Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

  • Thread starter Thread starter JOL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
Then why not make the same distinction for pants?
Click to expand...
Is bearing your midriff unmodest, I would think so, certainly. It is very difficult today to find jeans that are not “hip huggers”. The fashion is continuing to become less and less modest as time continues.
 
I am also concerned about those people that go to Church in outfits that go beyond"Sundays best".They dress to show off,in impressive fur coats and eye blogging hats and the like.
Dresses in striking patterns and colours, etc. I do not know if it is because I am in the art field, but my eyes zero in in the patterns etc, and I get totally distracted in church. I wish we would all put a gown as we go into church,like the choir members wear, so apparel would not be a contentious point(be for modesty or distracting power.)
 
JOL said:
The conventional one piece or two piece is not modest. What we must keep in mind is that we shouldn’t be revealing great portions of our bodies to anyone except our spouse. This would go for men as well. I imagine most women would never wear something like THIS. I don’t own one of these either. Many frown upon public swimming even. Of course, if you are in the privacy of your own pool with your own children and spouse, it probably wouldn’t matter. But, when you are out publicly swimming, cover up! Me, I would wear a big t-shirt over my swimsuit which keeps me very covered.

What I think you may find interesting is that when you are younger, you don’t like to be exposed. For instance, today my kids are going to vacation bible school and they are going to be playing water games. The teacher asked that the children who want to participate wear a swimsuit to class. My daughter said to me, mom, I will wear my swimsuit, but I am not taking my shorts and t-shirt off. I am happy about this because she is showing concern for undressing in front of others.

Sadly, when you go to the beach you will find many who don’t care how much they reveal to the world.

None of this would be considered socially ‘normal’ though, would it? We are supposed to be separate from the world, ya know?
Click to expand...
In my experience, most young kids don’t care about public nakedness until age five or so, when they begin to notice what other people are doing. And even then parents sometimes have to remind them and teach whatever the social conventions are. And if they live in places with a certain amount of public nakedness - either at the beach, or in public baths, or just all the time, they don’t ever develop it with regard to those situations. Maybe your daughter is picking up her attitudes from you and the culture around her?

I think the swimsuit you showed would likely be more comfortable than the t-shirt, as it would be less draggy.
 
I am a red blooded mail. I love women. All I ask is that women when in church for communion dress in a manner that makes it easy for my to keep my eyes at eye level.

Remember if we so much as look at a women with lust we committ adultery. I have a couple hours between confession and communion; the last thing I need is to be on my way to recieve and realize my mind was pushed.

It is because of our weekness that we ask you to dress a certain way. Be mercifull!
 
Here is another thought.

Some of you made a comment about pants not being ‘mens’ clothing and made the destinction that the robes that they wore 2,000 years ago were for men and women.
  1. Are there gender specific clothing items? If yes, what are they?
  2. Why don’t men where skirts and dresses?
  3. Is it okay for a woman to wear a complete “man’s” suit (slacks, shirt, jacket, tie)?
 
Tamsulosin said:
I am also concerned about those people that go to Church in outfits that go beyond"Sundays best".They dress to show off,in impressive fur coats and eye blogging hats and the like.
Dresses in striking patterns and colours, etc. I do not know if it is because I am in the art field, but my eyes zero in in the patterns etc, and I get totally distracted in church. I wish we would all put a gown as we go into church,like the choir members wear, so apparel would not be a contentious point(be for modesty or distracting power.)
Click to expand...
There is a group called “Plain Catholics” that shy away from these things. They wear blues, blacks, browns, etc. so that they don’t stand out.
 
agent_grey said:
I am a red blooded mail. I love women. All I ask is that women when in church for communion dress in a manner that makes it easy for my to keep my eyes at eye level.

Remember if we so much as look at a women with lust we committ adultery. I have a couple hours between confession and communion; the last thing I need is to be on my way to recieve and realize my mind was pushed.

It is because of our weekness that we ask you to dress a certain way. Be mercifull!
Click to expand...
You know, we do have an obligation to not be a trial for others. On the other hand - that only goes so far. Recently, someone stole the poppies I had planted in the yard. I am not culpable for tempting that person to steal because I put poppies in my yard. Tempting men is a reason some people believe women should be completely covered or not even allowed out in public - the question is, where does one draw the line?

Also, remember that having sexual thoughts occur to you is NOT the same as committing adultery in your heart. You have to mentally assent to those thoughts in order for that to be the case. Usually the best thing to do is just not notice the “stray” thought too much and think about something else. Almost everybody experiences these stray thoughts - some people more than others, I guess that is the challenge God has set them for some reason.
 
