L
Lainey63
Guest
Another entertaining thread about women & pants…:tanning:
- Status
D
DominicVobiscum
Guest
There is a significant difference when someone dresses in order to get a “rush” or to act out some fantasy, and one who dresses for reasons for comfort and practicality.How so? How would you answer the question about “have you ever seen the Virgin Mary wearing pants?” I think it can possibly help one side of the argument but this photo is far from putting an end to the discussion.
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.
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
T
TMC
Guest
I can imagine the scene at the Final Judgment. Our Lord turns smiling to those on his right and says, “I was hungry and you fed me. I was naked and you clothed me. I was lonely and you… Hey! are those PANTS?!? Get in the other line.”
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
With respect, the problem is that in this (as in so many other scenarios in our relativistic age) the argument seems to be “since there can be a good reason and a bad reason to do something, we have to permit what is done for the <> reason.”
But making the inference that it’s all about choice effectively removes any kind of standard or norm or absolute. If it’s all about whether somebody is doing something for a ‘good’ reason or for a bad reason, then heck, anything goes because you are always, ALWAYS going to find somebody claiming to have a ‘good’ reason.
Thou shalt not steal. . .except, of course, if by not stealing, somebody is going to die. Then stealing becomes the right thing to do. Right? And hey, if one can steal for THAT good reason, one can steal for other good reasons . . .until, finally, you have people willing to steal for no reason at all except that they want to, and they can. Then, when people (quite correctly) begin to complain about people who are stealing for no reason, all the pundits come out and say, “But if we start getting tougher on stealing, we’re going to cause problems for all the wonderful people who steal for GOOD reasons. . .”
It seems difficult, and it is difficult, but what it comes down to is this.
When it comes to standards (and modesty is a virtue and a standard), either you’re going to make a lot of people ‘inconvenienced’ for a certain time (and the people facing, say, a $100 fine for ripping off pens and office supplies from their employer are inconvenienced, no more) while slowly making a better society through improvement of human character. . .or else you’re going to LET a lot of people HAVE their ‘convenience’ at the expense of society in the long run.
Have you noticed that, say, in the last 40 years people have gone from a standard where only the loutish and ignorant cursed and swore in public, to where the supposedly noble, well-educated ‘children of privilege’ do so? Because we didn’t want to ‘inconvenience’ the obnoxious people by holding their language to a reasonable standard of good manners. . .good manners in regard to the issue of foul language have in many places almost completely disappeared.
Food for thought?
S
slyboots
Guest
Tantum Ergo said exactly what I was thinking in much clearer terms.
A
ac_claire
Guest
I know…I thought the same thing. But try to take a look at “Dressing with Dignity,” it’s quite eye-opening. I’m sure there are other books out there but that’s just the one I’ve read.
I still do wear pants sometimes because it’s almost all the clothes I have in my work wardrobe, and I’m poor right now, but I intend to eventually phase out most of the pants in my wardrobe.
J
jmcrae
Guest
What kind of clothes you wear is not a moral decision; it is merely a fashion statement. Nobody will die, or suffer loss, or lose his marriage over women wearing pants. There is absolutely no comparison between stealing, or swearing, and the decision of whether or not to wear nice-looking modest, clean pants. You can clean your house and raise your children in pants a lot more easily and efficiently in pants than in a dress, because you have far more freedom of movement.
Stealing is wrong for both men and women. Swearing is also wrong, for both men and women. Morality is for all human beings; not just for one sex or the other. In Christ, there is neither male nor female.
You are right that if stealing were permitted, everyone would start complaining. Well, women are wearing pants, and not very many people are complaining. Most people don’t even notice.
J
jmcrae
Guest
As a man, he will never be required to run, climb a ladder, or bend over to pick up a dropped object, in a dress.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
and it’s still an opinion piece. The good Father is entitled to his opinion, as is the good Father in the OP-but they are still opinions. However, women wearing pants is STILL not sinful, and no pants wearing woman needs to confess that sin before receving Holy Communion.
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
The problem with your argument here is that the clothing one wears does matter; you wouldn’t want to see a man walking around in a dress, would you? Crossdressing is also wrong, for both men and women. The theological basis is clear; what is being debated is whether pants are mens’ clothes - which has no clear answer as of yet. But what you wear does matter; it is a moral decision.
Pax.
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
All right; let’s go back farther - to, say, 33 AD. As Catholics, don’t we follow what someone said at that time - about 2000 years ago? Is that relevant?
Pax.
M
Marfran
Guest
It depends what we are speaking about. If we are speaking about fashion and modes of dress, we are not going to follow and adhere to modes of dress that are antiquated. If you want to go back to 33 AD then **everyone **today, including and especially men, are not wearing the correct clothes. In fact, I don’t think that underwear or brassieres were in vogue then, or even invented. How do you feel about men and women today going sans underwear?
M
Marfran
Guest
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
M
Marfran
Guest
IF you want to take pants away from women, then you should take pants away from men also. We should all wear dresses including the men. If you want to turn the clock back, guys, then include the men in the witch hunt too. Jesus didn’t wear pants, so the modern man shouldn’t be wearing them either. How did you tell the men from the women back in the days of Christ??? Why is it OK for a modern man to wear pants???
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
My point was not about fashion; my point was that if something 2000 years ago is still relevant, than surely something 50 years ago is as well. People should dress according to time and place. The fact of the matter is that the 1960s are still very recent.
Pax.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
Let’s face it-people only want to turn the clock back when it fits their bias. I doubt anyone would really want to give up all of our lovely modern conveniences to “live as Jesus did”.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
So that invalidates his argument? That he’s a man? So, let me get this straight; you’re saying that just because he’s a man, his theological arguments are invalid?!? His arguments for practicality may be limited, but this really isn’t in the realm of practicality, as he pointed out…
Pax.
- Status