Pants! ...and my pride

[JSSebastianoP]

this thread isn’t about my humility, essentially being told when I wear pants I am immodest and causing great scandal to everybody around me.

adstrinity;5456756:

My original post was because a priest at my parish said pants on women were immodest. As this thread developed, it became more about sin. It originally started as pants (on women) are immodest.

Again: Mini-skirts are to fornication what pants are to sodomy.

And, again, I ask when I wear pants, now that I have read all this, does this qualify me for Hell?

And, I went to Lowes with my mom just now. She was wearing shorts, I was wearing shorts, saleslady was wearing jeans.

How do you get “pants are immodest” out of that?

I’m sorry; but the priest never said the pants were immodest or even implied it; he implied that it was disordered with his analogy. I’m still wondering because there is a big difference between immodest and disordered. I.e. in the priest’s mind, short shorts are immodest and disordered while pants are just disordered and miniskirts are just immodest. Did the priest actually say that pants were immodest? - Because the only quote you gave us of what he said did not imply anything of the sort…

Pax.

 

[adstrinity]

I’m sorry; but the priest never said the pants were immodest or even implied it; he implied that it was disordered with his analogy. I’m still wondering because there is a big difference between immodest and disordered. I.e. in the priest’s mind, short shorts are immodest and disordered while pants are just disordered and miniskirts are just immodest. Did the priest actually say that pants were immodest? - Because the only quote you gave us of what he said did not imply anything of the sort…

Pax.

No, the priest said that pants were immodest. His homily was on that Italian 12 year old girl who was murdered and not raped. He was lecturing about modesty. He said pants were immodest. That’s how this whole thing began. I was there. He said it. I believe I stated that in my original post.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

No, the priest said that pants were immodest. His homily was on that Italian 12 year old girl who was murdered and not raped. He was lecturing about modesty. He said pants were immodest. That’s how this whole thing began. I was there. He said it. I believe I stated that in my original post.

Sorry; I was misled by your quotes, but yes - he did say that. Sorry!
I wonder, is something that is disordered also immodest by definition or was the priest using the two words interchangeably??? Now I’m confused…

Pax.

 

[CB_Catholic]

You know, whenever I look at the parable of the talents, where the guy goes to Hell because he buried his own talent, it occurs to me to wonder what happens to those who go around burying other people’s talents, by convincing them that because they happen to have been born female (or black, etc.), that they aren’t allowed to do certain things, even if God has given them the ability, the means, and the opportunity for training.

 

[Bluegoat]

Sorry; I was misled by your quotes, but yes - he did say that. Sorry!
I wonder, is something that is disordered also immodest by definition or was the priest using the two words interchangeably??? Now I’m confused…

Pax.

No, I don’t think they should be interchangable. Disordered in that context would mean against the proper order of nature, in this case that the woman was trying to be like a man. Immodest means trying to be sexually provacative in an inappropriate way.

So wearing a mini-skirt would be immodest, while baggy pants would be disordered, and hot pants would be both.

My impression was that he was saying pants are both - though I think it is very difficult to make the argument that all pants are immodest.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

JMcrae and Marfran,ADStrinity and others,
You seem extremely defensive about women who modestly continue wearing skirts.
Did I wear something under my skirts, yes. But my skirt covered that as well so that my shorts were not emphasizing my lower area. And besides anyone who deliberately attempts to peek up my skirts is not going to be holding my ladders. That’s pure bad manners.
Bending over is easy. My fuller skirts allow for a greater freedom of movement than do jeans which tend to bind at the crotch. But primarily to pick things up I use my knees not my back so this point is moot. “Bend from the Knees” my doctor has always said
Breezy days here in OKlahoma of which we have quite a few are a small challenge. One learns early on how to deal with "skirt alert"days.
Because you cannot concieve of how to do it does not mean it cannot be done.
Also cooking an 8 hour italian meal can’t be done in a skirt? Really? I must be confused. I do all my cooking in skirts.

And that’s terrific-IF that’s what you want to do.

My only issue is with the “clothing police” who want to tell other women that they MUST wear skirts and dresses 100% of the time or be considered immodest and sinful.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

No, I don’t think they should be interchangable. Disordered in that context would mean against the proper order of nature, in this case that the woman was trying to be like a man. Immodest means trying to be sexually provacative in an inappropriate way.

So wearing a mini-skirt would be immodest, while baggy pants would be disordered, and hot pants would be both.

