J
JOL
Guest
But if you do ‘go there’ the sin is not your own. We are responsible for being a temptation to our brothers and sisters.
- Status
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
I agree with this. Seems to me that if the lines of pants and where they lead the eyes cause problems for some men, then the same is true for some women. But, I have difficulty accepting the premise that all or most men cannot control their thoughts and desires around women simply because women are wearing slacks. Aren’t most men much bigger than that? Isn’t that pretty insulting to men? I could see that a mini-skirt or plunging bodice or tight clothing might be a problem for most men, but the simple wearing of slacks to objectify a woman is hard for me to accept for most men. I am still incredulous that some think that wearing slacks is sinful for a woman because it might result in an occasion of sin for a man. If a particular man has that issue, it stands to reason that it doesn’t really matter what a woman is wearing, the issue would be the same, looking at her face, her hands, the flash of her ankle under a long skirt, just being female, could result in the same trouble for a particular man.
J
JOL
Guest
Have you read the book? I haven’t received it yet and therefore, haven’t read it yet. Has anyone looked into her sources? Just wondering how it can be said “it is badly researched” unless you went looking through all the sources she cites.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I agree. And it’s clear that no amount or type of clothing will actually prevent people from having sexual thoughts about the opposite gender. In places where women are covered head to toe, young men try to catch glimpses of their lovely wrists, or their eyes, or watch how they walk. And those characteristics become fuel for sexual fantasy for those men, if they let them.
And in places where women and men wear no tops, men are not excited by the sight of breasts, nor the women by the men’s physiques. ** So to some degree, we could actually say public nakedness de-eroticses the body.**
The important thing is that within our own cultural context, we do not dress in a way that is deliberately immodest and provocative. In modern Western society, pants per se are not in that category of clothing for all but a few elderly people or those from other cultural traditions. Situations where those people mix require charity - those from the no-pants tradition need to realize that the pants-wearers are neither immodest or trying to be provocative; the pro-pants people need to realize that the other group is not composed of old prudes but people used to a different context.
A
adstrinity
Guest
Eh, sometimes. I mean, if it’s fairly bulging, it’s easier to imagine the man’s penis, isn’t it. If it’s not, I think about the penis I cannot see and quickly take my eyes off it. Typically, also, I wonder if they are circumsized or not. By default, I assume all men are.
I say it because it is true. We’ll get to that in a moment.
Included, but, not limited to. The Vatican allows women in clamdiggers and long pants.
Agreed! It was poorly done, IF it was done at all and it’s not just a book about propeganda. I think if it wasn’t for her own words, I might have been lost when another poster in the other thread told me she mentions Freemasons and trying to subvert genders via clothing. I draw the line at conspiracy theories and seeing the devil in every shadow. Back to this, though: One might as well tell the second graders they are getting the medicine and the first and third they are getting the placebos for how bad a study this was…if it even existed.
A
adstrinity
Guest
No, I have read the same chapter you did. Let us take a look, shall we?
Book: Evidently, the “aprons” that Adam and Eve made for themselves didn’t provide enough coverage in God’s eyes, so He made them garments of skins and dressed them properly. Have you ever wondered what those skin garments looked like? You can bet they weren’t those skimpy “Tarzan-and-Jane” outfits seen in the movies.
Me: REALLY!!! How does she know? Was she there? Here she is speculating. She is making an opinion and passing it off to be true. I don’t for one second believe that it wasn’t because God wanted them to cover up more, but, THEY wanted to be more covered…from themselves and from God. Now they had to hide. God created them nude. Nude is good. I’m sure it hurt God much that He had to kill His bear or something and could never have the same relationship with His creation again. Why wouldn’t they be skimpy? It’s hot in this area of the world. Skins are more durable than leaves. That is even IF we are taking this story literally, and not just an explination for why things are the way things are.
Book: In the verses from Genesis cited above, the Latin Vulgate uses the word tunicas. Even for someone not well versed in Latin, I think it’s obvious that that word means “tunic.” The Hebrew word used is ktnvt, the root of which means “cover.”
Me: What a condescending little explitive deleted. Note how, “even for someone…I think it’s obvious.” This is NOT scholarly, this is NOT objective. This is bordering on cliquey and gnostic. ‘If you read me, you’ll have extra knowledge. See how much smarter we are than everybody else? You DID understand that, didn’t you? You’re NOT one of those NON Latin speaking people?’ Why do we even care about how it was translated in Latin? It’s TRANSLATED! Let us know the original and why that is important.
