Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[JOL]

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???

You probably won’t like my answer, and so before I say it I do so with this as my defense for saying it.

I work outside the home right now as well as have served in the military. Of course, if you are single or don’t have children, than this wouldn’t apply.

Okay, well, I tend to think that maybe it should be as it was meant to be with women home with the children. Maybe there wouldn’t be such trouble in the world if women didn’t leave the home to enter the workforce, leaving their children with childcare providers. Honestly, if you are a mother, how many hours per week do you spend with your children?

For me, during the work week, my children get me for 15 to 20 hours. The rest of the time they are at school with the teachers raising them.

If you don’t have children I would say the societal norm, that it is perfectly fine for you to adhere to the dress code required for safety reasons and such.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

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.

Do you know WHY a particular woman might be dressed in men’s clothing? Do you claim to be able to read minds? Can you read hearts?

I doubt that you, or any other person on this thread can do any of these things. I do say that you are guilty of judging people whom you know nothing about.

I have been, in my youth, required to wear men’s suits, including tie, for my emplyment. I have run into folks who decided, just upon seeing me, a young woman in a man’s business suit, that I was some freak of nature or a lesbian. I have endured that type of insult that you give here. You are very unkind and most ignorant in my opinion! And most unChristian, too.

I was the only female professional baseball umpire in our state, and overseas as well, at a time when the suit was the uniform! How dare you assume some woman is a lesbian, just because she wears a suit and tie for her living!

When I served my country in the USAF, I was also required to wear a men’s fatigue uniform, because female fatigue uniforms (which look exactly like the men’s) hadn’t been invented yet.

Lesbian? I don’t think so—ask my husband, ask my children, ask my grandchildren!

 

[JAGCath28]

You probably won’t like my answer, and so before I say it I do so with this as my defense for saying it.

I work outside the home right now as well as have served in the military. Of course, if you are single or don’t have children, than this wouldn’t apply.

Okay, well, I tend to think that maybe it should be as it was meant to be with women home with the children. Maybe there wouldn’t be such trouble in the world if women didn’t leave the home to enter the workforce, leaving their children with childcare providers. Honestly, if you are a mother, how many hours per week do you spend with your children?

For me, during the work week, my children get me for 15 to 20 hours. The rest of the time they are at school with the teachers raising them.

If you don’t have children I would say the societal norm, that it is perfectly fine for you to adhere to the dress code required for safety reasons and such.

I’m married with no children. As soon as we have children, I plan on being a full time mom. I’m not going to argue with you on whether a woman should or shouldn’t work as a mother, because we probably feel the same way regarding that issue. That being said…

Going back to the point of the topic regarding pants vs. dresses/skirts, how is it ok to wear the dress code but not to apply similar dress to everyday life? Wouldn’t a man be looking at the same “area” with me in khaki pants while in Navy uniform as he would with me in jeans?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing that I think pants are better or worse or the same. I’m just trying to understand how someone can feel so strongly against pants but have a slight double standard regarding required professional attire…

I think that as long as what the woman is wearing isn’t revealing (meaning too low, too short, or too tight) then there really isn’t much more to discuss. That woman isn’t being immodest and shouldn’t cause a man to stumble. I could be wrong, but isn’t the whole “don’t wear men’s clothing” scripture really referring to a man taking a place of a woman and vice versa in the bedroom???

 

[JAGCath28]

You probably won’t like my answer, and so before I say it I do so with this as my defense for saying it.

I work outside the home right now as well as have served in the military. Of course, if you are single or don’t have children, than this wouldn’t apply.

Okay, well, I tend to think that maybe it should be as it was meant to be with women home with the children. Maybe there wouldn’t be such trouble in the world if women didn’t leave the home to enter the workforce, leaving their children with childcare providers. Honestly, if you are a mother, how many hours per week do you spend with your children?

For me, during the work week, my children get me for 15 to 20 hours. The rest of the time they are at school with the teachers raising them.

If you don’t have children I would say the societal norm, that it is perfectly fine for you to adhere to the dress code required for safety reasons and such.

