Pants! ...and my pride

[qui_est_ce]

And I can offer a correction in my turn. She may have been given gifts, including armour. Good made-to-measure armour was incredibly expensive - the equivalent of buying a house as a present for someone today.

She emphatically would NOT have worn that type of armour in battle, even if it WAS given to her - such armour was merely for show, worn in military parades and the like.

Not only that, but she cut off her hair and disguised herself as a male to keep from getting raped by her fellow soldiers.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thank you for this link and for saving me the time and the money I would have wasted on purchasing this book.

I bought the book last week with the intention of leaving lying around for my 18-year old daughter to read. I wish I would have seen this thread bofore then and saved myself $13.00. Ms Hammonds is so out there, she would send my daughter screaming to the other side. Happily I am old enough not to overreact like that. She doesn’t approve of pants, shorts, or swimming suits. I haven’t gotten to the part of what women should wear to the pool. She hypersexualizes men. I wear dress slacks or skirts to mass, even when I am lectoring or cantoring. Last week, I was lectoring. I had on a nice pair of linen slacks and a 3/4 sleeve shirt. I suddenly felt self-concious about wearing slacks. Because of the stupid book, I would NEVER have thought that way. I suppose I should have felt self-conscious about wearing open-toed sandals without hose (I have bright orange painted toes as well). Is there a part in the book that condemns painted toes as too sexy for men to handle?

 

[qui_est_ce]

What is FSSP?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I bought the book last week with the intention of leaving lying around for my 18-year old daughter to read. I wish I would have seen this thread bofore then and saved myself $13.00. Ms Hammonds is so out there, she would send my daughter screaming to the other side. Happily I am old enough not to overreact like that. **She doesn’t approve of pants, shorts, or swimming suits. I haven’t gotten to the part of what women should wear to the pool. ** She hypersexualizes men. I wear dress slacks or skirts to mass, even when I am lectoring or cantoring. Last week, I was lectoring. I had on a nice pair of linen slacks and a 3/4 sleeve shirt. I suddenly felt self-concious about wearing slacks. Because of the stupid book, I would NEVER have thought that way. I suppose I should have felt self-conscious about wearing open-toed sandals without hose (I have bright orange painted toes as well). Is there a part in the book that condemns painted toes as too sexy for men to handle?

Here are a couple of her swimwear sites:

freewebs.com/swimwear_solutions
wholesomewear.com/

I can’t imagine showing up at swim practice in one of these-and my lap times would really suffer.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

What is FSSP?

The FSSP is the “Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri”…of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. They are priests who exclusively say the Traiditonal Tridentine Latin Mass as allowed by the Holy Father John Paul II in 1988.

Here is their link that you might like to visit.
fssp.org/

They are the priests at my oratory. Very devout.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Here are a couple of her swimwear sites:

freewebs.com/swimwear_solutions
wholesomewear.com/

I can’t imagine showing up at swim practice in one of these-and my lap times would really suffer.

Giggle.

The styles in the first link would look better on most casual swimmer women than the skimpy stuff they wear (especially my age and over). The second link, boy, those are just plain ugly. When I go to the pool, I usually wear a parrero unless I’m actually in the water.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

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.

Although I love the EF, I do attend a NO mass; the church near where I am doesn’t offer EF and I have to walk there - I can’t drive. So, yes; I do know the atrocious things that people wear to an NO. The thing is modesty and pants are different.

To use another analogy, miniskirts are to skirts what short shorts are to pants. To wear a miniskirt or short shorts is the sin of immodesty. If we presume that for a woman to wear pants is crossdressing, then to wear pants or short shorts would be comitting that sin. To wear pants does does not mean that one is free from the restraints of modesty; in other words, there are such things as modest pants but it wouldn’t matter if it’s modest IF indeed it is crossdressing. My father could wear a modest dress, but then he’d be comitting the sin of crossdressing.

Pax.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Although I love the EF, I do attend a NO mass; the church near where I am doesn’t offer EF and I have to walk there - I can’t drive. So, yes; I do know the atrocious things that people wear to an NO. The thing is modesty and pants are different.

Pax.

When I was a little kid before the NO was introduced, we used to have to pin kleenexes on our heads of we forgot our beanies. I don’t think that’s very respectful. It’s modest, but not appropriate. Of course in those days, you felt naked without a head covering.