Book: Tunics of pre-Christian biblical and ancient Roman times were flowing garments that extended past the knees and covered the arms and shoulders. I feel pretty confident that, after that whole embarrassing issue in the Garden with the Serpent, Adam and Eve made sure their children and grandchildren all dressed modestly.
Me: All tunics? Really? I find that hard to believe, but, I cannot say with certainty: I have not researched nor was I there. “I feel pretty confident…” another of her interjecting opines that cannot be substantiated.
Book: I think that another outcome from that incident in Paradise is that women have an inordinate interest in clothing. Yes, we can’t deny it! I can just imagine women in Moses’ day gossiping about what the other women were wearing. Not only that: simply consider how much and how often women’s fashions change compared to men’s. But that doesn’t mean that men don’t have their own frivolous pastimes. Look at how many men have gotten overly involved in competition and sports, sometimes to the exclusion of everything else. ESPN. Need I say more?
Me: YES!!! You need say more!!! All you did was point out how little you think of everybody!!! “I think…” So, you finally admit that this is YOU, not anything you know. What? Some women don’t care about clothing at all! What qualifies as “inordinate”, anyway? I cannot believe how uncomplimentary and insulting she is to both men and women here. ‘Tee-hee! Women love fashion! Don’t we girls? Clothes are grand! I love shopping, don’t you?! I’m not saying that men don’t have there thing wink, I mean, they all love sports, right? That’s who men are! …Can you believe the outfits that men wear when they play professional sports, though?!’
Then she goes on about clothing worn in the area that only she wants to cover. She leaves out Africa, The Americas, The Orient, and Persia. In the Orient and Persia, because they were fairly equestrian cultures, the women wore pants. They wore pants because they rode horses, sometimes were even leaders. Yes, the women did. In Africa and The Americas, who knows how they dressed (along with Austrailia). We know that it wasn’t always, “modest”, though. She also doesn’t talk about Japan. Japan, like other textile civilizations, wore long robes and kimonos, why? To be modest? Maybe, but, it has been explained (I have read), that, unlike other places (i.e., the west) where they sewed skins together, the woven fabric was very expensive. When something is that expensive, you are going to make as few cuts to it as possible and fold it to make it wearable. It is her selective reporting and intellectual dishonesty here that I find distasteful and, quite honestly, unworthy of my time.
Agreed!
Incidentally, Adam Sandler was on Conan last night. He said having two daughters changes you. He doesn’t look erotically at vaginas any more; he said he sees vaginas and now all he wants to do is powder them.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Yes, these ones also particularly bothered me. There is some commentary available from the Fathers on the question of why God replaced the clothes they had made, rather better thought out stuff. Its a rather grasping interpretation, it assumes many things that are not found in the text or in tradition.
And the understanding of clothing in the ancient world is just wrong wrong wrong - my education was in classics, and although mostly I studied philosophy I had to spend a lot of time looking at Greek and Roman customs - some of the clothing was quite skimpy. Men wore skirts (above the knees) and no underwear and hefted each others testicles when making deals, instead of shaking hands. Ancient Minoan women wore long skirts, but the dresses exposed their breasts and navel. And then what about the people in the rest of the world, who also presumably descended from Adam and Eve - some of them wear no clothes at all!
Just bad history and bad biblical interpretation, full of opinion and not much else. Perhaps they posted the worst part of the book and the rest is better?
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
This thread has taken a turn for the graphic, so I think I am going to duck out after this final post here.
I honestly don’t think it is necessary for men or women to have to return to wearing tunics or robes (when suggesting that in these discussions, I was not at all serious) to help the opposite sex avoid the near occasion of sin, nor do I think it is necessary for a woman to wear dresses or skirts and avoid wearing slacks to help men avoid the near occasions of sin. Sure, we are all subject to an impure thought every now and then brought on by a visual experience, we are all human. Obviously, some folks are subject to that more than others. But, for the most part, I think that individuals are responsible for controlling where their own minds lead them and are responsible for keeping themselves on the right path. I can see that being a harder task with provocative, revealing, and/or tight fashions and that wearing those fashions is sinful for the wearer and may prompt sin in the viewer, but when the item happens to be a pair of simple slacks that fit properly on a woman OR a man, I think the viewer alone, and not the wearer, is responsible for any sin that may result if they allow their minds to wander.
My :twocents:.