Sorry…I just started thinking some more about your response.

What if I did have children? What if my husband was dead and I had to earn a living? What if my husband ran out on me and I had to earn a living? What if I got knocked up by a deadbeat guy, and had a child or children and am working to support them? What if my husband got laid off and I was the only one able to provide for the family?

I don’t really want an answer to those questions. My point by asking them is this. Whether I’m a mother or not makes no difference in my original question. The topic is about women wearing pants. My question: what if it is required professional attire? If it is OK because it is required professional attire, then why is it not ok in the day to day?

I’m sincerely asking this.

 

[EasterJoy]

Why did women in the early 1900s and before cover themselves so completely? Answer: so the sun wouldn’t make them look like field hands. If you look at the evening and indoor attire in portraits of Catholic royalty, there are periods in which you will see low-cut and off-the-shoulder gowns, and exaggerated waistlines and bustles. Though good Catholics, these women did not dress like the women in convents. The legs and ankles were considered particularly provocative, and so were covered up by females who weren’t prostitutes or young children.

Not so long ago, long pants were for men. Young boys didn’t get to wear them. Women did not need pants at all because women were highly discouraged from activities that called for them, and made double-sure that they could not be mistaken for men even when doing “men’s work”. Those times are gone, right along with the concept of “men’s work.”

I started wearing pants as a child because a dress long enough to be modest while active would have made normal playground activity impossible. I mean that I would literally have had my underpants showing on the playground. Even when I wore a dress, there were pants underneath. Since we recognize now that even grown women need to be and are fully capable of being active, pants are worn throughout a woman’s life. That doesn’t make her into a man. It does discontinue a mindset that made believe that she was helpless or that an active life was incompatible with her femininity. Wanting to be able to run on the playground did not mean I wanted to be a boy, and wearing pants doesn’t mean I want to be a man.

There is a reason that street-walkers do not wear the kind of slacks one sees in church. While most women’s pants are obviously women’s clothing, most are not particularly provocative. This doesn’t mean that pants cannot be painted on tightly enough to suit someone who wants the world to know that her body has a pricetag on it. It means that there are a great many slacks for sale at JC Penney that no woman trying to look as if her morals were loose would dream of wearing for that purpose. It is not clothing that asks a man to get the wrong idea. You can ask any woman who makes a living at giving men that kind of idea.

If you look at the statues of Our Lord, Our Lady, and the saints, of the type that have graced churches for centuries, you will realize that the difference between men’s and women’s clothing need not be all that much in order to be distinctive. You do not need to be able to differentiate the two from a mile away. Obviously, what is considered “men’s clothing” depends on the time and place. Still, unless you count work clothes, most of what most Catholic women wear can only be purchased in the women’s section of a clothing store. You could not pay their sons or husbands enough to wear it. I think that makes it women’s clothing, even if it has a fly.

This is not that hard. You should not buy clothes for public wear that make you look “sexy” rather than merely feminine, let alone wear them to church. A woman should not dress so that a contemporary will mistake her for a man. It is OK if people who time-travel from 1865 would make that mistake. When that happens, we’ll explain things to them. When in a different place where standards are different, I think a woman should take the more strict of the contemporary standards likely to be present to see her. I still don’t think even that is all that tough.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

[slyboots]

Easterjoy said" Women did not need pants at all because women were highly discouraged from activities that called for them, and made double-sure that they could not be mistaken for men even when doing “men’s work”. Those times are gone, right along with the concept of “men’s work.”

When was this? My grnadmother born in 1909 lived on a farm. She plowed, she helped build and painted out buildings, she chased cattle into corrals for branding and such. She raised children, washed clothes in an outdoor kettle to which she fetched and carried the water. She prepared food, helped butcher critters, and canned anything you can think of. She drove the tractor. During what part of that experience do you think she wore pants? None. She wore nothing but dresses ( or skirts and tops) with aprons.

