Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[JOL]

I know some of you are hoping or maybe even wishing that this topic was over. I am not finished yet though because last night my husband was listening to a song that brought on another question for me.

If you were to randomly walk through the streets and pick out 1,000 women, would you be able to pick out the Christian women? Please don’t ask me this question by replacing ‘women’ with ‘men,’ as I am asking from my own (a woman’s) perspective.

What about us is visible to separate us from the world? How would a lost person be able to see the light of Christ in us if we look just like those who don’t follow him?

This doesn’t just have to be about dress, but about what we watch on TV, the music we listen to, the movies we see, the way we speak, etc. Actually, all these things can be related to modesty (in thought, action, deed, etc.)

The song my husband was listening to was by a ‘professed’ Christian. Beyonce. The lyrics are:

Well, you got the key to my heart
But you ain’t gonna need it, I’d rather you open up my body
And show me secrets, you didn’t know was inside
No need for me to lie

Damn I know I’m killing you with them legs
Better yet them thighs
Matter a fact it’s my smile or maybe my eyes
Boy you a site to see, kind of something like me

This is just two verses. For the complete song go HERE.

How many teens and even younger look up to Beyonce? Some may dress like her and it is considered normal fashion. Some may even think it is okay, shorts with a speghetti strap tank (I have seen mothers even go to Mass like that!!!?!?!?!?!?!?). Is that okay? In my opinion, nope.

 

[JOL]

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.

Well, I am thankful to have a husband that is fine to let me dress how I want to dress as long as I am covered up. He doesn’t want me to be exposed in any way. Even when I wear skirts, he is more comfortable if I wear shorts under the skirt rather than a slip. He has commented on some of my skirts they he likes them and they look nice on me.

I consider a skirt above the knees a short skirt. This is a rule I have for my daughters, if they skirt doesn’t go at least to mid-knee, it is to short. They are beginning to like this rule though as they find it more comfortable to wear long skirts, they don’t have to sit with their knees locked together if their skirt goes well past the knees. LOL.

We do have to take into consideration maintaining our attractiveness to our husbands. But at the same time, we need to be covered up, modest, not exposing anything, not to much leg or no cleavage. And this is something they should want in their wife. Why would a man want other men to lust after his wife?

Not saying your husband does…LOL…but as long as he is attracted to you in modesty, that is a good thing. He shouldn’t want you to be unmodest. If he did, I would think that is a problem. Just my honest/humble opinion.

 

[Tamsulosin]

He lets me dress as I want"as long as I cover up", you said.
It sounds that he does put a boundary.
My husband does not tell me to cover up or not,in general just lets me know when he dislikes a particular item.
Also I was not talking about “other men lusting”. I was just talking about my dh liking my looks.It contributes to my marriage.
You invented the part about dh enjoying other men lusting after his wife. Where did you get that? Please confine yourself to what posters really say when you answer. Thanks.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…I hoped for an answer not a reprimand. …So please either answer my question or don’t but I don’t need to be fussed at.

slyboots, I didn’t mean it as a reprimand to you and I apologize that I came across that way. First, I was trying to be succinct in my post because I had said I was finished posting and yet I was back. Second, I do admit to feeling frustrated at this entire conversation and perhaps that came through. Anyway, I do apologize for coming across as fussing at you.

I did try to sum up and convey my thoughts in posts 121, 127, 129 in this thread, but I will hopefully finish now.

I think most people might glance where they shouldn’t once in awhile (myself included), but perhaps I am wrong about that. I have noticed a nice bottom on a man a few times in my life other than hubby’s, though the thought of allowing my eyes to linger anywhere else or allowing my mind to wander I recognize as sinful and I do not do that.

