Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[Love_the_Lorax]

Does THAT sound familiar! I’ve had this brought to my attention more than once over the past 5 years. My wardrobe has become more modest, although not dresses only at this point. When I first really thought about it I was still protestant, and reading materials by the Maxwell’s - for those that don’t know them, they are a very conservative, fundamentalist family whose women all wear dresses only. Not just dresses mind you -ankle length jumpers with little shape to them, and often the mom and daughters match. Several kids (hmmm. 8 I think ) the youngest is a teen, the oldest probably in his early 30’s now. Only one is married and living on his own (basically across the street, but at least his own house). I used to really admire them, but more and more I tend to think it is just strange. Their own family church meets weekly in a nursing home (Dad as preacher), of course no school/college, travel around the country giving performances with their family band. The girls have NO chance to even meet a guy to become a hubby, and it’s like the kids are only sort of allowed to grow up - certainly the girls are extremely protected.

Oh well, that got way off track. Any how, the first time I wore a long jumper my hubby took one look, said it was ugly, and could I please wear something more attractive. So, that was that.

Like I said, God seems to keep bringing me to this topic. I deeply believe that our Lord does care about our manner of dress. Not necessarily in a controlling, wear a sack manner, but because He loves us so much that He wants us to dress modestly to protect us (as much as possible) from improper looks and thoughts, to have us treated with respect. What we wear does influence what people think… (any one here watch What Not to Wear?) I don’t believe our Lord turns His back on any woman just because they are in pants. I admit that I have had to watch my own attitude in this process of learning more about modest dress. Pride is a constant issue with me…

Speaking only of ME here… sometimes I look back and think I’ve been like a little child throwing a fit over something she wants. “** I want** to wear my short shorts!! I like them! They are comfy!! My legs look good in them!! You can’t make me wear those long shorts!!! And **I LIKE **my butt in tight jeans!!” Ahem… not some of my better moments, being far more concerned with what I want than whether or not short shorts are proper dress for a Christian woman. Yep, have I mentioned that I’ve had to confess pride as a sin more than once??

I have shared with you alot of what I have been reading. You disagree with most of it, which is fine, it is your opinion [today]. Those same opinions were my opinions 3 years ago. But the Lord keeps bringing this dresses/skirts thing around to me by different avenues. And so, I have to start paying attention to what He is telling me.

I don’t look down on you for wearing pants, that is your choice. But at the same time, when I read things from what Pope Pius XII has said, and look into the Marylike Crusade that was going on in the 50’s, I have to look at it seriously in relation to our society today and see the logic in it.

 

[Love_the_Lorax]

And, concerning bikinis being like panties and bras, one year, as a practice for my University’s Mock Trial class, our hotel had a pool. The fit girls, when we stopped at a WalMart or something, went to the swimwear…which was mix and match, and much too expensive, a scam, if you will. The one girl commented that she could just swim in her panties and bra…and that’s exactly what she did. She was covered.
QUOTE]

Wearing a bra and panties is being covered?? Yes, she wouldn’t be arrested for indecent exposure, I suppose.

I once read something that struck me… if a bikini isn’t immodest, then what is immodest? Because the next step is complete nudity of one or both of our most intimate areas. So, may I ask all of those that state a bikini is ok - what type of clothing do YOU call immodest? I am seriously asking this, not trying to be obnoxious.

 

[JOL]

Does THAT sound familiar! I’ve had this brought to my attention more than once over the past 5 years. My wardrobe has become more modest, although not dresses only at this point. When I first really thought about it I was still protestant, and reading materials by the Maxwell’s - for those that don’t know them, they are a very conservative, fundamentalist family whose women all wear dresses only. Not just dresses mind you -ankle length jumpers with little shape to them, and often the mom and daughters match. Several kids (hmmm. 8 I think ) the youngest is a teen, the oldest probably in his early 30’s now. Only one is married and living on his own (basically across the street, but at least his own house). I used to really admire them, but more and more I tend to think it is just strange. Their own family church meets weekly in a nursing home (Dad as preacher), of course no school/college, travel around the country giving performances with their family band. The girls have NO chance to even meet a guy to become a hubby, and it’s like the kids are only sort of allowed to grow up - certainly the girls are extremely protected.