While I realize some women wore pants in the 30’s 40’s and 50’s it was not common for them to be worn for general fare. Even in the earliest 60’s if you went to the city you wore “your good clothes” which for a woman meant a dress.

Women wearing pants has previously been considered uncommon prior to the 1960s corresponding to …ta-da…THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION…the “pill”, greater amounts of divorce, co-habitation, the feminist movement etc. The designers of that time peiod talked about "freeing "people of old traditions and ushering in a new age of gender equality.
I was part of the era and movement. By 1973 we had convinced people that even abortion was a freedom.

So while tousers, slacks, jeans and pants are not the cause of this moral decline, they are a revealing part of what our mentality has come to. Women wanted gender equality. They got it. And all the ills that came with it.

searchwarp.com/swa455488-A-Womens-Revolution-For-Modest-Dress-Part-Ii.htm

 

[EasterJoy]

Easterjoy said" Women did not need pants at all because women were highly discouraged from activities that called for them, and made double-sure that they could not be mistaken for men even when doing “men’s work”. Those times are gone, right along with the concept of “men’s work.”

When was this? My grnadmother born in 1909 lived on a farm. She plowed, she helped build and painted out buildings, she chased cattle into corrals for branding and such. She raised children, washed clothes in an outdoor kettle to which she fetched and carried the water. She prepared food, helped butcher critters, and canned anything you can think of. She drove the tractor. During what part of that experience do you think she wore pants? None. She wore nothing but dresses ( or skirts and tops) with aprons.

While I realize some women wore pants in the 30’s 40’s and 50’s it was not common for them to be worn for general fare. Even in the earliest 60’s if you went to the city you wore “your good clothes” which for a woman meant a dress.

Women wearing pants has previously been considered uncommon prior to the 1960s corresponding to …ta-da…THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION…the “pill”, greater amounts of divorce, co-habitation, the feminist movement etc. The designers of that time peiod talked about "freeing "people of old traditions and ushering in a new age of gender equality.
I was part of the era and movement. By 1973 we had convinced people that even abortion was a freedom.

So while tousers, slacks, jeans and pants are not the cause of this moral decline, they are a revealing part of what our mentality has come to. Women wanted gender equality. They got it. And all the ills that came with it.

searchwarp.com/swa455488-A-Womens-Revolution-For-Modest-Dress-Part-Ii.htm

My mother grew up on a farm, and had to train hops. She and her sisters had to wear long sleeves, gloves and hats, not for the sake of modesty, but for the sake of keeping their skin from tanning. I was born in the early 60s, and the concept of “men’s work” was not dead yet. The division of household labor was very much gender-based, even in the sensible cases when my brothers’ bodily strength was not an issue.

Have you done farm work in a dress? Do you know any contemporary farm or ranch women who put on a long dress to help with the slaughtering? I know a lot of farm women. They aren’t feminists, they don’t want to be men, but as far as I know not a single one of them owns a long dress that they’d choose to wear to slaughter a pig. The only exceptions I can think of are people I don’t happen to know. (The Amish come to mind.) From my point of view, though, wearing long dresses for farm work that calls for pants is a tradition we are well rid of. If it weren’t dangerous enough way back when, the advent of modern farm machinery has made it far too dangerous now.

It is possible to allow women to wear practical clothing without turning them all into abortion rights activists.

 

[tcraig]

From my point of view, though, wearing long dresses for farm work that calls for pants is a tradition we are well rid of. If it weren’t dangerous enough way back when, the advent of modern farm machinery has made it far too dangerous now.

It is possible to allow women to wear practical clothing without turning them all into abortion rights activists.

Anyone interested in reading nonfiction history accounts (which can be rather boring) will also learn that burns were a very common occurence on women in the past. Their dresses would catch on fire by catching on an open flame. Many died because infection would then set in.

I realize that methods of cooking are different today, but my point is simply that just because an activity can be done in a dress doesn’t always make a dress the most practical or desirable item of clothing for the job.

 

[JOL]

Do you know WHY a particular woman might be dressed in men’s clothing? Do you claim to be able to read minds? Can you read hearts?