I am frustrated at the very idea that both men and women objectify members of the opposite sex simply because they wear pants. I am also frustrated at the idea that if men ogle women in pants, it is the womens’ sin, but if women ogle men, it is still the womens’ sin because of the differences in the sexes and we have to give the men some allowances because of their raging hormones and the idea that they are more visual creatures than women. I don’t honestly believe it is necessary that we return to wearing tunics to prevent that type of sinning, though I suggested that several times in jest (as I just suggested that men are not culpable of their choices due to hormones in jest), nor do I believe that women need to wear dresses or skirts only. God blessed ALL of us with intellects and we can ALL choose where our minds go without allowing hormones and our base natures to lead us. And, I’d like to think that most people, men and women, DO let their intellect guide them and DO NOT allow themselves to be reduced to being guided by their base instincts. That is why I don’t think “a lot” of folks have custody of eyes and purity of heart issues due to the pant-wearers around them (though I agree that some obviously do have issues), but perhaps I am naive to think that.

For the record, I wear slacks, running pants and shorts almost exclusively, though on rare occasions, I do wear a skirt or a dress (Easter, Christmas). I dress for comfort. I have never liked wearing dresses because of the feeling of openness and insecurity and I hate the binding feeling of hose when I have to dress up. I just find slacks and shorts more comfortable and so choose to wear them instead of skirts/dresses. I am incredulous that anyone would view me as sinning simply because I do so.

I hope I have clarified my views. Again, I am sorry that I came across as fussing at you.

 

[JOL]

He lets me dress as I want"as long as I cover up", you said.
It sounds that he does put a boundary.
My husband does not tell me to cover up or not,in general just lets me know when he dislikes a particular item.
Also I was not talking about “other men lusting”. I was just talking about my dh liking my looks.It contributes to my marriage.
You invented the part about dh enjoying other men lusting after his wife. Where did you get that? Please confine yourself to what posters really say when you answer. Thanks.

My apologies, some of what I said was generalizations. Like, as long as your dh **wasn’t **enjoying that, as there are some men who do.

Yes, there is a boundry. He doesn’t want me to be exposed for other men to see. I tend to think this is healthy as when we got married, we became one flesh. He is mine and I am his.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

Yes, this is really the difficulty. Western culture, at the moment, has an odd dichotomy with clothing - often what is “normal and acceptable” is also, for women, sexy and provocative.

In societies that are much more traditional, this seems to happen less often. Fashions change very slowly, and culture, religion, and what is right morally are very unified. People spend more time and energy obtaining basic life necessities and have less time to think about and make fancy clothes.

This seems nice and easy, but there are downsides as well - such cultures don’t leave much room for differences of opinion, even good change can be very difficult to bring about, what culture and tradition says is right can’t be challenged without negative consequences for the individual. So there is a price to pay for that kind of cultural unity. Sometimes that can even be seen in the West in some small religious communities - deviation means expulsion and being cut off from friends and family, even when the reason seems minor.

There have been times in the West when women’s clothing, men’s clothing, and the behavior of both was just as questionable and sexualized as it is now, so really, it’s not a new thing. In the past it tended to be the rich who could follow such trends; now we are all, relatively speaking, rich.

So you ask, how can we decide what to wear in a culture with skewed clothing ideas? Well, it isn’t much good looking to other cultures - we’d look silly going around in breechclouts or grass skirts or parkas, and it might not suit the climate, and it wouldn’t solve problems about modesty either. And the same with the past in our own culture - sometimes clothing was quite immodest.

The difficulty is, if we choose a culture or time period we think is modest, we are using our judgments about modesty to evaluate them. And our judgments are the judgments of people of our own time and culture, because that is what we are, even if they differ from the views of many of our contemporaries. It is pretty much impossible to escape our own thinking and also just what we are used to (though going somewhere very different and living there can help get past the idea that modesty is somehow a fully objective standard.)

So in the end, we are stuck with looking at clothing and making a judgement about what is appropriate for where we are, whether it is modern clothing or clothing from 1800 or whatever. The problem in the end is not that the clothing comes from a sexualized culture, but that we do, and there isn’t much we can do to change when and where we were born. I think the only solution is to be mindful that this is the case.

