Pants! ...and my pride

[Marfran]

Actually, it’s very traditional, very proper, for men to wear men’s pumps with a tuxedo. And there have been times historically when pumps have been the most fashionable choice for men.

Let’s see a photo of these men’s pumps you are talking about.

 

[Marfran]

I would like to add another slant on the wearing of pants issue. I have two reasons for wearing pants: First, most all of the women attending mass where I used to go wore pants. It was a very casual atmosphere and one didn’t see many dresses or skirts unless it was Easter time. The second, and more compelling reason I wear pants is that both my husband and I, in our young and stupid years, thought it was cool to get tattoos. I have a rather large one on my left calf that would show if I wore a dress or skirt. Even the longer varieties tend to have slits up the side which flash my tattoo as I walk. Since I regret getting tattoos, and since I feel respect towards the Church and those attending, I wear pants.

I tried that one–unsightly legs–was told to wear a skirt to the floor.

 

[Marfran]

“Reply to Objection 3. As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deuteronomy 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive.”

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica
Question 169

So as long as the woman buys her pants in the woman’s section of the store, she is OK, right??? And the pregnant lady above who wore her husband’s pants while pregnant because they were bigger is sinning???

 

[Marfran]

Attractiveness is not what I am writting about. When many men look at women’s bottoms, it is of a sexual look.

I take it you are speaking for yourself. I saw a show on TV where they were asking men what part of women’s anatomy they found the most attractive. Some said busts, some said legs (which in our discussion would be **hidden **by pants), some said hair, and some said faces. (Surprisingly, or not surprisingly no one said butt.) Should women cover their faces too? Well, they do in some cultures. And if the lady is 95 years old, are you going to still look at her butt?? Or does she get a reprieve to wear pants, because no one cares about her butt?

 

[Marfran]

I see many women wearing pants and many times the pants make thier bottoms look sexy and that is not good.

THIS GUY SO HAS A WANDERING EYE. Maybe you should get that thing fixed!!!

 

[redrosetea]

Let’s see a photo of these men’s pumps you are talking about.

I recall pumps for men …If was an old fashioned thing …I don’t think they do it today…I recall James in the All Creatures Great and Small borrowing his future FIL’s pumps

If you are thinking about high heels…they weren’t like those, but I think they might have had a bow on the toes, and I think they were patent leather

In the Court of Louis XV I think men did wear high heels, and they were tied with satin ribbons, and they wore long haired wigs with curls…It was just fashion and nothing more…aren’t you glad you didn’t live back then?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Only because it would be unusual to see it, and because in our culture, the fashion statement being made would likely not be a very positive one. As you can see from my name, I am Scottish, so I see men in kilts quite often - and they look very masculine, to me. To people not used to seeing them, they look like women’s skirts. So, it’s simply a matter of what one is used to seeing, when it comes to clothing.

Yes; a matter of one one is used to seeing - and many are still used to women wearing skirts.

He isn’t making any sort of a theological argument. He is misapplying theology to the realm of fashion.

Can not anything be brought into the theological realm based on theological laws. For example, one could say gastronomy has nothing to do with the legal profession - until he realizes that representatives are legislating that restaurants do certain things. One could say it belongs to both realms; fashion must be guided by theology. That is why we are having this theological discussion.

Why should someone follow a dictate that isn’t even practical?

Because it’s the right thing to do. It may be easier for me to lie every now and then, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

The days are long gone (if they ever existed) when a woman can afford to merely be a decorative ornament in the home.

In my family, anyway, women were never ‘ornaments’ or ‘decorations’; they had a specific duty to watch the kids, to cook. While men went out and earned money. Or on a day when someone needed, say a room repainted, the men would do the painting and the women would prepare food.
I asked a (female) friend of mine what she wanted to do when she got out of college (I’m an New Yorker, so I’ve been indoctrinated that women should necessarily be in the workforce); I was shocked when she said that when she got out of college she wanted to look for a husband and be a housewife. So refreshing! Woman’s role in society is of paramount importance and it is sad to me to see that so many women have given it up, but I guess that really isn’t on topic for this thread…

The Book of Genesis tells us that we were created to be help-mates for our husbands - to assist them in their work. Appropriate clothing for the task is required, in order to fulfill this Divinely mandated mission - which means, when climbing ladders to retrieve objects lost on the roof, running after children, and getting down on one’s knees to scrub the floors, pants are perfectly acceptable.

