Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[Vico]

LostWanderer, you said: “You’ve obviously never seen a girl in cargoes. There’s a huge difference between regular pants, and tight jeans.”

That is certain. Oh, I’ve seen everything, I lived for 41 years in California. I wore cargos too. It is true that there is a big difference between types of pants, but the comparison I made was not between pants but between same length and same tightness pants/shorts vs skirts. In the diagrams I submitted, I considered thigh length or longer only.

Since women started wearing shorter length clothes they have been concerned with either shaving the legs or wearing hose. I think some women are wearing long pants to avoid those concerns, combined with practical issues like getting the skirt caught in the car door or caught on things, or cold wind blowing up the skirt. (I have worn altar boy cassock, mid-thigh robe at home, and toga in a Latin Club event.)

You said: “Are we all to dress in baggy medieval or Middle Eastern clothing as many of the saints did?”

I doubt it, as it would be what we have available in our culture. In the western hemisphere it is possible for women and men to wear loose clothes with full coverage. Not likely that an employer would allow a man to wear a robe, but a woman can wear a long skirt usually (maybe not possible for some work uniforms).

A good deal of saints live in modern times; some modern saints since the start of the industrial revolution are:
Blessed Pope John Paul II
Blessed Pope John XXIII
Blessed Pope Pius IX
Marie-Clémentine Anuarite Nengapeta 1939-1964
Pierina Morosini 1931-1957
Venerable Teresa Maria Quevedo 1930-1950
Blessed Zdenka Cecília Schelingová 1916-1935
Mother Teresa 1910-1997
St.Helena Kowalska 1905-1938
Blessed Vasyl Velychkovsky 1903-1973
Blessed María Romero Meneses 1902-1977
Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster 1880-1954
Blessed Elisabeth Hesselblad 1870-1957
St. Maximilian Kolbe 1894-1941
Blessed Vilmos Apor 1892-1945
Edith Stein 1891-1942
Venerable Laura Vicuna 1891-1904
St. Maria Goretti 1890-1902
Padre Pio 1887-1968
Venerable Zepherin Namuncura 1886-1905
St. Gemma Galgani 1878-1903
St. Frances Cabrini 1850-1917
Saint Bernadette of Lourdes 1844-1879
St. Dominic Savio 1842-1857
St. Charles Lwanga 1816-1888
St. John Bosco 1815-1888
St. John Neumann 1811-1860
St. Peter Julian Eymard 1811-1868

 

[katerisouthern]

I have wondered about the skirt/pant issue for a while now and am slowly but surely weeding out the pants and replacing them with long flowing skirts. It does feel more modest for my body type. As a woman, I can say that I notice other women’s butts at church and I just don’t want to see it. (I know, I know… I need to go be in the front pew… )
I recently moved to a conservative religious area, and find that I get stronger “lusty” looks from older men than I did when I lived in Anywhere USA. I do not dress immodestly. I totally don’t get it.
I wonder if men who are uber-religious depend too strongly on women to cover themselves from neck to ankle just because we make such a big deal about women not being a temptation for their brothers in Christ.
Even for all the effort I make to dress decently, there are still 20 or 50 more people who think “fashion” and not “modesty” so I think men at least need to give up the battle for how women dress and MAN UP and control where they rest their eyes.
I discovered Proverbs Chapter 7, and it is worth reading in its entirety.
Please read it:
catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=24
I read it to my husband every time he goes away on business. What strikes me about this chapter is that IT DOES NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO GOD that the prostitute was out to seduce the man…He is not escaping the blame just because she tried to seduce him. The man is still completely responsible for all of his actions…for giving in. To me, it seemed to be saying that every man should know that this girl could be waiting around the corner, and that he needs to be prepared to fight that temptation.
I DO dress modestly, and I still get attention because I’m convinced that men will imagine whatever they want to think because of THEIR untrained dirty minds. Being kind or friendly is misinterpreted as well. DOH!
My advice for men is that they need to be ready to confront any type of immodesty whatsoever, and be ready to divert their gaze and be ready to run for the hills. Putting too much responsibility on women does not work. Islam’s example helps to explain this very well. Every woman can be covered from head to toe and they still manage to look like a walking phallic symbol… No getting around this… the responsibility is on the MAN. So, MAN UP MY BROTHERS and I’ll do my best to make sure that my daughters never dress immodestly…