 

[Bluegoat]

Scripture and the Catholic church disagree with you here. We individuals are in sin if our actions cause another to sin.

So, say there is a woman in a burkah. A man sees her and notices what attractive feet she has. He then begins to think about his stock profile. Has he sinned? Since she, by the action of walking down the street, caused him to notice her, has she sinned?

Lets say instead of the stocks, he begins to imagine what she would look like naked? Has he sinned then? Is she responsible for him having decided to carry on with his fantasy?

What would you suggest she should have done to prevent the scenario where she led this poor man to sin?

 

[EasterJoy]

So, say there is a woman in a burkah. A man sees her and notices what attractive feet she has. He then begins to think about his stock profile. Has he sinned? Since she, by the action of walking down the street, caused him to notice her, has she sinned?

Lets say instead of the stocks, he begins to imagine what she would look like naked? Has he sinned then? Is she responsible for him having decided to carry on with his fantasy?

What would you suggest she should have done to prevent the scenario where she led this poor man to sin?

Oh, please, this example is ridiculous. That men will think of sex no matter what, that some can look at a fencepost and think of a woman’s body in an inappropriate way, does not mean that it doesn’t matter what we wear.

Thieves will steal, no matter what. When you are the victim of a theft, the thief is responsible. Nevertheless, while we don’t have to become prisoners in our own homes, we must not leave our wallets lying around open. How many locks you need depends on the neighborhood. There is going to be some difference of opinion on that, even in the same neighborhood.

What we have now, though, is a fashion that only wants the gate to be locked after the horse has been spirited out of the barn!

On that account, I think the rule of thumb should be clear: If you wouldn’t wear it, even for minimal comfort or practicality, if it showed off the body you don’t have, then don’t wear it to show off the body you do have!

If the clothing would be a turn-off on a woman with a far less fashionable body than you have, it is probably far too revealing.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

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 [EDITED DUE TO TRASHINESS]

Wow! You have quite an inferiority complex going on! And your graphic and totally distasteful comment by Adam Sandler was way over the limit! You should really be ashamed of yourself for posting such trash!

I can see this topic has struck a nerve… little Blessed Jacinta had it right when she said, concerning modesty - If only people understood what eternity is they would reform their lives.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

So, say there is a woman in a burkah. A man sees her and notices what attractive feet she has. He then begins to think about his stock profile. Has he sinned? Since she, by the action of walking down the street, caused him to notice her, has she sinned?

Lets say instead of the stocks, he begins to imagine what she would look like naked? Has he sinned then? Is she responsible for him having decided to carry on with his fantasy?

What would you suggest she should have done to prevent the scenario where she led this poor man to sin?

You’re way off base here. People are only required to make reasonable attempts based upon the average person’s sensibilities. Yes, there might be someone who is turned on by a woman in a burkha but the woman does not sin in this case since she’s made more than a reasonable effort at modesty and their is nothing inherently sexually stimulating about her dress.

As a side note (not to this poster) It always amazes me here, at Catholic Answers, when it comes to topics that strike a nerve people throw out the Saints, the Bible, Catholic magisterial statements - indeed, their very intellect - and resort to pure emotionalism.

 

[adstrinity]

Wow! You have quite an inferiority complex going on! And your graphic and totally distasteful comment by Adam Sandler was way over the limit! You should really be ashamed of yourself for posting such trash!

I can see this topic has struck a nerve… little Blessed Jacinta had it right when she said, concerning modesty - If only people understood what eternity is they would reform their lives.

Inferiority complex? How is pointing out the biased and unsubstantiated selected arguments and subjected rants of a random woman to not follow blindly what she says an inferiority complex?