 

[SwizzleStick]

When I was a little kid before the NO was introduced, we used to have to pin kleenexes on our heads of we forgot our beanies. I don’t think that’s very respectful. It’s modest, but not appropriate. Of course in those days, you felt naked without a head covering.

Ah, that brought back memories. When I went to daily Mass as a child, the girls had to wear a little black chapel veil. I washed mine out one day and left it in the bathroom to air dry. It somehow disappeared so that I couldn’t find it. When I went to school the next day, the sisters had me bobby pin a Kleenex on my head for Mass. That really didn’t bother me at all and lo and behold, that afternoon, my veil reappeared in the bathroom where I’d left it. Turns out that my brother thought it would be funny to see me have to wear a Kleenex pinned to my head, so he “misplaced” my veil. Since it didn’t embarrass me and wasn’t a big deal to me, though, I guess there was no fun in that, so my veil ended up where I’d left it and he later told me about why he had moved it.

 

[daeve]

I wear skirts and dresses almost exclusively, because they permit freer movement. They are also much more forgiving of my cycle-related shape changes.

I agree with those who say that pants vs skirts isn’t really the issue, because either one can be modest or immodest.

One thing I definitely notice, though–when I wear a dress in public, I get better service! Salespeople are more helpful; while walking I’m more likely to be waved through an intersection by a driver. Foul-mouthed kids at the park clean it up real quick

People treat me much differently when I’m dressed up a bit.

But I will not paste some kind of moral component on it, or tell anybody that they ought to dress like me! It was a bad experience that I wouldn’t wish on anyone that caused me to start covering up. Now I do it by free choice.

I haven’t worn a dress or skirt in probably 10 years for several reasons, but I have noticed that when I’m wearing business clothes I’m treated very differently than when I’m wearing casual clothes.

I have very nice, modest, grown-up type clothes – think Ecco Bay and Alfred Dunner, what middle aged women all over this country wear – and I wear them to work and to church. I don’t like seeing jeans at church, but a lot of the jeans I do see are clean, neatly pressed, not faded or torn, and look as nice as khakis. There are plenty of options of nice modest dress and we can all dress the way we find suitable.

I’m barely 5’ tall. My feet frequently don’t touch the floor when I sit. I started wearing pants because I felt so uncomfortable with my legs dangling. Wearing pants gave me one less thing to worry about.

My pants are not in anyway enticing or revealing. They are intended to cover me up, and let me just blend into the background. I feel much more exposed in a skirt than I do in a dress. And I’ll never again exit the ladies room with my skirt tucked up into my panty hose. That’s not so much an occassion of sin as it is an occassion of comedy.

 

[daeve]

I don’t get this whole argument. It all comes down to the basic belief that women are evil and seduce men into losing control over their (sexual) behavior.

From pants, are we going to move on to hair and make-up, and don’t forget- shoes! The temptations of the flesh are just too much.

As for blurring of the sexes-- you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “She must be a female because she has long hair, lipstick, and wears a skirt, and he must be a male because he has short hair, no lipstick, and wears pants. Therefore, she is tempting the poor hapless male into sin.”

If we all wore burkas, including men, this wouldn’t be discussed.
When we worked on a dress code at my job, it was ALL ABOUT THE WOMEN! And the same arguments. It all boils down to men blaming women for seducing them. Adam blamed Eve and nothing has changed.

I think you just defined me as a man: short hair, no lipstick and pants. I’m an old lady, not a fella.

 

[redrosetea]

It sounds like Iran here with the fashion police deciding what we can wear…perhaps they would like a burqa with eye slits?

I can just see these people lining up wth their stones as Jesus silently wrote in the sand

 

[daeve]

Sorry; but I felt I should explain some of this, if you don’t understand what the priest meant. I’m not going to give my opinion on it, just explain. (He said, “Mini skirts are to fornication what pants are to sodomy.”)
Fornication is less of a sin than sodomy; even though both are done in sin, fornication, at least, is a proper use of the sexual facility.
So in comparing miniskirts to fornication and pants to sodomy, the priest means to say that while miniskirts are sinful, they are less so than pants because they are of the proper form.
Does that make sense?

Pax.

I understand you explanation, but I won’t say it makes sense. It’s absurd.

That men wear pants and women wear skirts is a convention of society, not anything handed down from the Bible. Everyone wore “skirts” for a long time before pants were invented. Somewhere along the way, some tailor got an idea, and from this people have decided that women MUST wear skirts and men MUST wear pants.

