M
Marfran
Guest
Right on!!!
- Status
M
Marfran
Guest
Right on, sister!!!
E
EvelynEVF
Guest
Oh, Marfran, I just have to laugh! I live within walking distance of my church, and when it snows I pull the kids on a sled. One Saturday, after spending the day sledding in jeans, I did wear a dress to church, because it was the only clean thing left that fit. So of course I had long underwear and work boots on. I figured we would sit discreetly in the back. Only people didn’t show up because of the snowstorn, and I got recruited as an EMHC. I felt like such an idiot, and people complimented me later on my Granny Clampet look.
Sometimes dresses at church are not appropriate
Evelyn
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
Just to be clear, I’m not sure where you got that I thought we should dress from a particular time period and culture in the past! Never have said that and I never will.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with defining what is “modest” by our cultures standards… I see girls wearing mid-drift bearing tops, painted on jeans and shirts cut to their navel.
This has become something of the norm. I certainly don’t think one must dress from another time period (I don’t, most of my clothes come from Target these days…not exactly something from another time period…) but I also don’t think we can say that our secular cultures standards are “modest” by any Christian standard. What happens when it becomes the norm to “flaunt those areas of the human body that this culture sexualizes.” It’s even the norm for many of my closest friends (we’re not that old yet!).
For me modesty has much more to do with not causing Near Occasions of Sin in anyone else. Again, this is usually where people chime in with, everyone is responsible for themselves, but if, by wearing a longer skirt and a higher cut top I can keep someone else from having impure thoughts, than I will do it. I’m not going to chance it. And besides, I like not having to worry about something showing that shouldn’t be showing. I’m not going to police what other people wear, I’m so busy with the baby that I don’t even really notice (except maybe to think that over my dead body my daughters will ever dress like that in public!) what other people are wearing… however I do think that the extreme ways of dressing these days can often cause sins to occur that otherwise wouldn’t have.
And to answer in advance: Yes we are all responsible for our own sins but if you could prevent someone else from sinning wouldn’t you.
And also for the record: I don’t think that mini skirts are better than pants. Some pants and mini skirts are bad. Some pants are okay. I have yet to see a mini skirt that I would call okay.
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
I pretty much had to. But then again, the clothes that I wore in college before I converted probably wouldn’t have been accepted by anyone here as modest (at least I hope they wouldn’t. I was hard pressed to find a shirt that didn’t show my stomach when I started getting rid of stuff.
I looked at it this way: I was doing something wrong (and seriously if you’d seen this stuff you’d agree) and I had to change my wardrobe to change that. That’s not because a fault in Church standards, it’s because there was something very wrong with my standards!
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
You said exactly what I was thinking!She’s not at Mass. That was where this all started. Wearing pants to a traditional Mass…
Your friend with the scarring is not the only only with unattractive legs shall we say. Skirts cover that as well in my experience.
As for being an astronaut? Doesn’t sound appealing to me as I obviously wear skirts so I can go around urinating in fields.
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
Sorry for some of the sloppiness here; I had trouble with the quoting buttons…
*Quote:
Originally Posted by JSSebastianoP
How so? How would you answer the question about “have you ever seen the Virgin Mary wearing pants?” *
No but then I’ve never seen her wearing shoes either. Does that mean a) she didn’t wear shoes in life, or b) that for women to wear shoes is wrong?
It doesn’t necessarily mean too much; it’s just a question that a lot of the traditionalists pose. For a lot of women to have the Virgin Mary as a role model is a good thing; should one not dress like her? That is the traditional trail of thought.
*Quote:
And, while saints were on earth they were people, capable of sin. In the very least, this just proves that a woman who wore pants can become a saint. Perhaps when she went through purgatory she was punished for crossdressing; perhaps GOD did not view it as crossdressing - who knows? I just don’t view it as the definitive proof we’re all looking for to end the debate one way or the other. It certainly helps strengthen the case for wearing pants but it is not definitive.
Pax. *
Read up on Joan’s life - she absolutely insisted that it was her voices (namely Sts Michael, Catherine and Margaret, sent to her by God) who told her to dress as she did. That being the case, it’s hardly likely that God would view it as a sin.