Oh well, that got way off track. Any how, the first time I wore a long jumper my hubby took one look, said it was ugly, and could I please wear something more attractive. So, that was that.

Like I said, God seems to keep bringing me to this topic. I deeply believe that our Lord does care about our manner of dress. Not necessarily in a controlling, wear a sack manner, but because He loves us so much that He wants us to dress modestly to protect us (as much as possible) from improper looks and thoughts, to have us treated with respect. What we wear does influence what people think… (any one here watch What Not to Wear?) I don’t believe our Lord turns His back on any woman just because they are in pants. I admit that I have had to watch my own attitude in this process of learning more about modest dress. Pride is a constant issue with me…

Speaking only of ME here… sometimes I look back and think I’ve been like a little child throwing a fit over something she wants. “** I want** to wear my short shorts!! I like them! They are comfy!! My legs look good in them!! You can’t make me wear those long shorts!!! And **I LIKE **my butt in tight jeans!!” Ahem… not some of my better moments, being far more concerned with what I want than whether or not short shorts are proper dress for a Christian woman. Yep, have I mentioned that I’ve had to confess pride as a sin more than once??

And there is that family that is always on Lifetime…the Duggers. I don’t know what denomination they are, but all the girls wear long jumpers. It does seem out of place to me, and you are right, it is so easy to get prideful. I don’t want to look like an old lady! So, I am trying to find me some long skirts that I can wear with some nice shirts so I won’t look aged. This too is pride and vanity. I guess I am only going one step at a time…LOL.

 

[Love_the_Lorax]

I’ve admitted to everyone that I’m not convinced of dresses-only. Modest dress most definitely. Jeans you are poured into…not. I’d like to bring up some things that are from Scripture and influenced my thinking, and I’d LOVE to have comments. Truly! Tell me you agree, or I’m nuts and so is anyone who thinks this makes sense.

Isa 47:2-3 – “Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet [thee as] a man.”

This is a passage mocking Babylon, once the queen of the nations, now made the equivalent of a slave girl. She is told to bare her leg, uncover the thigh, and it is as being naked. To mean this seems to say that shorts and skirts exposing the thigh would not be modest for Christians, to say nothing of bathing suits. Before anyone think I’m pointing fingers - I’m pointing them at me because my daughter’s suit/my suit do bare our legs - even with the skirt attached because it doens’t go to the knees.
Any thoughts? And yes, I realize that this has nothing to do with pants vs skirts, more relating to the general modesty/standards discussion.

Related to the above, *Exodus 28:42 *And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Again, covering the thighs seems to be important.

An example of my readings dealing with the New Testament verse about women’s dress:

The word for “apparel” in I Timothy 2:9 according to Strong’s concordance is katastole {kat-as-tol-ay’} meaning 1) a lowering, letting down 2) a garment let down, dress, attire. Vine’s has this to say about katastole: "connected with katastello, to send or let down; hence, dress, attire, in GENERAL (cp stole, a loose outer garment worn by KINGS and persons of rank, - Eng. stole); I Tim 2:9, “apparel”

Some use the term “apparel” in this verse in I Timothy 2:9 to attempt to claim that women should always wear dresses, and ONLY dresses. But the word translated as apparel in the KJV refers to a long, loose fitting, outer garment worn by both men and women.

I fail to see in this definition the idea of a “woman’s dress” as we know it in modern times. The emphasis should be on modesty in our attire … Even a dress that goes from neck to ankle with long sleeves can be sexy … Modesty is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder, you might say.

Modesty in Greek is kosmios {kos’-mee-os} translated in the KJV as modest 1, of good behavior 1; meaning well arranged, seemly, modest. In the dictionary, modest is defined as 1. Having or displaying a moderate estimation of one’s own talents, abilities, and value. 2. Shy and retiring in disposition. 3. Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior or dress: DECOROUS. 4. Quiet and humble in appearance: UNPRETENTIOUS. 5. Not extreme: MODERATE.

