Pants! ...and my pride

[LilyM]

In other words… clothing that makes men more manly, and so is more honest as to who they are… and clothing that makes women, more womanly, and so is more honest as to who they are, created by God. :) It brings forth their special virtues and gathers special respect because people appear as they are meant to be created by God.

Who we are created by God is butt naked, first off. Secondly, He did indeed clothe Adam and Eve in animal skins - but there’s not the slightest indication that the clothing HE gave them was differentiated by gender in any way.

Finally, where would the great saint Joan of Arc be if she’d had your attitude and refused to do such ‘masculine’ things as wearing armour - and other masculine clothing - and fighting? Where would France have been? Joan would’ve been the very opposite of honest if she’d stayed home and worn skirts. In fact she would’ve been disobeying direct order from her heavenly voices, which are held to have come from God!

Indeed, it was her enemies, the ones accusing her of being a sorceress and heretic instead of the great saint and heroine she was, who pointed to her masculine attire and desire to fight as ‘evidence’ supporting their slanders.

 

[Marfran]

In other words… clothing that makes men more manly, and so is more honest as to who they are… and clothing that makes women, more womanly, and so is more honest as to who they are, created by God. It brings forth their special virtues and gathers special respect because people appear as they are meant to be created by God.

Clothing makes men more manly??? Where are you finding your men??? If a guy’s gut hangs over his belt there’s no clothing in the world that will make him look more “manly”. Stubble on the face should clue you in that he’s a man–oh, then again, maybe not… And what’s more “womanly” attire than a hooker’s wardrobe? It brings forth their special virtues…just what virtues are you trying to get a peek at???

If you want to see people as they were created by God…that would mean that you want to see naked people.

 

[Marfran]

I think that skirts are a way that men can control women. Make 'em wear a skirt and they can’t keep up with you, can’t follow you up the ladder, can’t climb up the mountain…

 

[Abenadar]

I think that skirts are a way that men can control women. Make 'em wear a skirt and they can’t keep up with you, can’t follow you up the ladder, can’t climb up the mountain…

Riiiiiiiiight… Do you also go the route of the tin-foil hat at Mass instead of a chapel veil???

Anyway, in case you (and others) missed the main thrust of my posts it was this: dress for the occasion. If you’re gonna be climbing mountains (or ladders), it would certainly be more modest to wear some sort of pant than a skirt (my wife couples a longer top that goes to her mid-thigh with her jeans when we hike). On the other hand, during the day-to-day activities it’s my opinion that just about any flowing, knee-length or longer skirt, in general, is more modest than any pants that a woman would want to wear because any pants that a modern woman would want to wear, whether more tight or less tight, are designed to accentuate her butt and thighs and hips etc.

In over four years of marriage, I’ve never seen any accidental immodesty from my skirt/dress-wearing wife.

 

[Marfran]

Riiiiiiiiight… Do you also go the route of the tin-foil hat at Mass instead of a chapel veil???

Anyway, in case you (and others) missed the main thrust of my posts it was this: dress for the occasion. If you’re gonna be climbing mountains (or ladders), it would certainly be more modest to wear some sort of pant than a skirt (my wife couples a longer top that goes to her mid-thigh with her jeans when we hike). On the other hand, during the day-to-day activities it’s my opinion that just about any flowing, knee-length or longer skirt, in general, is more modest than any pants that a woman would want to wear because any pants that a modern woman would want to wear, whether more tight or less tight, are designed to accentuate her butt and thighs and hips etc.

In over four years of marriage, I’ve never seen any accidental immodesty from my skirt/dress-wearing wife.

I agree dress for the occassion. I climb mountains and ladders and I am going to wear pants doing those activities because pants are 100% more modest than a dress or a skirt.

My husband does not like any flowing, knee-length or longer skirt–he thinks that they look frumpy. I used to wear those and was surprised to learn that my husband just hated them. And I hate when he wears jeans. I do not wear jeans under ANY circumstance. I do not wear jeans to climb ladders or mountains or go to church in, because they are ugly and look like you are wearing something that you would clean a barn in. I believe that, even when clinbing a mountain, you should wear something a little more respectful than jeans. So in my opinion jeans are disrespectful IN church AND in ALL walks of society–except in the barn. So I don’t wear long frumpy skirts and my husband and I don’t wear jeans.

