Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

  • Thread starter Thread starter JOL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tamsulosin said:
Going up ladders to paint the walls? Cleaning the gutters?Scrubbing the floors?Planting and digging in the orchard?Playing basket ball, doing yoga?Etc, etc:D
Certain activities are better done in slacks.Long skirts may make you trip as you go up a ladder,kneeling and bending may show more of you in skirts.
For church ,shopping and visiting I much prefer to wear a pretty skirt.
Click to expand...
I am not convinced. I saw a video on youtube of some sisters in a convent playing volleyball in their full habit. I know of women, Catholic and not who lead active lives (yard work, house work, etc.) who wear nothing but dresses/jumpers. I just think it is our current mindset that we can’t do these things in anything but pants because that is what society wants us to believe.

Also, you can wear something under your skirt for extra protection if your activity may expose something.
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
I live in Seattle–believe me, I’ve seen it all and worse. Last week I had 50 naked bicyclists ride past me, and two cops. Nothing we can do about it, our city council decided that riding nude isn’t a crime! Go figure!

I believe the intent of the original post was to talk about whether the bible says women have to dress in skirts and men in pants in order to be good Christians. My original reply still stands as my answer: as long as we are all wearing modest clothing we are fine.

Two of my cousins are lesbians, but you would never know it from their dress or their public actions. They both look and dress very femininly. I am the “tomboy” of the family, I am the one who gets called names, and, yet, I am the one who is a heterosexual! Go figure!

But, since God has not come to me and told me that I must wear a skirt, no matter what I am doing, then I will wear my modest pants and shirts, and my white bobby socks and tennis shoes. And I will not judge other folks based on their choices of pants/ or skirts unless they are dressed immodestly.
Click to expand...
Oh, by the way, I can’t believe it is legal to ride a bicyce nude in public? WOW!!!
 
THank you all, especially the last two pages or so, which have really helped and gave me what I wanted to know.

God willing, I am going to go to Mass tomorrow. I am going to wear pants. I still don’t know if I should talk to the priest, as I have calmed down a bit.
 
I would like for someone to answer my question I posted a few posts ago. I am only reposting it cuz it is late and may be overlooked.

There is a blurring of the gender lines when it comes to dress. Why has women’s clothes come to model men’s, but not the other way around? Why haven’t men’s clothes come to model women’s?
 
As a member of a forum dedicated to dressing modestly, I see this issue discussed a lot by women of many faiths. I don’t see it being resolved anytime soon. I’m a headcoverer and I take a “pants are fine but skirts are better” approach. But, I dress as it becomes me and remain silent as to my fellow parishoners’ wardrobe, because people are starving and babies are being murdered in their mothers’ wombs, and nitpicking about the length of another lady’s sleeve is not going to build any bridges.
 
JOL said:
Oh, by the way, I can’t believe it is legal to ride a bicyce nude in public? WOW!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, it is, unfortunately.

And I see many men downtown on work days wearing what is called a “utilitykilt”, a denim working men’s kilt. There are men who swear they are much more comfortable for working in. Go figure.🤷

On the other hand, being of Scottish ancestry, I think there is nothing more manly than a fellow wearing a kilt!

And I do not want to know anything about what is underneath–his tartan bloomers I hope!:eek:
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
Yes, it is, unfortunately.

And I see many men downtown on work days wearing what is called a “utilitykilt”, a denim working men’s kilt. There are men who swear they are much more comfortable for working in. Go figure.🤷

On the other hand, being of Scottish ancestry, I think there is nothing more manly than a fellow wearing a kilt!

And I do not want to know anything about what is underneath–his tartan bloomers I hope!:eek:
Click to expand...
Donald! Where’s yer troosers?😃
 
Bluegoat said:
It’s funny the last post mentioned women’s pants having a fly. A few years ago, the Canadian army developed new underwear, boxer brief style, the same for men and women. They had no fly. What I found interesting was the number of old guys upset by the lack of a fly - like it really is that much harder to just use the elastic waistband. I guess we tend to like whatever we are used to - I really liked the new underwear, anyway - they were comfy.
Click to expand...
Well, when you’re in a hurry…:eek:😊

That being said…I have been retired from the CF since '04, and I still wear the Army ginch practically exclusively.* It’s hard-wearing, supportive, non-chafing, and has that new “wick-away” technology that the latest ski and sport underwear has.

Funny thing about the “fly”…currently, on women’s clothing, the “fly” on a woman’s slacks or jeans has the same function as the ziper on a skirt: to allow you to fasten the garment.

On men’s clothing, however: according to a work I read on the evolution of clothing, the fly – originally a button-fly – was invented by (or for) Ottoman troops to make it easier to urinate and rape without having to totally drop trou.

