Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[EasterJoy]

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’m thinking really hard, and I’m not picturing a dress suitable for driving a forklift all day. I’m not picturing one that covers the legs properly for work in a laboratory, has enough volume to allow free movement, and yet does not pose too much of a hazard of billowing where it does not belong. I’m not picturing one that is as suitable for slaughtering farm animals as pants are. Not that it couldn’t be done, but the clothing does not fit the activity equally well. It just doesn’t.

Riding a horse? Oh, come now…now I know you must be pulling my leg. Yes, Ginger Rogers could dance as well as Fred Astaire while in high heels, a long dress, and going backwards, but that is not the point.

But yes, whatever you want to do in a dress, you can do, unless the safety code prohibits it. Go for it, Ginger!!

 

[SwizzleStick]

…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. …

Doesn’t it follow then that the eyes naturally fall there on men in pants too? Shouldn’t we all just go back to robes and tunics then?

 

[slyboots]

I’m thinking really hard, and I’m not picturing a dress suitable for driving a forklift all day. I’m not picturing one that covers the legs properly for work in a laboratory, has enough volume to allow free movement, and yet does not pose too much of a hazard of billowing where it does not belong. I’m not picturing one that is as suitable for slaughtering farm animals as pants are. Not that it couldn’t be done, but the clothing does not fit the activity equally well. It just doesn’t.

Riding a horse? Oh, come now…now I know you must be pulling my leg. Yes, Ginger Rogers could dance as well as Fred Astaire while in high heels, a long dress, and going backwards, but that is not the point.

But yes, whatever you want to do in a dress, you can do, unless the safety code prohibits it. Go for it, Ginger!!

You never rode a horse in a dress? Sure the horse looks funny but if she wants to wear a skirt…
Kidding aside, I have ridden a regular western saddle while “skirted”.

 

[Gertabelle]

I’m thinking really hard, and I’m not picturing a dress suitable for driving a forklift all day. I’m not picturing one that covers the legs properly for work in a laboratory, has enough volume to allow free movement, and yet does not pose too much of a hazard of billowing where it does not belong. I’m not picturing one that is as suitable for slaughtering farm animals as pants are. Not that it couldn’t be done, but the clothing does not fit the activity equally well. It just doesn’t.

Several of you have mentioned the “robes” worn by monks and nuns, so I just wanted to respond to this part of the conversation about the practicality of these robes.

Some twenty years ago when I was a novice in a monastery, I wore a full habit similar to “The Sound of Music.” We had a working farm with fields of crops and fifty head of cattle, plus sheep, llamas, chickens…

Anyway, we wore our full habits for all of our work – cooking, cleaning, building, tending the animals, artwork… However, our “work habits” were shorter (above the ankle), in large variety of lovely shades of blue, and we traded our scapular for an apron.

The ONE EXCEPTION to this was when any of us were using certain pieces of farm equipment. For the sake of safety, there were certain times when we were placed under obedience to wear jeans and a long sleeved shirt to work on the farm. I know we still wore our long veils (white for work), but I think we may have done something to keep them from being loose (maybe tucked them into our shirts?). The safety issue was the possibility of getting our habit caught up in the machinery, or of our getting caught up in our habit while standing fifteen feet off the ground while stacking hay bales.

This was very specific work, with very powerful and dangerous machinery. And common sense dictated that to wear skirts at those times would be the something like throwing ourselves off the parapet of the temple expecting God’s angels to catch us

My teeny tiny point is that there are indeed times when it is not prudent to wear a skirt. If these extraordinary nuns can trade their blest habits for jeans and a shirt for certain work, I don’t think it behooves anyone here to argue for “skirts only and always.”

Personally, I prefer wearing skirts and dresses, but my weight gain since starting this stupid doctoral program has left me feeling uncomfortable about my appearance in them these days. But my preference it not based on modesty or what I think God prefers. I dress modestly whatever I wear, thanks be to God’s grace.

Gertie

 

[JOL]

Doesn’t it follow then that the eyes naturally fall there on men in pants too? Shouldn’t we all just go back to robes and tunics then?

I don’t think so. I believe men are visual creatures, women are emotional. So, if the eyes of a woman fall naturally to his waist area, I doubt the same thoughts are stirred.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t think so. I believe men are visual creatures, women are emotional. So, if the eyes of a woman fall naturally to his waist area, I doubt the same thoughts are stirred.