Bluegoat said:
In my experience, most young kids don’t care about public nakedness until age five or so, when they begin to notice what other people are doing. And even then parents sometimes have to remind them and teach whatever the social conventions are. And if they live in places with a certain amount of public nakedness - either at the beach, or in public baths, or just all the time, they don’t ever develop it with regard to those situations. Maybe your daughter is picking up her attitudes from you and the culture around her?

I think the swimsuit you showed would likely be more comfortable than the t-shirt, as it would be less draggy.
Click to expand...
Maybe parents don’t teach kids anymore about guarding their bodies. Maybe that is why there is so much nakedness, whether it be shorts that barely cover their rear or shirts that are cut way to low. So you may be correct, because I have been telling them (both my daughters) ages 10 and 11 that it isn’t good to expose themselves and they should keep themselves covered up. I have to tell them this because if you watch TV or walk through the mall, society tells them it is perfectly find to expose themselves once they hit puberty.
 
agent_grey said:
I am a red blooded mail. I love women. All I ask is that women when in church for communion dress in a manner that makes it easy for my to keep my eyes at eye level.

Remember if we so much as look at a women with lust we committ adultery. I have a couple hours between confession and communion; the last thing I need is to be on my way to recieve and realize my mind was pushed.

It is because of our weekness that we ask you to dress a certain way. Be mercifull!
Click to expand...
Honestly, you should want for women to do this all the time, not just at Mass. Isn’t your sin just as bad whether it be at Mass walking up the isle for Holy Communion, or the middle of the week at the coffee shop?
 
JOL said:
Here is another thought.

Some of you made a comment about pants not being ‘mens’ clothing and made the destinction that the robes that they wore 2,000 years ago were for men and women.
  1. Are there gender specific clothing items? If yes, what are they?
  2. Why don’t men where skirts and dresses?
  3. Is it okay for a woman to wear a complete “man’s” suit (slacks, shirt, jacket, tie)?
Click to expand...
For #3 -

If the woman is not trying to become a man, or make other people mistake her for a man, or scandalize and shock people, or sexually titillate people, then I don’t see a problem with it. If she is trying to actually impersonate a man, or actually become a man or say there is no difference between men and women; or if she is trying to shock people or undermine social standards (although it is ok to undermine immoral social standards in some cases), or is trying to be be immodest/sexually provocative, then there is a problem.
 
Bluegoat said:
You know, we do have an obligation to not be a trial for others. On the other hand - that only goes so far. Recently, someone stole the poppies I had planted in the yard. I am not culpable for tempting that person to steal because I put poppies in my yard. Tempting men is a reason some people believe women should be completely covered or not even allowed out in public - the question is, where does one draw the line?

Also, remember that having sexual thoughts occur to you is NOT the same as committing adultery in your heart. You have to mentally assent to those thoughts in order for that to be the case. Usually the best thing to do is just not notice the “stray” thought too much and think about something else. Almost everybody experiences these stray thoughts - some people more than others, I guess that is the challenge God has set them for some reason.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with your analogy. Should we close all the stores else someone might shoplift? No. But, we are responsible for our own actions and how our actions might affect someone else. If your best friend was a recovering alcoholic, would you pop open a bottle of his favorite drink in front of him. Let him worry about his own strength, you should still be able to drink, right?

It was once said to me that men are very visual creatures while women are very emotional.
 
Bluegoat said:
For #3 -

If the woman is not trying to become a man, or make other people mistake her for a man, or scandalize and shock people, or sexually titillate people, then I don’t see a problem with it. If she is trying to actually impersonate a man, or actually become a man or say there is no difference between men and women; or if she is trying to shock people or undermine social standards (although it is ok to undermine immoral social standards in some cases), or is trying to be be immodest/sexually provocative, then there is a problem.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know what her motive is, but I do suspect that she is a lesbian. With that suspicion, maybe she is trying to become a man. But, the problem here is society has said it is okay for women to wear men’s clothes. There is a blurring of the gender lines. Society has said it is okay for men to pierce their ears, some even wear eye makeup. There is a blending of the gender lines. But, that is off topic, so I will stop here unless someone want to start up a new thread.
 
JOL said:
Here is another thought.

Some of you made a comment about pants not being ‘mens’ clothing and made the destinction that the robes that they wore 2,000 years ago were for men and women.
  1. Are there gender specific clothing items? If yes, what are they? Women wear actual dresses, but there are no gender specific clothes for men that I can think of other than neckties. Neckties are accessories in my mind that don’t really serve a purpose beyond being decorative.
  2. Why don’t men where skirts and dresses? In some cultures, men wear kilts and in others they wear tunics.
  3. Is it okay for a woman to wear a complete “man’s” suit (slacks, shirt, jacket, tie)? This example is extreme and is quite different from wearing a blouse and slacks, though I’m sure there are women who do dress that way sometimes.
Click to expand...
 