I doubt that you, or any other person on this thread can do any of these things. I do say that you are guilty of judging people whom you know nothing about.

I have been, in my youth, required to wear men’s suits, including tie, for my emplyment. I have run into folks who decided, just upon seeing me, a young woman in a man’s business suit, that I was some freak of nature or a lesbian. I have endured that type of insult that you give here. You are very unkind and most ignorant in my opinion! And most unChristian, too.

I was the only female professional baseball umpire in our state, and overseas as well, at a time when the suit was the uniform! How dare you assume some woman is a lesbian, just because she wears a suit and tie for her living!

When I served my country in the USAF, I was also required to wear a men’s fatigue uniform, because female fatigue uniforms (which look exactly like the men’s) hadn’t been invented yet.

Lesbian? I don’t think so—ask my husband, ask my children, ask my grandchildren!

Have you ever walked past someone in the supermarket and suspected they were gay? And then later have it confirmed for you when you saw them standing in the checkout line embracing one another? It is often times not difficult in today’s day and age to quickly pick up on when someone is gay because they flaunt it all to lightly. It is also very different to wear a uniform that is required than to dress like a man every day with different suits, shirts and ties. I too wore a uniform in the USAF, it was what I had to wear, there was no choice. In today’s age you don’t need to be judging people to figure if they are gay men or women, they wear their gay “pride” for all to see because our culture is very accepting of it.

 

[JOL]

I’m married with no children. As soon as we have children, I plan on being a full time mom. I’m not going to argue with you on whether a woman should or shouldn’t work as a mother, because we probably feel the same way regarding that issue. That being said…

Going back to the point of the topic regarding pants vs. dresses/skirts, how is it ok to wear the dress code but not to apply similar dress to everyday life? Wouldn’t a man be looking at the same “area” with me in khaki pants while in Navy uniform as he would with me in jeans?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing that I think pants are better or worse or the same. I’m just trying to understand how someone can feel so strongly against pants but have a slight double standard regarding required professional attire…

I think that as long as what the woman is wearing isn’t revealing (meaning too low, too short, or too tight) then there really isn’t much more to discuss. That woman isn’t being immodest and shouldn’t cause a man to stumble. I could be wrong, but isn’t the whole “don’t wear men’s clothing” scripture really referring to a man taking a place of a woman and vice versa in the bedroom???

Okay, so say I join the military today and am wearing the uniform, which is pretty much unisex (for the BDU’s anyway) and am perfectly fine with it. But then as time goes on my opinion of it changes as my relationship with Christ matures. I then come to the conclusion that I don’t feel comfortable wearing pants anymore. Being in the military I cannot refuse to wear the uniform because of my person beliefs unless I want to be discharged. Though, if I worked where I wore the Service dress every day it wouldn’t matter as women’s Service dress includes a skirt.

I have been thinking a great deal more about this today though as I was doing yardwork wearing sweatpants. There isn’t really a clothing item that is made for men today that women aren’t free to wear and society wouldn’t even bat an eye at. Why is this? If you saw a man walking through a store with a dress or skirt on (except for the case of a kilt) you (maybe you wouldn’t, but I am speaking “you” generally) would look twice and think of it as unacceptable. Why is this? Isn’t this a double standard?

Why is it only womens clothing has been made over the years to reflect men’s clothing but not the other way around?

 

[lwest]

If you’re a traditional Catholic, wearing pants is a cultural ‘no-no’ but this is not official Church teaching. The Church teaches ‘modesty in dress’. This can be interpreted as not wearing tube tops an shorts to Mass. Some people bump it up a notch by saying it mean that wearing pants (for a woman) is pure evil. If you choose to wear dresses, that’s your business but there’s nothing in official Church teaching that says you have to and wearing dresses all the time doesn’t make you holier than those who wear jeans. I know people who wouldn’t be caught dead in slacks but yet they lie, gossip, slander, steal, etc. Their wardrobe doesn’t make them holy.

 

[JOL]

Sorry…I just started thinking some more about your response.