I honestly don’t think it is necessary for men or women to have to return to wearing tunics or robes (when suggesting that in these discussions, I was not at all serious) to help the opposite sex avoid the near occasion of sin, nor do I think it is necessary for a woman to wear dresses or skirts and avoid wearing slacks to help men avoid the near occasions of sin. Sure, we are all subject to an impure thought every now and then brought on by a visual experience, we are all human. Obviously, some folks are subject to that more than others. But, for the most part, I think that individuals are responsible for controlling where their own minds lead them and are responsible for keeping themselves on the right path. I can see that being a harder task with provocative, revealing, and/or tight fashions and that wearing those fashions is sinful for the wearer and may prompt sin in the viewer, but when the item happens to be a pair of simple slacks that fit properly on a woman OR a man, I think the viewer alone, and not the wearer, is responsible for any sin that may result if they allow their minds to wander.
My :twocents:.
S
slyboots
Guest
I think a lot of people here need to pray for purity of heart and custody of their eyes.
I am skirt wearer and a head coverer. But if I see a man in slacks I simply have no problem not looking at his lower body in an impure manner. It ain’t my style and never has been. But men are different in how they look at women. Their hormones make them different so that a lot of them have a harder time not objectifying a women especially a women whose body curves are very visible.
I wonder about those of you who seem so interested in the male anatomy. Are you the ladies on this thread who are pants wearers? Or are you the ladies who wear primarily skirts?
In other words…are skirt wearers less likely to be gandering at a man in a sexual manner? Or is it the other ladies?
At this point I will avert my eyes and cover my head and say a prayer for those who struggle with impure thoughts.
I am skirt wearer and a head coverer. But if I see a man in slacks I simply have no problem not looking at his lower body in an impure manner. It ain’t my style and never has been. But men are different in how they look at women. Their hormones make them different so that a lot of them have a harder time not objectifying a women especially a women whose body curves are very visible.
I wonder about those of you who seem so interested in the male anatomy. Are you the ladies on this thread who are pants wearers? Or are you the ladies who wear primarily skirts?
In other words…are skirt wearers less likely to be gandering at a man in a sexual manner? Or is it the other ladies?
At this point I will avert my eyes and cover my head and say a prayer for those who struggle with impure thoughts.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
I thought I was finished with this thread, but I feel I have to address the above. First of all, I don’t think “a lot of people here need to pray for purity of heart and custody of their eyes,” though I do agree that a couple of folks here obviously do have issues to deal with.I think a lot of people here need to pray for purity of heart and custody of their eyes.
I am skirt wearer and a head coverer. But if I see a man in slacks I simply have no problem not looking at his lower body in an impure manner. It ain’t my style and never has been. But men are different in how they look at women. Their hormones make them different so that a lot of them have a harder time not objectifying a women especially a women whose body curves are very visible.
I wonder about those of you who seem so interested in the male anatomy. Are you the ladies on this thread who are pants wearers? Or are you the ladies who wear primarily skirts?
In other words…are skirt wearers less likely to be gandering at a man in a sexual manner? Or is it the other ladies?
At this point I will avert my eyes and cover my head and say a prayer for those who struggle with impure thoughts.
Also, I think it is incorrect to suggest that women who wear slacks instead of dresses or skirts are more likely to objectify men than their dress and skirt wearing sisters. I contend that most women who wear slacks do NOT objectify men and ogle them. Further, I contend that most men also do not objectify women simply because the women wear slacks. Obviously, some folks of both sexes do just that and routinely ogle away. But, I just cannot imagine that most people objectify members of the opposite sex simply because they are wearing slacks.
A
adstrinity
Guest
This thread has taken a turn for great psychological evaluation. It has become even more telling than before.
I wonder how this thread got graphic. When did that happen?
I also like how once the women admitted that they look where the pants meet (and occasionally, where the tie points), it got greeted with, ‘I don’t think that both sexes need to wear flowy things…’ and, ‘These people need prayers.’
Which brings me to my next point, I like how in one sentence, one poster said SHE doesn’t look at men’s crotches, and, though she had proof of women doing the same, still defended the men’s actions by saying, ‘that’s different’. That is insulting to both men and women.
And, it doesn’t matter what I wear, apparently, it matters what the men wear.
I would like to be added to your prayers, who ever you were praying for before, add me as well.
I wonder how this thread got graphic. When did that happen?
I also like how once the women admitted that they look where the pants meet (and occasionally, where the tie points), it got greeted with, ‘I don’t think that both sexes need to wear flowy things…’ and, ‘These people need prayers.’
Which brings me to my next point, I like how in one sentence, one poster said SHE doesn’t look at men’s crotches, and, though she had proof of women doing the same, still defended the men’s actions by saying, ‘that’s different’. That is insulting to both men and women.