How…how is that distasteful? The point is appropriate to this conversation. I didn’t use any vulgar terms, I didn’t make any unflattering comparisons. I thought it went nicely with this topic. The point is that when women wear pants, that’s the area where men look (alledgely), right? The joke Sandler is saying is, now that he has daughters, it’s not all about objectifying women, it’s about taking care of them. He now, because of God’s blessing, views women differently.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Adstrinity,I do not see that your comments are out of place.I tend to agree with them.Tam

 

[Sr_Sally]

The Bishops were to communicate the specific injunctions of this letter to be enforced “in all schools, academies, Sunday schools and laboratories directed by female religious,” to ensure “perfect conformity of conduct among all institutes of female religious in the diocese.”

This quoted piece leads me to believe the instructions were directed at female religious not female laity. I have no idea if groups of sisters were dressing in flapper gear in 1928, but since we don’t seem to have the complete document–and the part we do have was filtered through other channels–I think I will continue to dress the way I do and not worry too much about it.

 

[Bluegoat]

You’re way off base here. People are only required to make reasonable attempts based upon the average person’s sensibilities. Yes, there might be someone who is turned on by a woman in a burkha but the woman does not sin in this case since she’s made more than a reasonable effort at modesty and their is nothing inherently sexually stimulating about her dress.

Yes, that was my point.

I was responding to the poster who said it was always our responsibility when we caused other people to sin, that that was what Christianity said. In fact, when I previously stated that while we are certainly responsible to think of the well-being of others in our actions, there were limits to what that meant, I was told that was an unchristian viewpoint.

This particular scenario, it seems to me, would be the logical result of that particular point of view.

In fact, I think the woman in the story did not sin at all, and the man only sinned when he consented to think further about the woman. Noticing the woman and that she was attractive wasn’t a sin.

 

[Janet1983]

Yes, that was my point.

I was responding to the poster who said it was always our responsibility when we caused other people to sin, that that was what Christianity said. In fact, when I previously stated that while we are certainly responsible to think of the well-being of others in our actions, there were limits to what that meant, I was told that was an unchristian viewpoint.

This particular scenario, it seems to me, would be the logical result of that particular point of view.

In fact, I think the woman in the story did not sin at all, and the man only sinned when he consented to think further about the woman. Noticing the woman and that she was attractive wasn’t a sin.

You’re right… but there is a fine line between those two extremes:
He should keep his thoughts together and she should make sure that she is not dressing too immodest. I mean really… do we need a lot of cleavage, an uncovered belly and mini-skirts? All together or just one… Someone who dresses like that does so to be sensual and not to frame her face.

 

[JOL]

Yes, that was my point.

I was responding to the poster who said it was always our responsibility when we caused other people to sin, that that was what Christianity said. In fact, when I previously stated that while we are certainly responsible to think of the well-being of others in our actions, there were limits to what that meant, I was told that was an unchristian viewpoint.

This particular scenario, it seems to me, would be the logical result of that particular point of view.

In fact, I think the woman in the story did not sin at all, and the man only sinned when he consented to think further about the woman. Noticing the woman and that she was attractive wasn’t a sin.

This isn’t and accurate recap of what happened.

SwizzleStick said:

Originally Posted by SwizzleStick
… I think the viewer alone, and not the wearer, is responsible for any sin that may result if they allow their minds to wander.

And I replied:

Scripture and the Catholic church disagree with you here. We individuals are in sin if our actions cause another to sin.

I did not say it is always our responsibility. I was responding to the above where Swizzle is saying the viewer alone is responsible for any sin, and not the wearer. The Catholic church and Sacred Scripture disagree with this thought. That is what I was saying. Yes, indeed we are too responsible, but after we take the necessary precautions, the sin isn’t ours.

 

[JOL]

I know some of you are hoping or maybe even wishing that this topic was over. I am not finished yet though because last night my husband was listening to a song that brought on another question for me.

If you were to randomly walk through the streets and pick out 1,000 women, would you be able to pick out the Christian women? Please don’t ask me this question by replacing ‘women’ with ‘men,’ as I am asking from my own (a woman’s) perspective.