 

[juliamajor]

juliamajor, many ideas have been discussed on this thread, early on. You said “why pants are considered less modest then skirts are beyond me”. If you read earlier you will see, but I can summarize here:

1. for the same length and tightness of pants or shorts vs a skirt, the pants will reveal more details of the shape of the thighs and adjacent areas, which the eye will be subconsciously directed in determination of dimension and sex of the person viewed. This could be intentional to get attention, or non-intentional for convienence or practibility, and can provide scandal.
2. unisex dressing is not a traditional Christian practice, as has been voiced by saints. Pants on women has been a recent change in western culture starting with the industrial revolution when women began to work in factories.

Additionally: scandal is temptation, and does not require that what is a temptation be wrong in itself, rather that the tempted are succeptible to falling into sin, mortal or venial. Since sin of lust is any impure thoughts or desires that are not banished. (See Baltimore Catechism #3, 1318.

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-34.htm

Dressing in pants is more suitable in situations.Having lived and worked in nyc Iam aware of all kinds of creeps and weirdos.to some people even a woman in a potato sack is a hot number. so who has the onus of sin? the gal in the potato sack or the the one who looks at her?my catholic high school uniform apparently stirrred some creeps so much as to look up my skirt as i climbed the stairs of a ny subway stationWas it my fault and my sin that compelled these creatures to occasions of sin thereby making it(again) my fault the -females fault? The past is the past and dress and fashion are part of a certain time and place. to say that we should dress like those of the past,even the recent past is to ignore socio- cultural norms.As I said previously culture determines modesty. to be bare breasted in some cultures is perfectly modest while showing parts of the body that we consider not titillating sends others into paroxyms of rage over immodesty.
As teenager i was leered at ,glared at ,touched fondled because of my dimensions-was I a temptress because my body looked the way it did?was i suppose wear a bag so I wouldn’t tempt those poor weak men?please!

 

[Bluegoat]

So, do those who worry a lot about temptation have concerns about this Catholic celebration?



There are definatly women with bare shoulders, and the men… well!

 

[SHW]

The readers of this thread might ask themselves… St. Padre Pio, would he let you into the confessional, you have to ask… St. Padre Pio, ora pro nobis.

Padre Pio had his idiosyncrasies just as all persons do. He also believed that public swimming was wrong. (Nowadays, immodest swimming attire is rampant whether men and women swim together or not.)

Many people believe that what they themselves think is also what God thinks and wants. But, two holy priests may have different and opposite opinions on women wearing pants (modesty in style is assumed for this comparison). In Padre Pio’s day, pants for women in Italy were a “new” thing. He was skeptical of them because they were a change from the current “norm” and he thought that this new fashion would defeminize women. However, women of other (Asian) cultures had been wearing loose trousers since the previous century and this feared “defeminization” did not happen to them.

Hey, we could all go back to wearing tunics/dresses like Jesus and His Apostles. Problem solved. Just kidding!

 

[Vico]

juliamajor, you wrote: “Was it my fault and my sin that compelled these creatures to occasions of sin thereby making it(again) my fault the -females fault?”

What compels them to sin is fallen nature. They are responsible for their sin, but it is possible to be complicit. You would have to determine if you had sinned against immodesty and also if you had provided scandal in each circumstance (which could be a second sin).

Scandal is providing temptation to sin, even if the scandalized does not sin, and even if that which scandalizes is not a sin in itself. It can be an error of ommission, of not taking care. Christian charity requires that we look out for each other.

The scandalized are responsible for their sin, even though they are scandalized.

 

[Vico]

keterisouthern, you said: “…I think men at least need to give up the battle for how women dress and MAN UP and control where they rest their eyes.”