Before the invention of pants, the dress for men seemed to be, if not robes or (practically) skirts, it was leggings or hose and a codpiece (yeah, real modest). Pants (les pantalons) were the dress of the vile revolutionary republicans – and we know how Catholic **they **were.

I do hope we’re not going to see a resurgence of silk stockings, high heels, bows, and wigs…on men…😊

Seems to me – my opinion only, YMMV – modesty in dress entails:
  • clothes should not be so tight as to show off one’s figure
  • clothes should be opaque, not translucent or gauzy, unless something opaque is worn underneath (i.e. you don’t need to paint the windows if you have good drapes)
  • clothes should cover particular areas of the body – according to HH Pius XI, two fingers below the throat, past the elbow, past the knee (if nothing else,it’s a good starting point)
  • one shouldn’t wear excessive bling, makeup, hair product, gaudy clothes, etc – to draw other’s attention to oneself
  • one shouldn’t dress so as to be mistaken for the other sex
  • one should not wear crocs:D
Did I miss anything?

In other words don’t draw the eye; and if you do, don’t show the goods. If someone is bound and determined to sin, make 'em work for it. And no crocs.
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
Yes, it is, unfortunately.

And I see many men downtown on work days wearing what is called a “utilitykilt”, a denim working men’s kilt. There are men who swear they are much more comfortable for working in. Go figure.🤷

On the other hand, being of Scottish ancestry, I think there is nothing more manly than a fellow wearing a kilt!

And I do not want to know anything about what is underneath–his tartan bloomers I hope!:eek:
Click to expand...
Some talk-show host (I seem to recall Groucho, IDK) asked a kilt-clad guest, “Is anything worn under your kilt?”

And the man answered, “No, everything’s in perfect working order.”
 
JOL said:
I don’t think it is true to say that wearing a skirt or a dress is restrictive to activities that can be done while dressed that way. I mean, look at the Amish and those who call themselves “plain Catholics” or even the protestant areas who wear only dress/skirts today. They are just as active as those of us who wear pants.
Click to expand...
JOL said:
Other than professions which calls for a uniform, what work “calls for pants”?
Click to expand...
“Just as active” does not mean “engages in the same range of activities”. I was brought up in a culture where jobs were divided based on gender, remember.

Look, I don’t have a problem with women who want to wear a dress no matter what they do. I’ll not force pants nor zippers on the Amish, either. Their business is their business.

But working around open fires, fire danger, or machinery that eats billowing clothing calls for pants. Operating a forklift today? Wear pants. If you’re jumping on and off machinery or climbing up and down ladders or exposed stairs, don’t kid yourself into thinking you’ll be less modest if you wear pants. Are you likely to get soaking wet? Wear pants, please. Are you going to be trying to get some work done out in the wind? Pants. Bicycling or working with horses? Pants. Jogging, hiking, or playing sports? Oh, please! Serious exercise calls for pants! There are certain activities, like pushing a lawn mower or even a wheelbarrow, that make a good combination of modesty, efficiency, and safety more difficult to achieve in a dress. Can they be done in a dress? Sure. Would I? No.

If the activity is such that it cannot be done both gracefully and modestly in the length of dress that is short enough to be practical, do not kid yourself that you have some advantage in femininity by wearing a dress. It just isn’t so.

And I’m sorry, this is just me, but if your job calls for athletic shoes, a dress is just silly, like a guy who puts a silk tie with a golf shirt. Wear a dress if you like, or wear the athletic shoes from the bus stop to your workplace, but the look is as feminine as a calf, and sometimes the animal brought to mind is a little older than that. At that point, one may feel free to indulge personal preference without immodesty, but the look isn’t more ladylike than appropriate pants. If a dress isn’t more modest and more ladylike than pants, then there is no reason to insist on a dress.

I also hope we don’t have anyone left in Christendom who thinks that swimmers should wear dresses or that side saddles were a good idea. The insistence on dresses has been taken to ridiculous lengths in the past. Let’s not go there again.
 
Ghoti said:
I do hope we’re not going to see a resurgence of silk stockings, high heels, bows, and wigs…on men…😊
Click to expand...
Those were the suits, the paperwork guys. The working men might have had shorter pants than men wear now, but all those trappings just showed off what kind of work the wearer knew that he wouldn’t be doing that day!
Ghoti said:
Seems to me – my opinion only, YMMV – modesty in dress entails:
  • clothes should not be so tight as to show off one’s figure
  • clothes should be opaque, not translucent or gauzy, unless something opaque is worn underneath (i.e. you don’t need to paint the windows if you have good drapes)
  • clothes should cover particular areas of the body – according to HH Pius XI, two fingers below the throat, past the elbow, past the knee (if nothing else,it’s a good starting point)
  • one shouldn’t wear excessive bling, makeup, hair product, gaudy clothes, etc – to draw other’s attention to oneself
  • one shouldn’t dress so as to be mistaken for the other sex
  • one should not wear crocs:D
Did I miss anything?