 

[deb216]

Giggle.

The styles in the first link would look better on most casual swimmer women than the skimpy stuff they wear (especially my age and over). The second link, boy, those are just plain ugly. When I go to the pool, I usually wear a parrero unless I’m actually in the water.

I may just buy a suit from that first link. I do not believe that pants are inherently sinful but I avoid water because I don’t like regular bathing suits. They are horribly unflattering to pretty much everyone. If I go swimming, I cover up my suit with a t-shirt and shorts anyways so those suits are a nice option.

The second link, though…yuck. It takes modesty to a whole new level of ugliness

 

[JSSebastianoP]

When I was a little kid before the NO was introduced, we used to have to pin kleenexes on our heads of we forgot our beanies. I don’t think that’s very respectful. It’s modest, but not appropriate. Of course in those days, you felt naked without a head covering.

Why don’t you think it’s respectful or appropriate?

Pax.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

That men wear pants and women wear skirts is a convention of society, not anything handed down from the Bible. Everyone wore “skirts” for a long time before pants were invented. Somewhere along the way, some tailor got an idea, and from this people have decided that women MUST wear skirts and men MUST wear pants.

Robes do differ from skirts. And in fact it would have been a sin in the first AD years for a man to wear pants (the Romans saw the Persian women wear pants so it became a no-no for men). So I guess we really should be asking what is appropriate in ones own time and place… My analysis is that women wearing pants is, as someone above said, an effect of the blurring of gender roles; not a cause. The various implications and misunderstandings follow. Many people remember fondly a time when gender roles were not so blurred; perhaps the most visible consequence of that is that women wear pants in everyday life. Most people then, through a fallacy of logic, conclude that getting rid of pants on women would restore gender roles. What they have to realize is that by doing so they would only be concerned with the symptoms, which in and of themselves may not have any sinfulness, of a deep hurt in modern society. What mankind has to do is treat the underlying problem, has to restore gender roles. Once the cause is healed, the symptoms will have to sort themselves out.

Pax.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

When I was a little kid before the NO was introduced, we used to have to pin kleenexes on our heads of we forgot our beanies. I don’t think that’s very respectful. It’s modest, but not appropriate. Of course in those days, you felt naked without a head covering.

We had beanies in school, but if you “forgot” it, Sister put her hanky on your head. I NEVER forgot mine. I remember a heated argument with my Mother about why using a baseball cap as a headcovering for Mass was not appropriate. My theory was if someone could stick a Kleenex or a hanky on your head, what the heck was wrong with my baseball cap??

 

[yablabo]

I don’t wear pants for fashion. I wear pants because I’m 350 pounds or so and it’s more comfortable and less hastle.

I can completely empathize with you. There is nothing wrong with wearing pants under a skirt, though, as long as your skirt is modest. I do it all the time since I have to be in a machine shop a lot. It’s especially nice when you don’t want to shave your legs.

I’ve also found that opaque tights work, too. I found some that were in a size somewhat smaller than I am…but I can persuade them to get on my legs if my legs are dry…haha! It’s not bad when it’s one day a week.

Also, for between 15 and 20 dollars you can get a body shaper from different places online (like avenue.com)…that will really do the trick in hiding pesky fat rolls…just make sure your body is dry completely before putting it on…

I also solved the problem of finding feminine clothing in my size…I make it. I buy fabric I like really cheap at places like Wal-Mart in the discount section…and then when I get a spare minute, I cut my pattern and sew a dress… That’s my best bet at getting modest clothes that fit my specific body type.

– Nicole

 

[Marfran]

I think you just defined me as a man: short hair, no lipstick and pants. I’m an old lady, not a fella.

I have long hair, no lipstick and pants.

So now WE HAVE TO WEAR LIPSTICK TOO??? No way am I wearin’ that stuff!!! NO WAY.

 

[jmcrae]

I have long hair, no lipstick and pants.

So now WE HAVE TO WEAR LIPSTICK TOO??? No way am I wearin’ that stuff!!! NO WAY.

Me, neither. I’m allergic to the perfumes in make-up, including the “non-allergenic” kind.

I just feel a great deal more attractive when my nose isn’t running and my eyes aren’t watering uncontrollably.

If I want my lips to blush a little, I just bite on them.