In good conscience, men cannot give up this battle for how women dress, because they must also look out for others, in addition to controlling where they rest their eyes. We have to look out for the weak ones, even if it is an inconvenience. Children need a good example also.

 

[rudy792]

Solution: Men and Women. When you dress-look in the mirror and ask. Am I modestly dressed? Do I look handsome or pretty, as I should look if I am a man or a woman? Do I look in any way sexually tittilating ( in the definite sense - I realize some perverted minds find almost anything tittilating)? If you are going to stand upon God’s altar: Do I look very nice and at least moderately “well dressed”?
Basically, am I trying to do my best to propose a moderate and appealing visual form of myself?
Live in happy service and Love of God and neighbor. Love Seany

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

In my last edition of the local Catholic newspaper there was an article asking us for support for the “Catholics Come Home” advertisements to air on our local TV channels this winter. It stated that only 2/3 of Catholics in the USA attend Sunday Mass. It also stated 100,000 Catholics leave the church a year. Tell me, since the Church is making a concerted and distinct effort to return Catholics back to the Church…why would we put up roadblocks by picking apart whether women wear pants or dresses? Now, I agree short minis and t-shirts with skulls and crossbones are not appropriate, but nicely tailored dress pants surely should not offend anyone’s sensibilities since the Church is making such an effort to bring Catholics home. What are we going to say…“Please come home to the Church, but if you feel the need as a woman to wear pants…we don’t want you.” Do we want to turn people away to “try to” find their salvation in other churches or shall we let the Holy Ghost guide those who have left back to the welcoming arms of the true Church?

 

[Shin]

If it’s good and moral to do… and it causes problems not to do… the Church doesn’t lower the standard to get people in, and leave them the way they are having problems.

It’s no more good than tearing out Communion Rails, letting men keep their sleazy magazines, or allowing Sunday to be football day rather than mass day.

It draws plenty more people in sure, but it’s no good.

Few people go to Heaven, not many… the Church is to be sustained against societal cultural corruption, not become a part of it and ineffective to help people… which is often the case as pastors bow to the pressures of the culture and fail to teach people what they need to know to be holy.

Heaven is not so easy to get to that we lower standards to let more people into it… you get people to Heaven by having high standards, higher ones than the world.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

If it’s good and moral to do… and it causes problems not to do… the Church doesn’t lower the standard to get people in, and leave them the way they are having problems.

It’s no more good than tearing out Communion Rails, letting men keep their sleazy magazines, or allowing Sunday to be football day rather than mass day.

It draws plenty more people in sure, but it’s no good.

Few people go to Heaven, not many… the Church is to be sustained against societal cultural corruption, not become a part of it and ineffective to help people… which is often the case as pastors bow to the pressures of the culture and fail to teach people what they need to know to be holy.

Heaven is not so easy to get to that we lower standards to let more people into it… you get people to Heaven by having high standards, higher ones than the world.

So, now you are equating women wearing pants as being* immoral? *

You state few people go to heaven…and you know this*…how? *Sorry Shin…your posts regarding this subject seem to be verging on the incoherrent. Maybe you should give it a rest.

 

[adstrinity]

Maybe the Blessed Virgin is anti-Semetic. …You don’t see many anti-semetic Jews nowadays.

The norm of Christian modesty for women has traditionally been longer skirts and dresses. A modest dress or skirt/top highlights the feminine parts of a woman’s body without being physically distracting to a man.

Let us examine all the images of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the MOST PURE ONE, highly favored by God. In all her images, her feminine waist is highlighted, and occasionally we see her rounded belly with the infant God. Her arms are covered, as well as her knees. Usually her head is veiled or crowned, but some images I have seen have her unveiled.

Can anyone imagine our Blessed Mother Mary, our highest example of purity, wearing a pair of jeans and a t-shirt? Never.

Under the title Our Lady of Good Success, she foretold that in the 20th century fashions would arise that would highly offend our Lord. Can anyone argue this statement today? Young girls become so accustomed to being uncovered except for torso, even babies, no one even questions anymore the idea of modesty for girls and women.