Being male, I can’t speak from experience but I remember seeing another post here by a woman that said she could do those things in a dress/skirt; so…

Pax.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Yes; a matter of one one is used to seeing - and many are still used to women wearing skirts.

Can not anything be brought into the theological realm based on theological laws. For example, one could say gastronomy has nothing to do with the legal profession - until he realizes that representatives are legislating that restaurants do certain things. One could say it belongs to both realms; fashion must be guided by theology. That is why we are having this theological discussion.

Because it’s the right thing to do. It may be easier for me to lie every now and then, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

In my family, anyway, women were never ‘ornaments’ or ‘decorations’; they had a specific duty to watch the kids, to cook. While men went out and earned money. Or on a day when someone needed, say a room repainted, the men would do the painting and the women would prepare food.
I asked a (female) friend of mine what she wanted to do when she got out of college (I’m an New Yorker, so I’ve been indoctrinated that women should necessarily be in the workforce); I was shocked when she said that when she got out of college she wanted to look for a husband and be a housewife. So refreshing! Woman’s role in society is of paramount importance and it is sad to me to see that so many women have given it up, but I guess that really isn’t on topic for this thread…

Being male, I can’t speak from experience but I remember seeing another post here by a woman that said she could do those things in a dress/skirt; so…

Pax.

I’m sure she can, but that doesn’t mean every woman can-or should have to.

As far as what a woman’s “role” should be, you’re right-that’s a whole 'nother thread. (but it would probably be a really good discussion)

 

[JSSebastianoP]

As far as what a woman’s “role” should be, you’re right-that’s a whole 'nother thread. (but it would probably be a really good discussion)

And no doubt heated.

Pax.

 

[adstrinity]

Because it’s the right thing to do. It may be easier for me to lie every now and then, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

How is it the right thing to do? How is women wearing pants wrong? How?

And, again, I must point out, I was not joking: I look at men’s crotches, how do they intend to solve this practically?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

How is it the right thing to do? How is women wearing pants wrong? How?

I wasn’t talking necessarily about pants there; I was giving an example that sometimes to “follow a dictate that isn’t even practical” could be a good thing and that practicality does not determine sinfulness; i. e. just because something is easy that doesn’t make it right.

And, again, I must point out, I was not joking: I look at men’s crotches, how do they intend to solve this practically?

And, let’s try to fix the problem; I’m not joking. What (in terms of the pants) drag’s you to mens’ crotches? Lines? Tightness? I can’t help try to fix the situation if I don’t quite yet understand exactly how feminine psychology applies to the problem…

Pax.

 

[jmcrae]

In my family, anyway, women were never ‘ornaments’ or ‘decorations’; they had a specific duty to watch the kids, to cook. While men went out and earned money. Or on a day when someone needed, say a room repainted, the men would do the painting and the women would prepare food.

And if the men were away at work when the painting needed doing, who did the painting?

(I am betting that the women put on overalls, and did the painting, without the men ever knowing that they had done so.)

Being male, I can’t speak from experience but I remember seeing another post here by a woman that said she could do those things in a dress/skirt; so…

There may well be some women who can walk and even run with their legs daintily crossed; however, it is not a skill that God gives to everyone.

 

[jmcrae]

And, let’s try to fix the problem; I’m not joking. What (in terms of the pants) drag’s you to mens’ crotches? Lines? Tightness? I can’t help try to fix the situation if I don’t quite yet understand exactly how feminine psychology applies to the problem…

Pax.

I think her point was merely that if pants are unchaste for women, then they are most definitely unchaste for men, since the anatomical part thus “highlighted” is so much larger in the male than in the female.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

And if the men were away at work when the painting needed doing, who did the painting?