…designed to accentuate her butt and thighs and hips etc.??? I’m thin and I don’t have that problem. So your wife is actually trying to cover her ampleness? (I don’t mean to be disrespectful but you are equating your wife’s figure to all women.) And I wouldn’t equate that to dressing for modesty. I don’t have a butt and there are NO pants that I could ever buy that would make me look like I do have one.

So, I am trying to point out that your idea of modesty may be confused with camouflage, and that all women do not have the same figure flaws OR the same assets. And imposing your idea of what you want your wife to wear, is not universal and right for everyone. But I do agree that there are many styles of clothing, for especially women, that are unflattering, immodest, and just plain ugly…like jeans. Ban those from church and from the mountain!!!

 

[Marfran]

Seriously, THIS DISCUSSION is NOT about modesty. It is about the FASHION POLICE.

 

[Abenadar]

Seriously, THIS DISCUSSION is NOT about modesty. It is about the FASHION POLICE.

Yes, but simply because you’re turning it that way. You’re talking about how UGLY jeans are, but you fail to mention whether or not, under certain circumstances, they are modest or not. You simply write them off, Mrs. Fashionista.

I believe that, even when clinbing a mountain, you should wear something a little more respectful than jeans

. What does that even mean???

 

[adstrinity]

What does that even mean???

Not a skirt where somebody could see your underwear…assuming one is wearing underwear, which, not everybody does…

And, I LOVE jeans. They go with anything. Wore them to a wedding once, even. …Don’t think the bride cared (though, it was a western themed wedding…)

Thank you all for posting here and keep them coming! I am so glad I am getting both sides in this and having a lot to think about, AND, let me also say, check out that one clothing site provided. It is REALLY pretty and probably doable as soon as I have steady income!

 

[CatholicChick]

I’m plus sized myself. Have you checked out www.holyclothing.com ? They carry stuff up to size 7x and have some modest dresses ( not all of their stuff is) along with skirts and tops.

Wow they have every size under the sun from small all the way on up
I LOVE the long flowing skirts. My fav style is the long flowy lacy skirts.
Fashion police on those pants on there…hello!
Not my style lol!
back to topic at hand…
I wear jeans quite a bit but have been convicted recently about it…been thinking of going skirts only myself. I tend to wear jeans to “fit in” when with friends…hmmmm something for me to think about

 

[SwizzleStick]

…He said that a Minor Prophet mentioned that the end of the world would come when women started dressing like men (and he pointed out that this became common in the 1950s). …

Actually, didn’t men and women dress pretty much alike at the beginning of time and only in fairly recent times (last few hundred years) did things change? I’m thinking about the Old Testament AND the New Testament times, as well as the centuries following.

I just discovered this thread on Hot Topics and I am stunned. I am pretty conservative, but I hate wearing dresses and skirts and so wear mostly pants and shorts for the sake of comfort. When I go to Mass, I wear either slacks and a blouse or a pantsuit. I had no idea others viewed me as dressing like a man or a feminist or being immodest by doing so. Wow.

 

[Aramis]

Was Marilyn Monroe dressed immodestly? You betcha. Did she ever wear slacks in a movie? Not that I can recall. Does Hilary Clinton wear pants? Yep. Does she ever look masculine? Not in my humble opinion.

I rest my case.

Hillary Clinton looks masculine even in a skirt. At least to me.

Priority for dress for church

1. Covers what needs be covered by the local standards of modesty
2. Clean
3. Neat (which is NOT congruent with clean, but there is a correlation)
4. not irreverent (No adverts! No slogans! No “hunting for a mate” nor “looking for a john”)

the Church as a whole has not prescribed (tho some groups have, like many SSPX parishes) skirts as required; it has been and is left to local cultural standards.

Then again, I grew up in a parish where smelly street people in layer of worn out dirty rags were treated with dignity the same as perfumed rich folk… and sometimes even BY the rich folk. Like a certain car dealership owner seeing to it a couple street people got to eat at the Crimont Society breakfast.

 

[Lujack]

I honestly don’t buy the idea that pants equal a blurring of the gender. There is a very clear distinction between “girl pants” and the pants that a boy could wear. I remember clearly that a classmate of mine got teased because he ran out of jeans one day and wore his sister’s; it was obvious that the pants he was wearing were not made for men.

 

[Mater]

The most disturbing part about this post is the original sermon (as described) by the priest. He has overstepped his boundaries. If he has listed specific sins which the Church has not listed as sins, i.e. the sinfulness of wearing slacks, then he placed undue burdens on his flock. His suggestion that mini-skirts are more modest than slacks is simply pharisaic. He has applied a rule (and a rule of his own making!) in a way that disregards the virtue it’s meant to support. As for trying to predict the end times, well we all know how Our Lord felt about that!