If you read the book Dressing with Dignity, you will find scientific evidence that men have a physical reaction to women wearing pants. Their eyes immediately lower to the area of highest privacy, whether they realize this or not.

Can a dress or skirt be immodest? Certainly. I think an honest look in the mirror will tell you whether or not our Dear Lord would be happy to have you dressed a certain way.

Not all images of the OL have her pregnant and waist accented.

Oh no you di’n’t! Dressing with Dignity?! I put more stock in Jewish Lizard People in the center of the Earth than I do that waste of trees. I’m sure there are worse researched, more prejudiced tracts of propeganda, but, concerning “appropriate” fashion, that is the standard of inappropriate.

Well, I guess then that I am full of baloney, because I do not wear skirts and haven’t since high school and dear, that was 43+ years ago. Like I said…I am sure our Lord would be much happier with me in pants attending Mass daily than someone who wears a skirt and attends Sundays only…and could make the effort to go daily.

BlyssfulDreamer, of course God doesn’t have a problem with you, but, remember, we don’t do things for God, we do things for Shin. What does SHIN think? I think we all owe it to ourselves and the world to do what Shin thinks is appropriate. I pray to Shin everyday. Shin has been good to me. Remember, put Shin first in your life.

1. unisex dressing is not a traditional Christian practice, as has been voiced by saints. Pants on women has been a recent change in western culture starting with the industrial revolution when women began to work in factories.%between%

Yes, western culture, but, this is not the only culture. Women have been wearing pants for centuries. Maybe the BVM has never appeared to Arab or Innuit women because God doesn’t love women who wear pants. Ah well, at least we know God is in league with Shin.

You know, I know I have suggested in the past that men wear dresses/skirts so I don’t have my eye drawn to their pants, and, maybe that WAS an unrealistic expectation. I propose a new solution to men who’s eyes are drawn to women’s figures when they wear pants: we poke their eyes out. No need to thank me, I am concerned about my brothers in Christ and it is better for them to go to Heaven with one eye than to Hell with two. If you KEEP noticing women’s bare shoulders or pantyline and it’s a distraction, then the only thing that can be done is you are blinded. It’s for your own good. That way, you wont notice or be scandalized ever again. I love you all.

WWSD?

 

[Shin]

So, now you are equating women wearing pants as being* immoral? *

You state few people go to heaven…and you know this*…how? *Sorry Shin…your posts regarding this subject seem to be verging on the incoherrent. Maybe you should give it a rest.

Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.

St. Luke (Luke 13:23-24)

For many are called, but few chosen.

St. Mark (Mark 20:16)

‘The majority of men shall not see God, excepting those who live justly, purified by righteousness and by every other virtue.’

St. Justin the Martyr

What do you think? How many of the inhabitants of this city may perhaps be saved? What I am about to tell you is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that!

St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop, Doctor, Father of the Church

‘Out of one hundred thousand sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely one will be saved.’

St. Jerome, Priest, Doctor, Father of the Church

The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite.

Ecclesiastes 1:15

Christ’s flock is called “little” (Luke 12:32) in comparison with the greater number of the reprobates.

St. Bede the Venerable, Priest, Monk, Doctor, Father of the Church

With fear and trembling work out your salvation.

Philippians 2:12

Is this coherent enough for you? Does it perhaps give you an idea why I am concerned?

Perhaps it would help you to know that I have over one hundred quotes from the saints, bishops, fathers and doctors of the Church saying that the few are the saved, and none, zero, zilch saying that the majority go to Heaven. And then we come to small things like this… and people throw up a big fuss about dressing different, simply differently than the worldly culture… to the point where you could say, 'This person is a Christian because she dresses modestly." rather than, “This person is like everyone else in the world.”

It concerns me. People don’t understand how much so much matters.

‘By the virtue of modesty the devout person governs all his exterior acts. With good reason, then, does St. Paul recommend this virtue to all and declare how necessary it is and as if this were not enough he considers that this virtue should be obvious to all.’