My impression was that he was saying pants are both - though I think it is very difficult to make the argument that all pants are immodest.

I agree with your definitions (those were the ones I was using) and I can see the priest’s logic in calling pants on women immodest overall but like you said the type of pant determines immodesty, so when it came to my attention that he said pants were immodest I got confused… I think if you asked anyone on either side of the debate, they’d probably agree on the modesty/immodesty of the pants - but I guess I was wrong; I had thought this thread was about the disorderedness of pants on women, so I got confused. Coming to mind now is the chapter on sexual morality in C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity… maybe I’ll go reread that section and see if I can’t rearticulate my thoughts in a better manner…

Pax.

 

[theistgal]

No offense taken anyway.

That’s why I wanted to clarify it, as I didn’t want others to read this and think I was bashing on you - I wasn’t!

Forgive me if my logic is incorrect, but: “theistgal”; am I correct to assume that you are female?

Yup (“gal” = “female” ).

And, your Religion is: Byzantine Catholic, that means, that you are under the authority of the Pope, but, your Divine Liturgy is more like that of the Orthodox? It’s an older form where one uses one’s entire body in worship, yes? I thought dresses/skirts would be most in use here.

I personally wear skirts all the time - even when I’m out hiking or exercising. I just find them more comfy. However, I don’t think it’s any of my business what any other woman wears - to me, it’s a matter of personal comfort and taste.

theistgal, if all of my above assessments are correct, does any woman wear pants to your Divine Liturgy?

Yes, as a matter of fact, they do - mostly older women, in pantsuits. I’ve never seen any woman look “immodest” at the D.L. I have, however, seen MEN go up for communion wearing obscene T-shirts. Now that I consider immodest!

Also, just thought of this - in our Vespers services during Lent we do prostrations - get down on all fours and kiss the ground. I remember last time we did this thinking, "Gee, I kinda wish I was wearing slacks!!! )

(And, come to think about it, at an AAC Church I attended for language lessons after Divine Liturgy, my teacher would often be in a pant suit, the same one she wore to the Badarak.)

The bottom line to me is - are you comfortable in what you’re wearing? If you are, then who am I to judge you? As we say before receiving Communion in the Divine Liturgy, I am, after all, the “greatest of sinners”.

 

[dang71]

Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.”

the question is, are pants (even those pants made specifically for women) men’s apparel?

the references to Padre Pio in this thread show him to be upset by the women showing too much leg, and him “requesting” them to be covered more. the social norm of his time and place was for women to wear skirts and dresses, and since the social norm now (at least for North America where i am) is for women to have the option of either pants or dresses/skirts, we would have to extrapolate Padre Pio’s comments to say that he would be upset if women wore pants that were too short. we cannot say Padre Pio was against pants from the quotes provided, only that he was against showing too much leg.

in the movie Braveheart, we can see the (very manly) hero wearing a skirt (kilt), and the well-to-do bad guy wearing things that today would be considered quite feminine (tights/leggings, frilly cuffs, heeled shoes, etc.) but at the time were accepted as normal men’s attire.

societal norms for dress do change, but the norms of modesty do not. our societal norm does accept women in pants, and due to our belief in modesty, they should be modest pants. the bible quote above does not reference pants, skirts, dresses, skorts, shorts, minis, maxis, etc. it is my understanding that this bible quote is condemning the disordered desire to wear the clothes of the opposite sex, as well as the disorder of homosexuality.

speaking of todays fashion, there is a distinct, visible difference between men’s and women’s pants, so to claim that women wearing ANY type of pants is contrary to this bible quote is far too much of a stretch. a woman wearing modest, feminine pants (such as my wife’s embroidered, sequined, rhinestoned jeans) in no way constitutes a disordered desire to wear men’s apparel, and in no way constitutes a disordered attraction to the same sex. anyone saying otherwise is simply reading more than the scripture passage provides.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

the question is, are pants (even those pants made specifically for women) men’s apparel?

Right.

the social norm now (at least for North America where i am) is for women to have the option of either pants or dresses/skirts,

Is it? And just because it is the worldly norm, does that make it the Catholic norm?
(By the way, if what you said about Padre Pio was true, then I would agree that the passage is ambiguous).

in the movie Braveheart, we can see the (very manly) hero wearing a skirt (kilt),

Kilts are masculine.

and the well-to-do bad guy wearing things that today would be considered quite feminine (tights/leggings, frilly cuffs, heeled shoes, etc.) but at the time were accepted as normal men’s attire.