What if I did have children? What if my husband was dead and I had to earn a living? What if my husband ran out on me and I had to earn a living? What if I got knocked up by a deadbeat guy, and had a child or children and am working to support them? What if my husband got laid off and I was the only one able to provide for the family?

I don’t really want an answer to those questions. My point by asking them is this. Whether I’m a mother or not makes no difference in my original question. The topic is about women wearing pants. My question: what if it is required professional attire? If it is OK because it is required professional attire, then why is it not ok in the day to day?

I’m sincerely asking this.

There are times when women do have to work, which is understandable and required. I am just saying me personally, though working outside the home, would much rather be home with my kiddo’s…

Anyway, I think I answered your question about professions in my previous post.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Have you ever walked past someone in the supermarket and suspected they were gay? And then later have it confirmed for you when you saw them standing in the checkout line embracing one another? It is often times not difficult in today’s day and age to quickly pick up on when someone is gay because they flaunt it all to lightly. It is also very different to wear a uniform that is required than to dress like a man every day with different suits, shirts and ties. I too wore a uniform in the USAF, it was what I had to wear, there was no choice. In today’s age you don’t need to be judging people to figure if they are gay men or women, they wear their gay “pride” for all to see because our culture is very accepting of it.

To tell the truth, when I am in the supermarket, I am usually paying attention to the prices on the cabbage than suspecting who is gay or not. And seeing two people of the same sex embracing each other in the check out line has nothing to do issue, either. I happened to see such a couple at the art museum–one was wearing a very feminine skirt!

I wear jeans and shirts all the time. It is more comfortable for me to do my job and my housework in such attire. I guess you will judge me to be “gay” and flaunting my pride for everyone to see, especially should I meet a dear friend in a store and give them a hug.

The loss would be yours, however…

 

[JOL]

Why did women in the early 1900s and before cover themselves so completely? Answer: so the sun wouldn’t make them look like field hands. If you look at the evening and indoor attire in portraits of Catholic royalty, there are periods in which you will see low-cut and off-the-shoulder gowns, and exaggerated waistlines and bustles. Though good Catholics, these women did not dress like the women in convents. The legs and ankles were considered particularly provocative, and so were covered up by females who weren’t prostitutes or young children.

Not so long ago, long pants were for men. Young boys didn’t get to wear them. Women did not need pants at all because women were highly discouraged from activities that called for them, and made double-sure that they could not be mistaken for men even when doing “men’s work”. Those times are gone, right along with the concept of “men’s work.”

I started wearing pants as a child because a dress long enough to be modest while active would have made normal playground activity impossible. I mean that I would literally have had my underpants showing on the playground. Even when I wore a dress, there were pants underneath. Since we recognize now that even grown women need to be and are fully capable of being active, pants are worn throughout a woman’s life. That doesn’t make her into a man. It does discontinue a mindset that made believe that she was helpless or that an active life was incompatible with her femininity. Wanting to be able to run on the playground did not mean I wanted to be a boy, and wearing pants doesn’t mean I want to be a man.

There is a reason that street-walkers do not wear the kind of slacks one sees in church. While most women’s pants are obviously women’s clothing, most are not particularly provocative. This doesn’t mean that pants cannot be painted on tightly enough to suit someone who wants the world to know that her body has a pricetag on it. It means that there are a great many slacks for sale at JC Penney that no woman trying to look as if her morals were loose would dream of wearing for that purpose. It is not clothing that asks a man to get the wrong idea. You can ask any woman who makes a living at giving men that kind of idea.

If you look at the statues of Our Lord, Our Lady, and the saints, of the type that have graced churches for centuries, you will realize that the difference between men’s and women’s clothing need not be all that much in order to be distinctive. You do not need to be able to differentiate the two from a mile away. Obviously, what is considered “men’s clothing” depends on the time and place. Still, unless you count work clothes, most of what most Catholic women wear can only be purchased in the women’s section of a clothing store. You could not pay their sons or husbands enough to wear it. I think that makes it women’s clothing, even if it has a fly.