And for very good reason - she was living and fighting alongside rough and uncouth soldiers, who were generally older than herself. It was her masculine clothing made them behave around her. It was perfect good sense.
Point being - would she then be the only female in history called upon to wear men’s clothing and take up ‘masculine’ pursuits such as fighting?
For that matter, what the heck ARE ‘masculine’ pursuits? Time was when for a woman to pursue virtually any profession at all - doctor, lawyer, stockbroker, politician and so on - would be seen as ‘unfeminine’, or would even be downright impossible.
For that matter for a woman to run any kind of business, own any property under her own name as opposed to being under the auspices of male relatives - or even vote! - was also at one time seen as unnatural and unfeminine. Which is an entirely false and unscriptural idea - the last chapter of Proverbs shows an ‘ideal wife’, who makes money by her own work AND sells and buys land with the proceeds.
As for fashions and deportment - again, time was when for a woman to ridea horse in any other fashion than side saddle was unfeminine, or even to show a glimpse of ankle. Swimsuits were more than neck-to-knee - Annette Kellerman got charged with a crime for wearing basically a wetsuit, which no-one would blink at today, just because it wasn’t a great huge baggy thing.
Go tell the Queen she’s being unacceptably masculine, then - she always rides normally and almost always shows her ankles Even her knees sometimes Scandalous!
All in all, a great deal of cultural (name removed by moderator)ut goes into what is deemed ‘ladylike’, in terms of behaviour and fashions, at any given point in history.
**
You are talking about Ste. Joan of Arc right? Techincally, I believe that there may be doctrinal exceptions for crossdressing such as preservation of chastity, but I’m not sure… And by the by, that bit from proverbs is one of my favorite parts of the Bible.**
Pax.
*Quote:
Originally Posted by JSSebastianoP
How so? How would you answer the question about “have you ever seen the Virgin Mary wearing pants?” *
No but then I’ve never seen her wearing shoes either. Does that mean a) she didn’t wear shoes in life, or b) that for women to wear shoes is wrong?
It doesn’t necessarily mean too much; it’s just a question that a lot of the traditionalists pose.
For a lot of women to have the Virgin Mary as a role model is a good thing; should one not dress like her? That is the traditional trail of thought.*Quote:
And, while saints were on earth they were people, capable of sin. In the very least, this just proves that a woman who wore pants can become a saint. Perhaps when she went through purgatory she was punished for crossdressing; perhaps GOD did not view it as crossdressing - who knows? I just don’t view it as the definitive proof we’re all looking for to end the debate one way or the other. It certainly helps strengthen the case for wearing pants but it is not definitive.
Pax. *
Read up on Joan’s life - she absolutely insisted that it was her voices (namely Sts Michael, Catherine and Margaret, sent to her by God) who told her to dress as she did. That being the case, it’s hardly likely that God would view it as a sin.
And for very good reason - she was living and fighting alongside rough and uncouth soldiers, who were generally older than herself. It was her masculine clothing made them behave around her. It was perfect good sense.
Point being - would she then be the only female in history called upon to wear men’s clothing and take up ‘masculine’ pursuits such as fighting?
For that matter, what the heck ARE ‘masculine’ pursuits? Time was when for a woman to pursue virtually any profession at all - doctor, lawyer, stockbroker, politician and so on - would be seen as ‘unfeminine’, or would even be downright impossible.
For that matter for a woman to run any kind of business, own any property under her own name as opposed to being under the auspices of male relatives - or even vote! - was also at one time seen as unnatural and unfeminine. Which is an entirely false and unscriptural idea - the last chapter of Proverbs shows an ‘ideal wife’, who makes money by her own work AND sells and buys land with the proceeds.
As for fashions and deportment - again, time was when for a woman to ridea horse in any other fashion than side saddle was unfeminine, or even to show a glimpse of ankle. Swimsuits were more than neck-to-knee - Annette Kellerman got charged with a crime for wearing basically a wetsuit, which no-one would blink at today, just because it wasn’t a great huge baggy thing.