In other words don’t draw the eye; and if you do, don’t show the goods. If someone is bound and determined to sin, make 'em work for it. And no crocs.
Click to expand...
Crocs? There is nothing that will extinguish improper fantasies faster than crocs and Birkenstocks! 😃 😃
 
One of the arguments is modesty,the other is dressing to blurr the sex differences,but the goal is not to cause men to feel attraction towards women other than the wives.
Apparently the burden is put all on us women.Men seem to be victims.We should even endanger ourselves for that purpose,like going swimming all covered by fabric ,as advocated by some poster.
But it seems a contradiction to want us to look as femenine as we can.The more femenine we look,the more men would find us attractive.(I assume that men are not attracted to tom- boy looking women,right?)Which is the opposite of the stated goal of us passing unnoticed.
With our hair hanging long,high heels and pretty skirts we would be fine, according to some, but busy moms with slacks and practical shorter hair cuts are to blame for the sins of some men.
Someone mentioned nuns doing sports in their religious uniform.Take yoga, especially the head on the floor, feet up.The poster should try it himself or herself,head cover and all, before advocating it.:rotfl:
Common sense dictates what to wear and when.
 
slyboots said:
I cannot believe there was a poster who thinks cooking in a skirt is more dangerous than cooking in pants.:confused: Do you think we dress like this?
susankramer.com/dolls14.html
Click to expand...
Well, there’s cooking and then there’s cooking. I can stir up dinner for the family by myself at a leisurely-to-slightly-more-urgent pace in just about any manner of trapping, but if you want me to turn out 300 covers in a busy restaurant, I need to be protected from hot things and sharp things and my co-workers need to not trip over my skirt. Not only do I need pants, I need pants suited to the task, i.e. heavy and burn resistant. If it’s femininity you’re concerned about, they come in pink. Same deal with scrubs–the cuts of scrubs are almost always identical for men and women, they do the job, I can still tell with reliable certainty whether the person occupying them is a chick or a dude. To wear a skirt just for the sake of it would be kind of vain and silly.

And Tams, I agree with you entirely. I need to show self-respect by adequately concealing my nakedness, but at some point a man’s lustful behavior has to be on his own head, no matter what I’m wearing.
 
slyboots said:
I cannot believe there was a poster who thinks cooking in a skirt is more dangerous than cooking in pants.:confused: Do you think we dress like this?
susankramer.com/dolls14.html
Click to expand...
You might not be referring to my post, but I was talking about cooking as a profession, in a professional kitchen, working in a lab with flammable chemicals, or working in an industrial situation where there is heavy machinery or danger of fire.

In a laboratory, for instance, the less bare skin and the less in the way of flowing sleeves or skirts, the better. Skin tight isn’t good, either, but something in between is safer than either extreme.

And I did say, too, that anyone who wants to wear a dress for any manner of activity is welcome to it. There are just practical reasons why a woman who prefers dresses might not choose to do so in certain professions, or reasons why the workplace dress code might rightly prohibit them.

Women who used to cook in front of large open fireplaces or who got great vats of water hot over outdoor open fires in flowing skirts were at much greater danger of serious injury than they would have been if they had been allowed to wear pants for the purpose.

(PS I don’t think anyone ever did any serious cooking in the dress shown at the link you provided. That is a beautiful piece of dressmaking, and wouldn’t have been worn in the kitchen.)
 
Tamsulosin said:
One of the arguments is modesty,the other is dressing to blurr the sex differences,but the goal is not to cause men to feel attraction towards women other than the wives.
Apparently the burden is put all on us women.Men seem to be victims.We should even endanger ourselves for that purpose,like going swimming all covered by fabric ,as advocated by some poster.
But it seems a contradiction to want us to look as femenine as we can.The more femenine we look,the more men would find us attractive.(I assume that men are not attracted to tom- boy looking women,right?)Which is the opposite of the stated goal of us passing unnoticed.
With our hair hanging long,high heels and pretty skirts we would be fine, according to some, but busy moms with slacks and practical shorter hair cuts are to blame for the sins of some men.
Someone mentioned nuns doing sports in their religious uniform.Take yoga, especially the head on the floor, feet up.The poster should try it himself or herself,head cover and all, before advocating it.:rotfl:
Common sense dictates what to wear and when.
Click to expand...
I hope nobody is suggesting that Christian women are supposed to make themselves invisible.