St. Padre Pio

So ask yourself… if you look in the mirror, do you say, “This person is obviously modestly dressed.” I know what it takes to see someone who looks like that… they are different… and modest. And it is more beautiful, in a spiritual way before God rather than man.

Men and women both have responsibility, both ways.

Let your modesty be known to all men: the Lord is nigh.

Philippians 4:5

 

[rudy792]

If it’s good and moral to do… and it causes problems not to do… the Church doesn’t lower the standard to get people in, and leave them the way they are having problems.

It’s no more good than tearing out Communion Rails, letting men keep their sleazy magazines, or allowing Sunday to be football day rather than mass day.

It draws plenty more people in sure, but it’s no good.

Few people go to Heaven, not many… the Church is to be sustained against societal cultural corruption, not become a part of it and ineffective to help people… which is often the case as pastors bow to the pressures of the culture and fail to teach people what they need to know to be holy.

Heaven is not so easy to get to that we lower standards to let more people into it… you get people to Heaven by having high standards, higher ones than the world.

Dear Shin - I do not agree with what you say above with regard to pants on women (unless they are gross, manly pants that offend just by their substance) but I do agree with everything in this quote as regards the state of the Church in general. A very good general point. I do not see it as applying to this thread, but as a general statement, it is a good summary of true Roman Catholicism. There are a lot of very astute thinkers on this thread. I must say that this point - in general terms, is an excellent exhortation and edifying at that!
Thank You, Sean

 

[Vico]

adstrinity, I see from the happy face that you mean that eye poking solution as a satire. I can understand the frustration over the difficulties of dealing lust and sin.

Scandal is about what you do or omit doing that is harmful to others, it is not about what the other person does, i.e., it does not require the scandalized to sin, for scandal to be a sin for you.

I think very many men and women both intentionally and unintentionally provide a temptation to lust. Giving temptation, even unintentionally, can be mortal or venial based upon the situation, and that can be complex. (There is no plenary indulgence if one does not regret those venial sins, which shows what is the proper attitude required for purification.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1875 Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us. 1876 The repetition of sins - even venial ones - engenders vices, among which are the capital sins.

 

[Vico]

The statement in my last post should have been: I can understand the frustration over the difficulties of dealing with lust and sin.

 

[rudy792]

And even the language is becoming disrespecful and offensive.
Love - Sean

 

[rudy792]

But what you say is true about this post nonetheless
-Love Sean

 

[Vico]

BlyssfulDreamer, you asked: “What are we going to say…“Please come home to the Church, but if you feel the need as a woman to wear pants…we don’t want you.””

That would be equating women’s pants with sin of scandal, and then rejecting the sinner, but the church is for the sanctification of sinners. Even the excommunicated can still attend.

I doubt that pants on women would be generally prohibited for church in USA, but I think a priest could ask somebody to cover up or leave, for example: in jeans with big holes in the rear thigh. I just saw such pants on a women this last week (but not at church).

We have an obligation to not condemn (detraction or caulumny) and also not to make rash judgements (we give benefit of the doubt). I have been in a church where a shawl was presented if a girl showed up in a sundress (it was not Catholic).

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If it’s good and moral to do… and it causes problems not to do… the Church doesn’t lower the standard to get people in, and leave them the way they are having problems.

I’m sorry, I don’t remember pants causing problems. Heck the only problem I’ve had from pants is that it made it easier for my sister to give me the boot… literally.

It’s no more good than tearing out Communion Rails, letting men keep their sleazy magazines, or allowing Sunday to be football day rather than mass day.

Forgive me if I nitpick that underlined bit don’t you think it’s possible for Sunday to be both?

Heaven is not so easy to get to that we lower standards to let more people into it… you get people to Heaven by having high standards, higher ones than the world.

Wow, and here I thought that Jesus came to bring people more closer to God. I guess I was wrong. He wants to alienate everybody in the world making ridiculously high standards that defy reason.