Colleen Hammond’s book gives good food for thought, but is a bit extremist and sexist in parts.

Skirts or robes are more modest for both genders, not just women. Indian men in flowing knee-length tunics over loose pants and priests in cassocks are both modest and masculine.

I think loose skirts at least to the knee are usually more modest than pants, and particularly in Mass when we a standing and our eyes quite naturally fall on the back of the person in front of us.

Let us all humbly and modestly develop virtue in ourselves, while charitably assuming the best of others.

 

[Marfran]

Yes, but simply because you’re turning it that way. You’re talking about how UGLY jeans are, but you fail to mention whether or not, under certain circumstances, they are modest or not. You simply write them off, Mrs. Fashionista. . What does that even mean???

Your QUOTE here was in reference to my comment that this discussion is NOT about modesty but about the FASHION POLICE.

My point to the guy that wants his wife in a long flowing skirt because he thinks it is more modest is that dressing modestly, or appropriately, or comfortably, or fashionably is IN THE EYE of THE BEHOLDER. We can probably all agree on some basic standards–like plunging neckline to navel is not modest, nor is a micro mini-skirt… but there are MANY ACCEPTABLE styles of modest clothing AND pants are one of them–and yes, there are pants that do not belong in church or anywhere else. My point to this guy was that my husband doesn’t want me to wear long flowing skirts–he thinks they look frumpy. So should I listen to my husband, or to this guy who thinks that long flowing skirts are the cat’s meow??? And I said that I hated jeans, under any circumstance because they look grungy–even a brand new pair looks like duds you would clean a barn in. That’s me. That’s my preference–don’t like 'em–think they’re ugly. Do I have a right to dictate what you all wear? No!!! So don’t tell me to wear a long flowing skirt–my husband doesn’t like them, I don’t like them, I’d be uncomfortable and feel frumpy in one and I think that I have the right to wear a nice pair of pants to church and everywhere else. And again, THERE are pants that ARE OBSCENE!!!

And why is this discussion ALL ABOUT WHAT WOMEN wear??? Modesty for men??? My neighbor goes out to get the newspaper in his underwear. It’s not as immodest as it is hilarious and gross. WOMEN don’t respond to these visuals like men do. SO part of this has to do with MEN’S RESPONSES to what women wear.

I’m going to continue to wear pants to every occassion, including church–no man is going to tell ME how to dress, but I will take cues from my husband who doesn’t like long flowing frumpy skirts. AND I will look the other way when I see you all in your jeans, and I will continue to LAUGH uproariously (is that a word???) when I see my neighbor retrieving his paper in his underwear.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL!!!

 

[Marfran]

I honestly don’t buy the idea that pants equal a blurring of the gender. There is a very clear distinction between “girl pants” and the pants that a boy could wear. I remember clearly that a classmate of mine got teased because he ran out of jeans one day and wore his sister’s; it was obvious that the pants he was wearing were not made for men.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Marfran]

Priority for dress for church

1. Covers what needs be covered by the local standards of modesty
2. Clean
3. Neat (which is NOT congruent with clean, but there is a correlation)
4. not irreverent (No adverts! No slogans! No “hunting for a mate” nor “looking for a john”)

the Church as a whole has not prescribed (tho some groups have, like many SSPX parishes) skirts as required; it has been and is left to local cultural standards.

Then again, I grew up in a parish where smelly street people in layer of worn out dirty rags were treated with dignity the same as perfumed rich folk… and sometimes even BY the rich folk. Like a certain car dealership owner seeing to it a couple street people got to eat at the Crimont Society breakfast.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[RedSoxWife]

I think that skirts are a way that men can control women. Make 'em wear a skirt and they can’t keep up with you, can’t follow you up the ladder, can’t climb up the mountain…

I don’t know about you but I can do just about anything I can do in pants in a skirt. I can climb a ladder and I know from experience living in the mountains that I can climb up a mountain in a skirt, wearing a baby in a sling on my back. Maybe it’s because the skirts aren’t restrictively tight…I could see that standing in the way.

 

[RedSoxWife]

This is about modesty and what is appropriate wear to men and women, with people of devout faith understanding the deeper meanings behind various clothing styles and their effects on our culture.

It is not about ‘superiority and control’ and various other such sad and precipitous accusations maligning the good people supporting these counter culture changes.