I Timothy 2:9 (NIV) I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Furthermore Paul qualifies what he means by “modest apparel” by using the words decency and propriety. Decency in the Greek is aidos {ahee-doce’} translated in the KJV as shamefacedness 1, reverence 1; meaning a sense of shame or honor, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect. Propriety in the Greek is sophrosune {so-fros-oo’-nay} translated sobriety 2, soberness 1; 3 meaning 1) soundness of mind 2) self-control, sobriety, from sophron {so’-frone} meaning 1) of a sound mind, sane, in one’s senses 2) curbing one’s desires and impulses, self-controlled, temperate.

So our decisions about what we wear should include regard for others and how they react to our garments, plus present an appearance designed to control and curb desire. There is also the idea of appropriateness of our clothing to a specific situation. What may be modest attire on the beach may not be appropriate for a church service or a formal dinner. Also, we should not follow our culture’s penchant to try to be “sexy” or to “attract” the opposite sex.

So, here’s some more fuel for discussion, with verses straight from the Bible. Yes, two are from the OT but since God doesn’t change I can’t imagine that His definitions of nakedness have changed markedly.

 

[adstrinity]

And there is that family that is always on Lifetime…the Duggers. I don’t know what denomination they are, but all the girls wear long jumpers. It does seem out of place to me, and you are right, it is so easy to get prideful. I don’t want to look like an old lady! So, I am trying to find me some long skirts that I can wear with some nice shirts so I won’t look aged. This too is pride and vanity. I guess I am only going one step at a time…LOL.

Yeah, but, the Duggers, though they all wear skirts/dresses/jumpers, are modernized. They built (all of them) their current home, they have an intercom system in their house, they are allowed to use a computer, they go to a family schooling convention at least once a year and meet people (if they don’t meet people elsewhere), and there was an episode where some of the young men and boys had to cook lunch while the four or five eldest girls were left on the side of the road by their dad and eldest brother to learn how to change a tire. I rather like the Duggar Family because one sees they are not trying to live in the past or be controlling…among other reasons.

Reply part 1:
I don’t think this conversation is really about if you [adstrinity] or me [jol] thinks this is an issue. This conversation isn’t even about if society thinks this is an issue, hey, last I check society wasn’t trying to live and honor our Lord. No, this issue is about what is right in the Lord’s eyes. We can find out what is right in the Lord’s eyes by reading sacred Scripture and listening to the Saints, Pope’s, and others who live far holier lives than we do have said. Also, it may not be that we “poisoned” you by all of this, but opened your eyes to a truth you didn’t know before. And the wearers of the pants may not realize there is anything wrong with wearing pants because they probably wore pants all their lives and haven’t had any of this explained to them before. Like, if you didn’t know something was sinful and you did it all the time, but once you found out it was sinful, if you continue to do it, it is sin.

But, the thing about that is, is God has placed in our hearts, something that all humans know as sin. It’s something that tells them this (whatever it is) isn’t right. Some may be desensitized to it. I don’t think anybody could feel that way about wearing pants.

I also responded about your request for purchasing a dress for you and had said money is tight here to. Especially with me trying to make this transformation in my own wardrobe…LOL. When I began to start to make this transition someone had mentioned to me that I should check out the thrift stores. Let me tell you, that was real humbling to me as I had never even stepped into a thrift store before. I did find a jean skirt that I liked there in my [larger] size. It was only $4.99. I also bought myself a couple skirts this weekend from womenwithin.com (it is an on-line plus size clothing store). They always have specials where you can get good discounts. Not everything on that site is modest, but you can find some nice modest clothing.

Yes, you did respond. Let me rephrase, nobody who was telling me women should be in a skirt always and pants never has OFFERED to purchase one for me. It’s easy to say somebody should do something, until it comes to money.

A thrift store…I suppose I could check those out. Thanks! BUT, AGAIN, my upgraded offer still stands; I would like a dress and a skirt from a particular site. Any takers?