This is not that hard. You should not buy clothes for public wear that make you look “sexy” rather than merely feminine, let alone wear them to church. A woman should not dress so that a contemporary will mistake her for a man. It is OK if people who time-travel from 1865 would make that mistake. When that happens, we’ll explain things to them. When in a different place where standards are different, I think a woman should take the more strict of the contemporary standards likely to be present to see her. I still don’t think even that is all that tough.

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.

 

[JOL]

My mother grew up on a farm, and had to train hops. She and her sisters had to wear long sleeves, gloves and hats, not for the sake of modesty, but for the sake of keeping their skin from tanning. I was born in the early 60s, and the concept of “men’s work” was not dead yet. The division of household labor was very much gender-based, even in the sensible cases when my brothers’ bodily strength was not an issue.

Have you done farm work in a dress? Do you know any contemporary farm or ranch women who put on a long dress to help with the slaughtering? I know a lot of farm women. They aren’t feminists, they don’t want to be men, but as far as I know not a single one of them owns a long dress that they’d choose to wear to slaughter a pig. The only exceptions I can think of are people I don’t happen to know. (The Amish come to mind.) From my point of view, though, wearing long dresses for farm work that calls for pants is a tradition we are well rid of. If it weren’t dangerous enough way back when, the advent of modern farm machinery has made it far too dangerous now.

It is possible to allow women to wear practical clothing without turning them all into abortion rights activists.

Other than professions which calls for a uniform, what work “calls for pants”?

 

[JOL]

To tell the truth, when I am in the supermarket, I am usually paying attention to the prices on the cabbage than suspecting who is gay or not. And seeing two people of the same sex embracing each other in the check out line has nothing to do issue, either. I happened to see such a couple at the art museum–one was wearing a very feminine skirt!

I wear jeans and shirts all the time. It is more comfortable for me to do my job and my housework in such attire. I guess you will judge me to be “gay” and flaunting my pride for everyone to see, especially should I meet a dear friend in a store and give them a hug.

The loss would be yours, however…

There is a huge difference from meeting up with an old friend and giving them a hug than embracing, walking arm in arm, snuggling, grabbing the others rear, etc. When was the last time you met up with an old friend and grabbed their rear? Oh…a better way to say this, there is a difference from a friendly hug than public displays of affection. And when you are in the store with your young children and you see people, regardless if they are a straight couple or gay couple practically making out, you tend to notice their inappropriate behavior(public displays of affection [that was the term we used in the military]).

I did not say wearing pants makes one gay. I said that I know of a woman in my work environment who wears a mans suit every day (not a uniform). She does other things (other than her mode of daily dress) which hints to her sexuality. Also, this is not difficult to pick up on in today’s society whether or not you are honest enough to admit that.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

There is a huge difference from meeting up with an old friend and giving them a hug than embracing, walking arm in arm, snuggling, grabbing the others rear, etc. When was the last time you met up with an old friend and grabbed their rear? Oh…a better way to say this, there is a difference from a friendly hug than public displays of affection. And when you are in the store with your young children and you see people, regardless if they are a straight couple or gay couple practically making out, you tend to notice their inappropriate behavior(public displays of affection [that was the term we used in the military]).

I did not say wearing pants makes one gay. I said that I know of a woman in my work environment who wears a mans suit every day (not a uniform). She does other things (other than her mode of daily dress) which hints to her sexuality. Also, this is not difficult to pick up on in today’s society whether or not you are honest enough to admit that.

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.

 

[Tamsulosin]

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
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.

 

[JOL]

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.

Well and that we can agree on. This here topic can become heated. In talking about it I in no way judge you or anyone else who wears pants. Until two weeks ago all I wore was pants, with the occasional skirt to work. I have never wore a skirt other than work or church, and today I found myself wearing a skirt to the movies. Now, when I talk skirt for myself I am talking long skirt, mid-calf range. This is something the Lord is placing on my heart. And that in now way means I am any better or more spiritual than you or anyone else. It just means this is where the Lord is leading me.