Go tell the Queen she’s being unacceptably masculine, then - she always rides normally and almost always shows her ankles Even her knees sometimes Scandalous!
All in all, a great deal of cultural (name removed by moderator)ut goes into what is deemed ‘ladylike’, in terms of behaviour and fashions, at any given point in history.
**
You are talking about Ste. Joan of Arc right? Techincally, I believe that there may be doctrinal exceptions for crossdressing such as preservation of chastity, but I’m not sure… And by the by, that bit from proverbs is one of my favorite parts of the Bible.**
Robes (not skirts) are a type of clothing that can be worn by either gender, like the Japanese yukata.
Pax.
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
I agree that it is quite questionable as to whether wearing pants would be considered a “sin”. I think that is over reaching. Sodomy and fornication are sins…but wearing pants? Come on.
Have you been to an NO Mass lately? Have you seen the attire worn by a good number of parishioners who attend the NO? For instance…short skirts, backless dresses, skull and bones t-shirts. I have witnessed all and not ONCE have their attire have caused me to sin. However, in the house of our Lord I do feel that the attire just mentioned is innappropriate. But, it is a far cry from short short skirts and backless dresses to a nice pair of well-fitting (not tight or revealing) dress pants. As much as I would like, I am not responsible for another person’s occasion to sin. Where is personal responsibility? You could really say, that any form of clothing might be the cause for some perverts to sin. Should we all dress in burkas?
I am still confused about a priest who would speak so insultingly to members of his parish. I said it before, he should be concerned with their souls. I am sure he might have his hands full there.
B
Brenda_V
Guest
Wow, so wearing my very obviously feminine jeans is cross dressing? I do think that cross dressing for a man includes far more than what he puts on his body, most cross dressers I have come in contact with, at least the men, also put on more make-up than Tammy Fay.I think, we can in our own lives, discover the differences simply by wearing different clothing. And while there is more to this than just that… or rather, there is the interior mental harm from dressing one way or another, besides the spiritual effects (which can be subtle but harmful) which can be more or less depending how overtly the psychology of a person is dependent on dressing like the opposite gender… also…
If wearing pants is not cross-dressing, what exactly -is- cross dressing for a woman, to dress like a man? Does it, effectively, even exist?
For a man we -know- what cross dressing is. He puts on a dress.
RedSoxWife, you are right in we should not cause a near occasion of sin in others but the question really is - does wearing decent pants do that? If it does is that the problem of the wearer or the viewer? Nice, well fitting pants do not do what Colleen Hammond say it does, really, they don’t.
Some of todays fashions are indeed immodest, the way some wear the more modest clothes is also immodest but that does not mean I wear them that way.
BTW, how do you find decent dresses and skirts at Target? I know I am plus size but I do have to wade through all the smaller clothing to get to my size and I don’t see much there that fits Ms. Hammond’s criteria. My friends shop Coldwater Creek for decent, modest, not too expensive clothing. I shop Lany Bryant and can find some decent stuff although I have to be careful of the tops because they are cut for someone who is bustier than I am.
For all the plus size women reading this thread you should check out www.jms.com, they are one of my sources for everyday wear, most of the t-shirts I get from them are not too low cut.
Brenda V.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
No, nor have I ever seen Christ Himself wearing pants. Does that mean it is a sin for men to do so? The whole line of thinking that a woman who wears pants is sinning simply by wearing them is just so…well, I don’t know what to say because I want to remain charitable. I think it is just a very small distraction and it is very hard for me to take it seriously.
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
I don’t think culture has any idea of modesty at all: by which I mean not so much that people are intentionally immodest, but that they simply don’t know that modesty exists (they are “amodest” ??) I do, however, think people know when they are wearing “sexy” clothing; i.e. clothing that they intend to wear in order to flaunt certain areas of their bodies. And I don’t think this is the norm.
Further, I think it’s easy living in California (I was born there and lived there for over 20 years) to get a skewed idea of what is the norm. Clothing standards are always more relaxed in temperate climates. I can tell you that midriff baring clothing is not the norm out here in the east.