Colleen Hammond’s book is a VERY good book, to work with. There are some good sermons on modesty in the links below too.

People who come at this from afar and having tried to understand why this is important or true, but are closed minded to it, need to realize they are saying EXACTLY what worldly people who are not Catholic automatically say, and think twice, that there might be principles behind this that are worth prayer and a further look.

Society was very different not too long ago… and in many positive ways. Now we live in a much more morally degenerate society. Do we truly have the pride to think we have escaped accepting many things we should not, simply because we were raised in them without thinking of their consequences or understanding what they result in? Do we truly think we are morally superior in wearing whatever we want?

The humble will discover many things, and among them I think they will discover the deeper meanings to modesty that have to do with ‘due mode’ and not just matters of not inciting people, but having the appearance proper to our genders, that cannot be mistaken for any other gender, and which contributes to the virtues and special attributes of that gender.

In other words… clothing that makes men more manly, and so is more honest as to who they are… and clothing that makes women, more womanly, and so is more honest as to who they are, created by God. It brings forth their special virtues and gathers special respect because people appear as they are meant to be created by God.

When I first read Dressing with Dignity I do remember thing “Yeah right, that’s just not for me. All pants don’t create Near Occasions of Sin, ect. ect.” It took a while to sink in and I think it’s still sinking in, changing the way I live my everyday life. I do think it’s a good book.

As for the argument that she doesn’t use every single culture on Earth as an example, on can always come up with those arguments. No matter what she did, if you didn’t agree with what she was saying, what she wrote probably wouldn’t be “good enough.” And as for the heat argument, having walked around Israel and the West Bank when it was over 90 degrees, completely covered up, I can say that I really wasn’t any hotter than the woman in my group in shorts and tank tops. I was treated much more respectfully and I wasn’t sunburnt at the end of the day!

 

[RedSoxWife]

I agree dress for the occassion. I climb mountains and ladders and I am going to wear pants doing those activities because pants are 100% more modest than a dress or a skirt.

My husband does not like any flowing, knee-length or longer skirt–he thinks that they look frumpy. I used to wear those and was surprised to learn that my husband just hated them. And I hate when he wears jeans. I do not wear jeans under ANY circumstance. I do not wear jeans to climb ladders or mountains or go to church in, because they are ugly and look like you are wearing something that you would clean a barn in. I believe that, even when clinbing a mountain, you should wear something a little more respectful than jeans. So in my opinion jeans are disrespectful IN church AND in ALL walks of society–except in the barn. So I don’t wear long frumpy skirts and my husband and I don’t wear jeans.

…designed to accentuate her butt and thighs and hips etc.??? I’m thin and I don’t have that problem. So your wife is actually trying to cover her ampleness? (I don’t mean to be disrespectful but you are equating your wife’s figure to all women.) And I wouldn’t equate that to dressing for modesty. I don’t have a butt and there are NO pants that I could ever buy that would make me look like I do have one.

So, I am trying to point out that your idea of modesty may be confused with camouflage, and that all women do not have the same figure flaws OR the same assets. And imposing your idea of what you want your wife to wear, is not universal and right for everyone. But I do agree that there are many styles of clothing, for especially women, that are unflattering, immodest, and just plain ugly…like jeans. Ban those from church and from the mountain!!!

If my husband told me he didn’t like my long skirts and dresses I would explain to him that I was dressing modestly! I’m thin, so I’m not disguising anything! I just don’t want to create Near Occasions of Sin for anyone else (here we go: this is where the responses start and people say “men should be responsible for themselves” and “you’d have women cover up completely.”). The fact is, if I’m wearing an outfit that is immodest and I cause someone else to sin, that’s on me too! I’m not going to risk it. There are plenty of fashionable and modest outfits out there (although they may not be fashionable by secular standards!).

As for the last part of your post you say that he might be imposing his ideas on what is wife wears, but you say you don’t wear jeans, or long skirts or dresses because your husband doesn’t like them!!!

 

[RedSoxWife]

Seriously, THIS DISCUSSION is NOT about modesty. It is about the FASHION POLICE.

Really, the fashion police?!?! I don’t think dressing modestly is particularly “fashionable” these days! In fact, when I took my daughter to the part after a weekday Mass a couple of weeks ago I got so many weird looks and even glares from the other mom’s (and it was just a loose, casual long skirt, nothing fancy). I would definitely say that covering up and dressing modestly isn’t the “in” thing these days!