And, it doesn’t matter what I wear, apparently, it matters what the men wear.
I would like to be added to your prayers, who ever you were praying for before, add me as well.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Like it… I do however think that everybody should dress to phrame their face and not to show off and evoke sensuality…
J
JAGCath28
Guest
I appreciate the articles, but I’m not sure why you sent them in response to me. I’m not saying that men “aren’t” more visual than women. I’m just saying that the temptation is there for either gender. I’m also not claiming that men and women are equivalent in physical or emotional make-up (although some men are very sensative and some women are very strong).
AND…I agree with you that changing the sex sells culture starts with one person at a time. HOWEVER…I don’t see how women wearing pants feeds into this culture. I would say the pop singers who go on stage in sheer nothing with heels is much higher on the priority list than my grandmother who wears flowing slacks and a matching blouse.
I applaud you , and all the similar women on this thread, in your desire to wear only skirts and dresses, and I can only hope that through this, you will find yourself in a deeper and more meaningful relationship with our Lord. But, I would hope that you have enough charity and wisdom to understand that this may be a calling for you, but for many other women, it isn’t, or maybe it just isn’t their/our time. It just can’t work for everyone especially with the professions that women are allowed to participate in these days. And just because women choose to use their talents from God in certain jobs, such as engineering, they shouldn’t be looked down upon or considered any less pure or holy than the 100% of the time skirt wearers.
Just as another example, I am part of a prayer group in my parish where we get together once a month to pray the rosary and the divine mercy chaplet, and I can tell you that there are a few women in this group that I find to have a very very very deep and close relationship with the Holy Spirit and they wear pants. They are very devout Catholic women. They are very modest in their appearance. They don’t wear a lot of jewelry or makeup or tight/lowcut clothes. Anyway, I suppose it is silly of me to think that I’m going to change your mind on at least how you view other women who wear pants, but I can’t help but try.
God Bless
L
Love_the_Lorax
Guest
Adstrinity, thank you for listing some of your objections to the book, truly I appreciate the time you took to write them out. I’ve read negative comments about the book but never had someone list them in such way that I really understood what their objections were. Too often it came out as “I don’t agree with her so she is nuts!” I’d love to hear your thoughts about other parts of the book, but I know that you don’t own it. Sometimes when some areas are not written well, it is hard to know if there are some gems of truth mixed in that should be considered, KWIM?
One comment she made I found to be thought provoking. I’m paraphrasing at the moment, but the idea is that our current culture is disordered, one that would overall (as a whole) teach that abortion is fine, bikinis are totally appropriate, etc. etc. You get the idea. So, knowing that our society as a whole is not God-fearing, why would Christians/Catholics take what society says is appropriate dress as a standard for appropriate Christian dress? While I’m not entirely convinced of the dresses-only position, I would also state (my opinion) that there are many “fashions” today that are just so revealing as to cause me to blush, and I know that I will NEVER wear them or let my daughter wear some of them.
Any how, just a thought as I sometimes read various posters say that pants are culturally appropriate for women today. Absolutely they are… but I personally am looking for something more substantial either for or against the dresses only position, so I follow these threads with great interest. I have read MUCH by church fathers, etc. like Padre Pio, previous Popes, etc. Yes, they were written quite awhile ago, so then it seems to become a question of what is simply relevant to that current time and what ideas are more… timeless for lack of a better word.
One comment she made I found to be thought provoking. I’m paraphrasing at the moment, but the idea is that our current culture is disordered, one that would overall (as a whole) teach that abortion is fine, bikinis are totally appropriate, etc. etc. You get the idea. So, knowing that our society as a whole is not God-fearing, why would Christians/Catholics take what society says is appropriate dress as a standard for appropriate Christian dress? While I’m not entirely convinced of the dresses-only position, I would also state (my opinion) that there are many “fashions” today that are just so revealing as to cause me to blush, and I know that I will NEVER wear them or let my daughter wear some of them.
Any how, just a thought as I sometimes read various posters say that pants are culturally appropriate for women today. Absolutely they are… but I personally am looking for something more substantial either for or against the dresses only position, so I follow these threads with great interest. I have read MUCH by church fathers, etc. like Padre Pio, previous Popes, etc. Yes, they were written quite awhile ago, so then it seems to become a question of what is simply relevant to that current time and what ideas are more… timeless for lack of a better word.
S
slyboots
Guest
I was asking a question not making an assumption.
I asked did it seem as if more skirtwearers or more pantswearers had the situation of noticing men’s lower section most often. I hoped for an answer not a reprimand. I was wondering. I have NEVER yet said women should Never wear pants. I have simply asserted that I have not come across any activity in my 56 years on earth that absolutely required me to wear pants.