JOL said:
Maybe parents don’t teach kids anymore about guarding their bodies. Maybe that is why there is so much nakedness, whether it be shorts that barely cover their rear or shirts that are cut way to low. So you may be correct, because I have been telling them (both my daughters) ages 10 and 11 that it isn’t good to expose themselves and they should keep themselves covered up. I have to tell them this because if you watch TV or walk through the mall, society tells them it is perfectly find to expose themselves once they hit puberty.
Click to expand...
I’m sure that is partly the reason, but our culture is in a way peculiar - it puts an emphasis on women’s clothing being sexy,and equates that with femininity. So young girls are in the weird position of having fashions that they see everywhere that are intended to be provocative. For the most part, they aren’t able to really understand that because their experience and understanding of sexuality is not developed enough, so it has to be explained to them, and they need help judging in particular situations. To them, the clothing seems normal, not sexy. It is really a rather unfair situation for little girls, because they are asked to wear clothes that they don’t understand the implications of. I think that is why so many people find it disturbing that such clothes are marketed for kids.

But that is quite different from many cultures where few items of clothing are worn. In many cases, the purpose is NOT to be provocative. So although a man or woman might wear no clothing on a daily basis, it has no sexual connotations. Because our own cultural understanding of sexuality is so overblown and omnipresent, we mistakenly assume it is the case for everyone, when it isn’t. So children growing up where that aspect of society is a little more healthy (whether more clothed or less clothed) in a way develop more naturally - the clothing they see around them is the clothing it is right to wear.

Or to put it another way - there are places where a woman with uncovered hair or ankles would be assumed to be morally abandoned. No one in North America would see a woman in a long skirt with her ankles showing and her hair uncovered and assume she was a loose woman.
 
JOL said:
I don’t agree with your analogy. Should we close all the stores else someone might shoplift? No. But, we are responsible for our own actions and how our actions might affect someone else. If your best friend was a recovering alcoholic, would you pop open a bottle of his favorite drink in front of him. Let him worry about his own strength, you should still be able to drink, right?

It was once said to me that men are very visual creatures while women are very emotional.
Click to expand...
No, I said no such thing - I specifically stated we must bear one another’s burdens. But that is not unlimited.

Men, and women, are sexually attrracted to each other. So far, there is no way to prevent this, and it would likely be wrong to try. It happens even when people are modestly dressed by the standards of our society - in fact some people are particularly attracted to modest clothing.

We do not make women wear clothing that covers their whole body, even their face. Catholics do not have separate men’s and women’s masses, or make women sit in another room. They do not forbid women to leave the home and be seen only by other women and family members. All these things happen in some places, for the same reason - because they might provoke men.

Why do you think we don’t do these things, if it might help even a single man?
 
Bluegoat said:
No, I said no such thing - I specifically stated we must bear one another’s burdens. But that is not unlimited.

Men, and women, are sexually attrracted to each other. So far, there is no way to prevent this, and it would likely be wrong to try. It happens even when people are modestly dressed by the standards of our society - in fact some people are particularly attracted to modest clothing.

We do not make women wear clothing that covers their whole body, even their face. Catholics do not have separate men’s and women’s masses, or make women sit in another room. They do not forbid women to leave the home and be seen only by other women and family members. All these things happen in some places, for the same reason - because they might provoke men.

Why do you think we don’t do these things, if it might help even a single man?
Click to expand...
Because this goes to the making women a substandard citizen, making men superior to women. Which is wrong. But, modest dress doesn’t do this to women. I can see what you mean when talking like the Taliban who had women wearing burka’s. I am not proposing that we wear burka’s though.
 
agent_grey said:
I am a red blooded mail. I love women. All I ask is that women when in church for communion dress in a manner that makes it easy for my to keep my eyes at eye level.
Click to expand...
Does this include not wearing pants? Do pants, any way on a female, cause you to sin more than a dress or skirt?
 
JAGCath28 said:
I’m undecided on the pants vs. dresses/skirts issue. I definitely feel more feminine when wearing dresses and skirts, and will only wear them when going to Mass. That is a personal choice.

However, my question is this…what about the women who’s profession requires pants? For example, I am a marine engineer. Next week, I’m going to be doing a ship survey. I will be required to wear a boiler suit which is essentially pants and long sleeves. Will I be condsidered immodest? Should I not be allowed to work in profession because I am a woman and woman should wear a long skirt? I am also an LT in the Navy Reserve. In the few times a year that I wear a uniform, the only practical application is in pants. Should I not be allowed to serve in the reserves because a woman shouldn’t wear pants? Does the Church frown on women in these professions?

God Bless,

Jessica
Click to expand...
No one answered my question regarding required attire for one’s profession. If you are a woman in a marine engineering profession, it isn’t all skirts and heels…so does this mean that women are not supposed to be engineers or in the military???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top