And today they are not the norm, as with kilts, but are still accepted as masculine.

Pax.

 

[jmcrae]

Kilts are masculine.

I doubt I will ever see a man wearing feminine-cut pants - they are most definitely “feminine”.

 

[Aramis]

I doubt I will ever see a man wearing feminine-cut pants - they are most definitely “feminine”.

Michael Jackson often wore feminine cut trousers, women’s blouses… he wasn’t quite trying to pass as a woman, but he sure was dresssed effeminately. THAT is the near edge of the kind of dress the bible warns against. The far edge is portrayed in Mrs. Doubtfire, Victor Victoria, and Torch Song Trillogy… passing oneself as the opposite gender…

 

[dang71]

Michael Jackson often wore feminine cut trousers, women’s blouses… he wasn’t quite trying to pass as a woman, but he sure was dresssed effeminately. THAT is the near edge of the kind of dress the bible warns against.

i totally agree.

makes me think of David Bowie. he is known for pushing the boundaries of cross dressing and homosexuality, and even when he wears masculine clothes, they STILL look effeminate

 

[naturalpuppy]

I came to this blog to ask a question about the soul, but apparently the question forum is locked out. Is this normal?

 

[naturalpuppy]

I don’t get the pants debate. Are we to be guided in choosing our modern attire by ancient bible passages? Can’t agree to that. Perhaps Christians should adopt ancient attire such as is worn by the Amish, Mennonites, fundamentalist Jews, Muslims. etc.? Please.

 

[dang71]

Is it? And just because it is the worldly norm, does that make it the Catholic norm?

the Catholic norm is one of modesty. there is no official church document (that i know of) that states women must wear skirts/dresses, so we must assume that women are free to choose what to wear so long as it follows the Catholic norm of modesty.

(By the way, if what you said about Padre Pio was true, then I would agree that the passage is ambiguous).

i followed the link that was provided, and the quotes presented there were about Padre Pio sending women home (essentially kicking them out of the confessional) because their skirts were too short. here is the quote:

Padre Pio wouldn’t tolerate low-necked dresses or short, tight skirts, and he forbade his spiritual daughters to wear transparent stockings.

maybe i’m taking too much liberty, but i don’t think so. Padre Pio is upset over the short, tight skirts that were the fashion of the day. this reference adds nothing to the pants vs. skirts argument.

Kilts are masculine.

but they are still skirts and you prove my point, certain modes of attire can be considered feminine in one place/time, and masculine in another place/time.

And today they are not the norm, as with kilts, but are still accepted as masculine.

i respectfully disagree. reminds me of the Seinfeld episodes where Jerry wore the pirate shirt or carried the “man purse” IMHO, these things (frilly cuffs, tights/leggings, etc.) are not accepted as masculine today, which is why people think of Michael Jackson, Prince, or David Bowie as effeminate.

 

[Marfran]

Dang71: So you’re a guy!!! And a smart one too!!! I like you!!! And you “let” your wife wear pants!!! Imagine that!!! My husband “lets” me wear pants too!!

And I just love that photo that you posted of the Pope in his fab red shoes!!!

JSSebastianoP: Do you have a wife?? And does she wear pants?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

JSSebastianoP: Do you have a wife?? And does she wear pants?

No, I don’t have a wife; I’m 15. And of course I won’t stop her from wearing pants; it’s a personal decision. Perhaps to clarify my position on the issue, I’ll use the metaphor of moral (as opposed to medical) vegitarianism. For a Catholic to be a vegetarian is a special excercise in piety, like fasting or abstaining on days when they are not required. The same way, I believe that for a woman to wear ‘traditional’ dress is a special excersise in piety. Does that mean all Catholics should be vegitarians or all Catholic women should wear pants? Yes and no. I used to greatly dislike vegitarians, but then I saw it was really my own weakness in accepting that I loved to eat meat. And I’m still an omnivore, just for the record. But I view people who are vegitarians as doing something special for GOD. Is my position a bit clearer now?

Pax.

 

[Marfran]

JSSebastianoP: Does your mother wear pants?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

JSSebastianoP: Does your mother wear pants?

Yes. And my grandmother (sometimes but she wears skirts often and skirts to more formal events), and my aunts, and my cousins, (no sisters), and all the women in my extended family and most of the women/girls I know, period. Although much of my family does wear skirts/dresses on formal occasions…

If by asking that you mean to find out whether or not I grew up in a traditional household, by all means I did not and do not.

Pax.