(I am betting that the women put on overalls, and did the painting, without the men ever knowing that they had done so.)

That wouldn’t be that easy to hide, you know. The painting was done on a weekend when everyone was available. And if the women were away painting when the cooking needen to be done, who did the cooking?

There may well be some women who can walk and even run with their legs daintily crossed; however, it is not a skill that God gives to everyone.

If I slouch because I have bad posture I should try to fix that through hard work and perseverence. Perfection, although unattainable, should always be a goal.

Pax.

 

[jmcrae]

That wouldn’t be that easy to hide, you know. The painting was done on a weekend when everyone was available. And if the women were away painting when the cooking needen to be done, who did the cooking?

Perhaps they didn’t take the entire eight hours of the day to cook dinner.

If I slouch because I have bad posture I should try to fix that through hard work and perseverence. Perfection, although unattainable, should always be a goal.

I don’t see that it has anything to do with “perfection” to mince around in a dress, and attempt at the same time to get any manual labour done.

One should put on the uniform of the work that one is doing. When hostessing, yes, put on a dress, because the job is to look pretty, and a dress is the uniform of looking pretty. Otherwise, there are more practical things to wear, that don’t get caught in the machinery, and that are easy to clean if they inadvertently become soiled.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Perhaps they didn’t take the entire eight hours of the day to cook dinner.

An Italian dinner can take a full day to cook especially when you’re cooking for a lot of people: all the women who helped and all the men coming back from work; that’s a lot of people and quite a few hours of cooking. And who cooked lunch?

I don’t see that it has anything to do with “perfection” to mince around in a dress, and attempt at the same time to get any manual labour done.

Women are supposed to be feminine, not the ones doing the physical labor. For females who are just friends I’m always holding the door, carrying packages, purses et cetera because that’s what any man should do for any woman.

One should put on the uniform of the work that one is doing. When hostessing, yes, put on a dress, because the job is to look pretty, and a dress is the uniform of looking pretty. Otherwise, there are more practical things to wear, that don’t get caught in the machinery, and that are easy to clean if they inadvertently become soiled.

Yes. And why should women be dealing with such machinery; yes it may be necessary sometimes - but that is the exception (that should be rare) to the rule.

Pax.

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes. And why should women be dealing with such machinery; yes it may be necessary sometimes - but that is the exception (that should be rare) to the rule.

Pax.

THis is a totally bizarre statement - I drive a car, mow the lawn, plow the driveway with the tractor, when I was working before I had kids I was using big trucks and guns and radios. In high school I worked with photocopiers and hot dog trailers and propane tanks. And some women just like machinery, like my cousin who is a welder. What world do you live in that women don’t ever have to or want to deal with machinery?

 

[adstrinity]

And, let’s try to fix the problem; I’m not joking. What (in terms of the pants) drag’s you to mens’ crotches? Lines? Tightness? I can’t help try to fix the situation if I don’t quite yet understand exactly how feminine psychology applies to the problem…

Pax.

Probably the lines. I don’t think tightness has anything to do with it. That and pants do fit so absurdly on a man. There’s a bulge somewhere there, whether prominent or on the right or left leg. There’s just something about men’s pants that attracts an eye there.

 

[redrosetea]

Probably the lines. I don’t think tightness has anything to do with it. That and pants do fit so absurdly on a man. There’s a bulge somewhere there, whether prominent or on the right or left leg. There’s just something about men’s pants that attracts an eye there.

No wonder the pope wears a dress…he probably heard about folks like you:hypno::hypno:

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Probably the lines. I don’t think tightness has anything to do with it. That and pants do fit so absurdly on a man. There’s a bulge somewhere there, whether prominent or on the right or left leg. There’s just something about men’s pants that attracts an eye there.

Now I know what you mean. I’ve noticed it every now and then but I guess as a male it didn’t distract me too much. This may sound ridiculous, but what about Hakama? Or something similar that’s more flowing?

Pax.