(In fact clothing out here is so much more formal, I continually feel shabby-- what, you mean the fact that my outfit matches isn’t enough
?)I think a decent response to the lack of standards in society is to wear ordinary clothes that simply don’t flaunt those areas of the body used to sell sex. No showing off your breasts, thighs, midriff, or pubic area and nothing see-through or skin tight.
I hope this will not become the norm. But if it does, I think that will happen because the society will have lost all moral standards.
Obviously, as Catholics (and patriots!) we want to stop this decline. But the most effective means to do so is by living an openly moral life.
I understand that Colleen Hammond, et. al. are desperately trying to regain what they feel we have “lost” in society in the last 40 years or so. (Frankly, I think what we lost was a sense of discipline in society, but there would’ve been no way to stop that with the acceptance of contraception.) But I think insisting that all women return to a standard of dress that has become impractical is a rational or effective response.
In fact, I think, by insisting, people like Mrs. Hammond and the priest in the OP do more harm than good and put emphasis in the wrong place (on particular items of clothing.) (Not to mention that what they say is outside the bounds of Church teaching.)
I think it is (at least I have found this to be the case in my life) the people who practice modesty… modestly
… quietly, and within the bounds of the ordinary, who do the most good and are the most effective.Yes, but only is so far as it wouldn’t interfere with my attempts to live a balanced, holy life. You cannot anticipate someone else’s reaction to you to the extent, that it interferes with your own attempts to follow God’s will.
Frankly, as a single woman without a car, on a limited income, living in a dangerous part of town, following Mrs. Hammond’s teachings would interfere inappropriately with my life. (But I think placing that much emphasis on clothing is inappropriate, anyway…)
Here I will wholeheartedly agree with you!
J
JEANNIEMAC
Guest
When I was a young girl, I went to school on snowy winter days, arriving with red, raw legs, freezing cold from wearing stockings. My brothers, the stronger sex, were warm and comfortable in their long johns and trousers. When we girls went to the playground, to the monkey bars,we could sit only on the low bar, while our brothers climbed to the top. We could not let them see our drawers. I thought, I don’t care if I see a boy’s drawers - so why don’t we girls wear trousers, and let the boys wear dresses?" AS I grew older, I thought, "Men have their private parts all belted, buttoned, zippered and protected. Women have to wear dresses, leaving them vunerable to attack. Men are anatomically suited to dresses, while women are more anatomically suited to trousers.
But, it would appear that men do want women to be vulnerable, while they have their family jewels heavily armored.
Women should be able to wear slacks that are modest, and protect them from view to all persons following them on stairs and escalators, and from boys who wear mirrors on their shoes.
But, it would appear that men do want women to be vulnerable, while they have their family jewels heavily armored.
Women should be able to wear slacks that are modest, and protect them from view to all persons following them on stairs and escalators, and from boys who wear mirrors on their shoes.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Women cross dressers are not women wearing women’s pants. Women who cross dress are women who wear men’s clothing and styles to look like a man.
I see it often with lesbians. They have shaved heads, and they wear men’s attire.
I see it often with lesbians. They have shaved heads, and they wear men’s attire.
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
It’s a typical question that traditionalists ask. The ramifications are up to you; I’ve already responded to two others who answered the question; please see above.
Pax.
M
Marfran
Guest
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:When I was a young girl, I went to school on snowy winter days, arriving with red, raw legs, freezing cold from wearing stockings. My brothers, the stronger sex, were warm and comfortable in their long johns and trousers. When we girls went to the playground, to the monkey bars,we could sit only on the low bar, while our brothers climbed to the top. We could not let them see our drawers. I thought, I don’t care if I see a boy’s drawers - so why don’t we girls wear trousers, and let the boys wear dresses?" AS I grew older, I thought, "Men have their private parts all belted, buttoned, zippered and protected. Women have to wear dresses, leaving them vunerable to attack. Men are anatomically suited to dresses, while women are more anatomically suited to trousers.
But, it would appear that men do want women to be vulnerable, while they have their family jewels heavily armored.