I have worked in restaurants, file rooms, roofed buildings, painted , riden horses, plowed and weeded large gardens. I have helped fix cars. I havbe raised babies and run after kids, cats and dogs,
So Swizz, when I ask the question I meant it.
As for a lot…I have been reading this from the start. Looks like more than just a few folks to me looking at other peoples crotches.
So please either answer my question or don’t but I don’t need to be fussed at.
J
JAGCath28
Guest
People such as myself admitted to looking at men’s areas because the point was brought up that only men look at women’s areas in pants, and it just isn’t true. Now if the argument is said that pants can lead both genders to possibly sinning then I could agree, but the sin wouldn’t be looking at the area, but the purposeful lustful thoughts that come after that glance. Which we should be at a state in our heart to not let those thoughts break through even if we do glance at those areas. Regardless, I don’t understand how men are not culpable for being their eyes being drawn to that area, but women are…how does that make sense?
J
JOL
Guest
Scripture and the Catholic church disagree with you here. We individuals are in sin if our actions cause another to sin.
J
JOL
Guest
I just wanted to piggy back off of this post. I am an in-between wearer, though, I think I am moving over to a skirt wearer and even a head coverer, not 100% sure but that is where I see the Lord leading me.I think a lot of people here need to pray for purity of heart and custody of their eyes.
I am skirt wearer and a head coverer. But if I see a man in slacks I simply have no problem not looking at his lower body in an impure manner. It ain’t my style and never has been. But men are different in how they look at women. Their hormones make them different so that a lot of them have a harder time not objectifying a women especially a women whose body curves are very visible.
I wonder about those of you who seem so interested in the male anatomy. Are you the ladies on this thread who are pants wearers? Or are you the ladies who wear primarily skirts?
In other words…are skirt wearers less likely to be gandering at a man in a sexual manner? Or is it the other ladies?
At this point I will avert my eyes and cover my head and say a prayer for those who struggle with impure thoughts.
Anyway, there is certainly a differance in how men react to nakedness or half-nakedness than how women react. It is how we were created by the Lord. If you doubt this, I highly recommend you read Scripture, especially the Song of Songs. Men are physical/visual and need respect. Women are emotional and need love. Not that men don’t need love and women don’t need respect. But, men need to KNOW they are respected and women need to KNOW they are loved. This is all in Scripture.
J
JOL
Guest
I never once said I viewed women any differently who wear pants vs. skirts/dresses. This is all very new to me anyway. Last weekend (on Saturday doing yardwork) I had on sweatpants. I do know we are all called to different things at different times and also know many women who wear pants and are devoted to the Lord.
T
Tamsulosin
Guest
And then there is another facet to this topic:how dh feels about the topic.Do they care? Do they have a preference.?Should we as wives try to please them?
Example: I own regular skirts(not minis) and 2 longer skirts, the ones advocated in a previous post as a modest skirt, mid calf lengh. Everytime I had put on the longer skirts dh asks me to please do not wear that baggy skirt.
If we do not look attractive to our dhs,that does not contribute to our marriage.Frivolous as it may sound, attraction is one element in a couple’s relationship.
If we go around looking like a bag lady, dhs may feel desillusioned and start looking at the
attractive employees at the office. It happens everyday,or there would not be so many
cheating husbands.Of course if dh loves you he will not cheat, but it does not help to be
surrounded by attractively apparelled ladies all day and come home to a woman that
does not care to look attractive for him. All covered up.
Men may want to look at their wives and feel they still like what they see.(of course aside from the important spiritual qualities wives may have)
So this dressing business is a balancing act for us women.
Example: I own regular skirts(not minis) and 2 longer skirts, the ones advocated in a previous post as a modest skirt, mid calf lengh. Everytime I had put on the longer skirts dh asks me to please do not wear that baggy skirt.
If we do not look attractive to our dhs,that does not contribute to our marriage.Frivolous as it may sound, attraction is one element in a couple’s relationship.
If we go around looking like a bag lady, dhs may feel desillusioned and start looking at the
attractive employees at the office. It happens everyday,or there would not be so many
cheating husbands.Of course if dh loves you he will not cheat, but it does not help to be
surrounded by attractively apparelled ladies all day and come home to a woman that
does not care to look attractive for him. All covered up.
Men may want to look at their wives and feel they still like what they see.(of course aside from the important spiritual qualities wives may have)
So this dressing business is a balancing act for us women.
- Status