What about us is visible to separate us from the world? How would a lost person be able to see the light of Christ in us if we look just like those who don’t follow him?

This doesn’t just have to be about dress, but about what we watch on TV, the music we listen to, the movies we see, the way we speak, etc. Actually, all these things can be related to modesty (in thought, action, deed, etc.)

The song my husband was listening to was by a ‘professed’ Christian. Beyonce. The lyrics are:

This is just two verses. For the complete song go HERE.

How many teens and even younger look up to Beyonce? Some may dress like her and it is considered normal fashion. Some may even think it is okay, shorts with a speghetti strap tank (I have seen mothers even go to Mass like that!!!?!?!?!?!?!?). Is that okay? In my opinion, nope.

No comments?

 

[A_R_Smith]

I’ve been watching this debate from the sidelines and felt the need to put in my two bits, as it were. I wear men’s clothing, including ties. My clothing is always modest. In fact I intentionally purchase clothing one size larger so it will not cling, thusly keeping me modest. On those occassions (such as my friend’s wedding when I was the maid of honor) where a dress was mandatory, I wore it. I have nothing against those who enjoy wearing dresses and skirts. I simply happen to loathe such attire, that’s all. On a personal note, I have decided I will not wear a dress whenever God decides I should wed. I shall wear an 18th century-style outfit. Hey, it definitly saves money.

For the record, I like men only.

I am quite shocked and insulted at the amount of parroted phrases reffering to MEN as being little more than lust-mad hoodlums who will think of a woman in a sexual manner for wearing trousers. Please give men more credit! Men are not animals. They are created in dignity along with women to be in the image of God.

 

[SwizzleStick]

This isn’t and accurate recap of what happened.

SwizzleStick said:
SwizzleStick;5470914:

… I think the viewer alone, and not the wearer, is responsible for any sin that may result if they allow their minds to wander. …

And I replied:

I did not say it is always our responsibility. I was responding to the above where Swizzle is saying the viewer alone is responsible for any sin, and not the wearer. The Catholic church and Sacred Scripture disagree with this thought. That is what I was saying. Yes, indeed we are too responsible, but after we take the necessary precautions, the sin isn’t ours. …

Obviously, the post above isn’t an accurate recap of what happened either.

Actually, to be accurate, I said ALL of the following in that particular post of mine, NOT just the snippet of the sentence posted above. Obviously, if one only reads the snippet, one does not see my entire view and in effect changes the meaning of what I said.

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:.

As anyone can see if they read my entire post without editing, I did NOT indicate that one isn’t responsible for sin if they wear provocative clothing that is revealing, tight or otherwise inappropriate because I do not believe that. What I indicated in my post above was that wearing well-fitting pants did not fall into that category and if someone viewed a person in slacks in a sexual way simply because he or she is wearing slacks, then the sin is not the wearer’s, but the viewer’s.

 

[JOL]

Obviously, the post above isn’t an accurate recap of what happened either.

Actually, to be accurate, I said ALL of the following in that particular post of mine, NOT just the snippet of the sentence posted above. Obviously, if one only reads the snippet, one does not see my entire view and in effect changes the meaning of what I said.

As anyone can see if they read my entire post without editing, I did NOT indicate that one isn’t responsible for sin if they wear provocative clothing that is revealing, tight or otherwise inappropriate because I do not believe that. What I indicated in my post above was that wearing well-fitting pants did not fall into that category and if someone viewed a woman in a sexual way simply because she did so, then the sin is not hers, but the viewer’s.

My bad and my apologies. I read what you wrote differently. This still begs the question what is “well-fitting” pants? Where do you find these pants?

The fashion industry has reinvented the woman’s waist by creating hip-huggers. Do you know how difficult it is to find an ordinary pair of pants these days? Especially for children! Actually, this invention of hip-huggers also shows how clothing makers are trying with all they have to make women’s clothing more like men’s. A woman’s waist and a man’s waist are different.