Okay, I guess, though I’m not sure it is correct to stereotype people by sex as being one way or another, visual or emotional. (I am a woman but I do not have an inordinate interest in clothing as the Hammond book states is a trait of women.) Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know where a man’s eyes fall naturally on a woman wearing a dress or skirt? I skimmed the chapter from the book, but I didn’t see that information anywhere.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Men(as well as women) are endowed with a brain that orders the body parts what to do.If certain men choose to look at a certain area, it is a willed decision.It is not a machine that depoits the pupils automatically at a certain height.
There are women very tall and others that are shorty, as you know.Do men dial up or down their eyes?What does this book say?I am being ironic, forgive me.
it’s that I just find this so silly a conversation.Especially the trying to find the answers
in the book.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Men(as well as women) are endowed with a brain that orders the body parts what to do.If certain men choose to look at a certain area, it is a willed decision.It is not a machine that depoits the pupils automatically at a certain height.
There are women very tall and others that are shorty, as you know.Do men dial up or down their eyes?What does this book say?I am being ironic, forgive me.
it’s that I just find this so silly a conversation.Especially the trying to find the answers
in the book.

I tend to agree.

 

[daeve]

Doesn’t it follow then that the eyes naturally fall there on men in pants too? Shouldn’t we all just go back to robes and tunics then?

I have restrained myself from joining this discussion, but I really liked that comment.

Women too must be vigilant in our thoughts and views of men.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I have restrained myself from joining this discussion, but I really liked that comment.

Women too must be vigilant in our thoughts and views of men.

Seems pretty basic and logical to me.

 

[adstrinity]

I don’t think so. I believe men are visual creatures, women are emotional. So, if the eyes of a woman fall naturally to his waist area, I doubt the same thoughts are stirred.

Mine does. I posted in the other thread, the one that I started, that it’s typically easy (100% of the time) for me to look at men’s crotches. I’ve found the only time ONLY time I don’t, is when the man’s crotch is covered by an ambiguous piece of long fabric, i.e., tunics of the middle eastern men or robes that the priests wears.

I’ve also posted in that other thread about that stupid chapter of that ill reasearched and reasoned travesty some would like to waste ink and trees on to make a book…but, I’m not going to say how I feel about it.

 

[JAGCath28]

Mine does. I posted in the other thread, the one that I started, that it’s typically easy (100% of the time) for me to look at men’s crotches. I’ve found the only time ONLY time I don’t, is when the man’s crotch is covered by an ambiguous piece of long fabric, i.e., tunics of the middle eastern men or robes that the priests wears.

I’ve also posted in that other thread about that stupid chapter of that ill reasearched and reasoned travesty some would like to waste ink and trees on to make a book…but, I’m not going to say how I feel about it.

Me too! When I read the first mention of guys being drawn to that area when women wear pants, I thought…that makes sense since my eyes always tend to go there with men. And it isn’t because I’m lustful (far from it…) but it just happens. So, just because I’m a woman and my mind doesn’t think dirty things doesn’t make it any more OK for men to be wearing pants versus women.

Anyway, after going to a military academy and having to become “one of the guys” I definitely use every opportunity to be as feminine as possible. When not at work (typically weekends), I wear dresses and skirts a lot. I even stopped wearing pajamas and went to nightgowns. It is just my personal preference. I think it is just a little silly (my opinion) to get so wrapped up in pants vs. dresses/skirts issue when really we should be working on the modesty problem (sex culture) as a whole. Much bigger fish to fry, I feel.

 

[MissMichal]

Well, my eyes have fallen on the crotches of men. And their rears, and their chests and abs and biceps and all manner of other untoward locations. In fact, I have also seen the breasts and bottoms of women. The fact is, men and women both have parts that they take out into the world with them when they’re doing whatever it is they do. Sometimes they’re modestly covered and sometimes they’re not. But, even if a dude is walking down the street with everything showing but his mother’s maiden name, it is my job to either preserve myself from lustful looking and thinking or ask Our Lord for help in doing so. His low-slung jeans don’t keep the culpability from being placed on my head.

 

[Janet1983]

Good evening!

I was first introduced to the idea that to be modest a woman must wear a skirt or dress by the independent fundamental baptist church. When I began to read the scriptures and looked at history, I found that this seems to be the acceptable way. Much to my shock, there is chism (is that what you call it?) within the Catholic Church wear skirts/dresses only. What are your thoughts on this?

I have also found some interesting articles on this topic, one from Fatima and one in regard to Padre Pio.