There is a big difference between dressing like a woman and dressing in a seductive manner. To use the most extreme example, a burqa is very obviously women’s wear. Even though the monks also wear flowing robes and even cowl hoods, the nuns who wear a whipple and only let their faces and hands show cannot be mistaken either for a monk or for a near occasion of sin.

The problem of women dressing as if they were men is more that one can be lulled into thinking that one is “just one of the boys.” Women who work alongside men can tell you that this is a very big mistake. A woman who keeps her body thin and dresses in boy’s clothing does not look like a boy. She looks like a girl. As one poster pointed out, though, it only takes a difference in color or a few small details of cut to make even a uniform very obviously the uniform of a woman instead of a man. Even the short hair cuts that women favor are different than the ones that are fashionable for men. As a rule, most people don’t like to be mistaken for the opposite sex.

The issue of fashion isn’t all about keeping men’s heads on straight! The “boy fashion” is a look that the vast majority of grown women cannot maintain indefinitely, and which is particularly likely to disappear with pregnancy. As Screwtape pointed out, when this is the fashion, women who are given to vanity are going to be less willing to bear children. It will make marriage less attractive, even when the time has come and it is highly advisable, and will make avoiding the blessing of children a greater temptation. Even if we do exactly the same job as a man, we do the job as a woman. We women cannot become men, and we shouldn’t want to. There is all sorts of frustration and bitterness in that direction. Still, we don’t have to wear dresses to dress in a clearly feminine manner.

When it is the fashion to have a body or a physiology that you don’t have, then whether you are a man or a woman, that fashion is a problem. When the fashion is so extreme that even your gender is obscured, then that can be a bigger problem yet. (And no, I’m not suggesting that there is a moral compulsion for women to choose pink parkas over navy blue ones. Sensible rules are ridiculous, when taken to ridiculous extremes.)
 
I don’t understand. Or more likely you all don’t. Skirts are not required to be fluffy. A straight skirt past the knees does not swish around more than does pants. Sleeves do not have to be bell shaped and open at the wrists. They can even be shorter than to the wrists. They can be smooth not puffy at all.
These women often cooked in a skirt and blouse…

boston.grubstreet.com/Julia%20Child.jpg

walltowall.co.uk/uploads/53b8e4ed-5e9d-4f5f-aca5-403e33f9268d.JPG

Now please remember I am not saying no one can wear pants. I never ever said that. I simply think it’s foolish to say that most anything cannot be done in a skirt. It simply can be done.

I was NOT one of the ones who called it a sin (why would I?). I was not one who implied we have to go back to little house on the prairie fashions.

We are women. We do not need to dress in “men’s clothing styles” in order to do what most women do everyday.
We can run our homes, mow lawns, use tools, stretch fence, ride horses, help build out buildings, feed livestock, shoot guns, paint, run, roof houses, play soccer, baseball, whatever, in skirts just as well as we can pants if we choose to.
If you don’t wear skirts, you don’t. But please don’t believe these things cannot be done because they can, have been and are being done.🙂
 
I want to look at the subject of garments from a different point of view.
Who said and when that a certain piece of cloth sewn a certain way should be called skirt and be worn exclusively by women and another cut an sewn in a different fashion must be forever worn by men?And why do we have to follow these ancient tailors as robots?The world customs are evolving to use the most practical ones on certain occasions. And that is a good thing.As far as I know God did not tell us what fashion to wear.God gave us a body .A body is not something bad.We must respect our bodies and take care of them, keeping them safe and pure.Those are the rules I follow.Not the ones the ancient tailor/human decided for me hundreds of years ago.Jesus and Mary ,both wore gown like garments.Jesus did not wear pants.
After the original sin we started wanting to cover up the body, unlike other animals, but as long as it is covered it is ok.
I look as a woman,because God shaped me like one, not matter what I wear.
The rest is in your head.
 
I have ordered the book “Dressing with Dignity” by Colleen Hammond and am so anxious for it to arrive that I went online to see if there is a preview of the book. You can read some of Chapter 3 HERE. Please do so and share your thoughts.

Interestingly enough, the author has stated in this Chapter what I had mentioned to ya’ll last week about some study where they look for where the eyes fall naturally on a woman in pants versus a dress/skirt. She mentions this as well.

She also include a historical record of what people wore over the centuries. What I find is particularly interesting is how women pretty much wore dresses for all of time until the last one to two hundred years.

She also covers a little bit about what women did when they worked in factories and had to wear cover alls or some form of pants.

Oh I can’t wait to get this book…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top