Women should be able to wear slacks that are modest, and protect them from view to all persons following them on stairs and escalators, and from boys who wear mirrors on their shoes.
I can’t believe this thread–I can’t believe the priest in the OP–skirts ARE LESS MODEST–you are all open from beneath.
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
It definitely isn’t all the clothes at Target, but since Maxi dresses have become trendy I’ve found some good stuff. They usually need a sweater to make them good for Mass, but every now and then I find something perfect.
M
Marfran
Guest
Thanks Evelyn!!! We now have a name for the long underwear under your skirt look: The **Granny Clampet **look. I want to know what the priest in the OP thinks of this.Oh, Marfran, I just have to laugh! I live within walking distance of my church, and when it snows I pull the kids on a sled. One Saturday, after spending the day sledding in jeans, I did wear a dress to church, because it was the only clean thing left that fit. So of course I had long underwear and work boots on. I figured we would sit discreetly in the back. Only people didn’t show up because of the snowstorn, and I got recruited as an EMHC. I felt like such an idiot, and people complimented me later on my Granny Clampet look.
Sometimes dresses at church are not appropriate
Evelyn
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
I actually don’t think we disagree too much after reading this quote. I hope that it’s just something about living in California! I do know however, that in college there were quite a few girls that intentionally dressed pretty provocatively. I went to a Catholic College (Saint Mary’s College of California) and the outfits worn at the school functions were outrageous. One year girls wore cellophane as shirts and nothing was said! It was pretty bad. I sincerely hope that this isn’t the norm… however when I was in school (class of '04) it pretty much was for quite a few female students. My resident hall director was totally serious when she told the guys the first weekend of school “and I don’t want you bringing the freshman girls over her, with their body glitter and tub tops.”I don’t think culture has any idea of modesty at all: by which I mean not so much that people are intentionally immodest, but that they simply don’t know that modesty exists (they are “amodest” ??) I do, however, think people know when they are wearing “sexy” clothing; i.e. clothing that they intend to wear in order to flaunt certain areas of their bodies. And I don’t think this is the norm.
Further, I think it’s easy living in California (I was born there and lived there for over 20 years) to get a skewed idea of what is the norm. Clothing standards are always more relaxed in temperate climates. I can tell you that midriff baring clothing is not the norm out here in the east.
(In fact clothing out here is so much more formal, I continually feel shabby-- what, you mean the fact that my outfit matches isn’t enough
I think a decent response to the lack of standards in society is to wear ordinary clothes that simply don’t flaunt those areas of the body used to sell sex. No showing off your breasts, thighs, midriff, or pubic area and nothing see-through or skin tight.
I hope this will not become the norm. But if it does, I think that will happen because the society will have lost all moral standards.
Obviously, as Catholics (and patriots!) we want to stop this decline. But the most effective means to do so is by living an openly moral life.
I understand that Colleen Hammond, et. al. are desperately trying to regain what they feel we have “lost” in society in the last 40 years or so. (Frankly, I think what we lost was a sense of discipline in society, but there would’ve been no way to stop that with the acceptance of contraception.) But I think insisting that all women return to a standard of dress that has become impractical is a rational or effective response.
In fact, I think, by insisting, people like Mrs. Hammond and the priest in the OP do more harm than good and put emphasis in the wrong place (on particular items of clothing.) (Not to mention that what they say is outside the bounds of Church teaching.)
I think it is (at least I have found this to be the case in my life) the people who practice modesty… modestly
Yes, but only is so far as it wouldn’t interfere with my attempts to live a balanced, holy life. You cannot anticipate someone else’s reaction to you to the extent, that it interferes with your own attempts to follow God’s will.
Frankly, as a single woman without a car, on a limited income, living in a dangerous part of town, following Mrs. Hammond’s teachings would interfere inappropriately with my life. (But I think placing that much emphasis on clothing is inappropriate, anyway…)
Here I will wholeheartedly agree with you!
M
Marfran
Guest
Have you ever seen a guy in pumps?
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
J
JEANNIEMAC
Guest
I’ve used the Chesterton quote in comments about abortion. His writings are sometimes humorous and yet very clear and direct.,
- Status