God bless,
JOL

Pants immodest? Well it depends.
I personally like pants, but on Sunday I usually wear a skirt in the morning and pants on the afternoon (we have another service at 6pm). Most ladies at my church wear skirts, but not all…
If someone wears pants that are tight enough to require thongs to look good they are definitely too tight and can’t be modest. I’d say it depends on what it looks like in the end: If they are way too tight pants can be immodest… Skirts can be immodest though too when they are too short or too tight.
I’m not talking about walking about in a sack, but the clothes should show a certain decency…

 

[JOL]

Okay, I guess, though I’m not sure it is correct to stereotype people by sex as being one way or another, visual or emotional. (I am a woman but I do not have an inordinate interest in clothing as the Hammond book states is a trait of women.) Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know where a man’s eyes fall naturally on a woman wearing a dress or skirt? I skimmed the chapter from the book, but I didn’t see that information anywhere.

I think typically, men are more visual than women and women more emotional then men. I think that is what makes the healthy balance for us in our homes (if we are married with children). There are typically gender specific traits and qualities, for me and my husband, I can think of physical strength and the ability to read and follow directions.

It is today’s society and the feminist movement that would have everyone believe that men and women are the same. Equality does not equal identity.

Anyway, to the question…in the quote I read (and I cannot remember where I originally read it from) it said when women wear a dress or skirt (modest that is) the eyes naturally fall to the woman’s face. I don’t have the book yet so I will not be able to answer what Ms. Hammond states in the book.

 

[JOL]

Mine does. I posted in the other thread, the one that I started, that it’s typically easy (100% of the time) for me to look at men’s crotches. I’ve found the only time ONLY time I don’t, is when the man’s crotch is covered by an ambiguous piece of long fabric, i.e., tunics of the middle eastern men or robes that the priests wears.

But when you look at the man’s crotch, does your mind automatically go in the gutter and try to imagine what is underneath the pants? Does your mind visually undress the man?

I’ve also posted in that other thread about that stupid chapter of that ill reasearched and reasoned travesty some would like to waste ink and trees on to make a book…but, I’m not going to say how I feel about it.

Why do you say this, because you don’t agree with it?

 

[Little_Flower]

You may wish to read Dressing with Dignity for a further discussion on this subject. It is less than 100 pages and very easy reading. Also there are Vatican guideline for women’s dress that have never been changed or removed. They include skirts at least 2 in below knee, nothing clingy or see through, necklines no more than 2 fingers width below the pit of the throat, and preferable sleeves below the elbow, though it does say short sleeves between the elbow and shoulder are acceptable because of “market cinditions” I guess meaning that it is hard to find many 3/4 sleeve shirts.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t think so. I believe men are visual creatures, women are emotional. So, if the eyes of a woman fall naturally to his waist area, I doubt the same thoughts are stirred.

Both women and men are visual and emotional, in varying degrees.

But the fact that she mentioned that “study” in her book makes me quite sure that I would never take her advice about anything - which sounds harsh, but it’s really meaningless. It wasn’t done in a way that would give reliable or useful results, and it doesn’t account for other reasons for the results they gained. And such an experiment would ideally be conducted on men too.

And even if you got similar results, for men or women, in a well done experiment, what would that mean?

 

[Bluegoat]

Why do you say this, because you don’t agree with it?

You know, a person can actually even agree with an idea, and think a particular argument for it is wrong or bad. That book is badly researched, it uses proofs and makes claims it can’t support, and it makes claims about religious doctrine that are simply untrue. It probably does more to hurt the cause it is trying to support than help it.

As far as the Vatican never having repealed certain guidelines - you will find, in some cases though, that they have given out new ones, which comes down to the same thing. As well, many of their guidelines are culture specific - if you go to a Catholic mission in the middle of the Amazon, people will be dressed quite differently.

 

[JOL]

Me too! When I read the first mention of guys being drawn to that area when women wear pants, I thought…that makes sense since my eyes always tend to go there with men. And it isn’t because I’m lustful (far from it…) but it just happens. So, just because I’m a woman and my mind doesn’t think dirty things doesn’t make it any more OK for men to be wearing pants versus women.

Anyway, after going to a military academy and having to become “one of the guys” I definitely use every opportunity to be as feminine as possible. When not at work (typically weekends), I wear dresses and skirts a lot. I even stopped wearing pajamas and went to nightgowns. It is just my personal preference. I think it is just a little silly (my opinion) to get so wrapped up in pants vs. dresses/skirts issue when really we should be working on the modesty problem (sex culture) as a whole. Much bigger fish to fry, I feel.

Here are some interesting articles about men being more visual than women.

The Difference Between Men and Women

Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli

Study Finds Male And Female Brains Respond Differently To Visual Stimuli

Of course, there are also articles that refute this claim. I tend to agree with the articles though based on my own reading of Sacred Scripture.

In regard to the “sex culture”, the way to change this starts with each one of us personally. If we continue to support the “sex sells” mentality, the sex culture will never die. It is very difficult to shop for clothing that meets the basic standards of modesty these days.