear long robes with no pants.

I was just pondering the same thing about the dress back in Biblical times.

 

[contemplative]

hip huggers, miniskirts, minidresses…hotpants and fishnets. .

Come one girls! Raise your hands! Who has poloroids and Kodak moments like these? I know you are out there.

Just look at young women’s fashions today…just about anything goes and I thought we were bad years ago…

The madness must reverse…pray women get smart and cover up their most precious bodies from gaping eyes.

 

[BillP]

jrabs:

Yep - just as I thought. The word ban never appeared in the Cardinal’s address.
I guess I am still confused as to why you felt you needed to add that particular word for extra emphasis. The Cardinal did not use it.

Well you could I suppose go back and read the post that prompted it.

 Quote:
                                             Originally Posted by **Anglican77**
             *So is it about dressing modestly or just banning women from wearing pants? I wear professional pant suits more often than skirts in my office because they are more comfortable and it is always cold in the office here. I am not married and do not have children so I'd like to know the reasons why I should not wear pants.*

billp:

According to the Cardinal, it’s about banning women from wearing pants. Today 02:16 PM

But I’ll tell you what. I’ll go back and edit the post so it doesn’t say “Ban”. Won’t change the FACT that the Cardinal, without ANY Church teaching is attempting to define women wearing trousers as per se immodest and sinful.

Well, I couldn’t edit the post, but how about me just saying he didn’t try to Ban it, he just tried to stop it.