Reply part 2:

I am glad you weren’t injured. You know, I can’t imagine how a car accident feels when people are driving at high speeds, even 40 mph’s. Once I was in bumper to bumper traffic, it was pouring rain, and this woman hit the back of my car. We mustn’t have been going over 15. It was a very loud crash and my body jerked forward. I did have my seatbelt on, but was thankful we were driving so slow. If we have been driving faster, as hard as it felt her car hit me, it would have been much worse. Anyway, like I said, I am glad you weren’t injured.

And it was a low speed impact, I’m sure. I was stopped at a red light. The gal behind me hit me and I was just thinking, “Don’t let me hit the car in front of me!” It was loud. And, again, thank you. Thank you, muchly.

I don’t know how differently you would be treated everywhere you go. My husband has started opening the car door more often for me now that I am wearing skirts. He did open them for me before (occastionally) when I was wearing pants before, but it seems he is doing it more for me now.

Well, I included this because of some of the people saying that women are treated with more respect in a dress and men just naturally will respect women more not in pants.

As I said above, this isn’t about what you or “Bill” or “Bob” or “Jessica” or “Jamie” thinks is okay and appropriate. This is about what our Lord’s standards are.

The Second Creation Story says that God created our parents nude. I don’t think this is what is appropriate by His standards. …Do you find clothing optional resorts and lifestyles inappropriate? <---- Not rhetorical.

I don’t think it matters where a backless dress “leads the eyes to” but the fact that to wear one is to not be covered up and therefore, not modest. We don’t have to walk around looking like grandma’s, but we should be covered and sensible. And not for the sole motivation of keeping our brothers from stubling, but to honor our Lord who did so much for us.

I don’t see how covering up is honouring the Lord.

 

[adstrinity]

BUT, I did ask a guy I know about some things just things just this morning. He’s an athiest Scotsman, 28 years old, married to a woman in California. I asked him, where he tends to look at first at a woman. He said it was dependant on what their wearing, hair, makeup… I said, alright, clothes, if she’s wearing a modest dress where do you look as opposed to jeans and a t-shirt? “t*ts” was his reply. And he explained why: the dress, as I explained it (not a high collar, but, not cleavage, short sleeves and at least down to the knees) would be form fitting and thus, chest is prominant; same with a t-shirt, the breasts would poke out a bit. He then volunteered information about a backless dress, which he said causes him to look at the back, not as in, “baby’s got back”, but, where her shoulders are. I then asked does the backless dress cause him to look at the butt of a woman and he said yes it does, AND, said it’s also good because he can determine that she’s not wearing a bra. He REALLY liked that. Finally, I asked him (and, I wish I could have c&p’d all this, but, I didn’t ask him and when I logged back on this morning, Yahoo! had gone wonky) about does he look at the crotch and butt of women wearing pants as opposed to skirts and he said, “Yes”…because it’s more defined. He then told me especially if they are in shorts and sitting down. “Good times”, was his reply.

I will say, you sound very gitty in this post, are you sure you are okay? I have enjoyed this conversation a lot and am glad you stuck around to keep it going.

I am as well. I would be better if the people at the beginning of this post would put their money where their mouth is and buy me a dress or skirt…also if I had a job.

I would just say don’t shirk it off as people on these boards making you feel bad about wearing pants. The reason I say that is because this whole idea of wearing dresses and skirts only came to me about 3 years ago. Back then I didn’t even entertain it, and now it is more like I am being convicted of it. I am learning things which I believe are true.

I have shared with you alot of what I have been reading. You disagree with most of it, which is fine, it is your opinion [today]. Those same opinions were my opinions 3 years ago. But the Lord keeps bringing this dresses/skirts thing around to me by different avenues. And so, I have to start paying attention to what He is telling me.

I don’t look down on you for wearing pants, that is your choice. But at the same time, when I read things from what Pope Pius XII has said, and look into the Marylike Crusade that was going on in the 50’s, I have to look at it seriously in relation to our society today and see the logic in it.

I guess a good thing to study would be the prevalence of pediofilia 60 years ago when parents dressed their children modestly versus today when they don’t.

Alright, maybe God is speaking to you, but, why? Why about this? Not that He couldn’t be speaking to you about other things or other people about anything, but, why? I’m not convinced this is from God, only because, God’s message is consistant. Why would he tell you to wear a skirt or dress and other women who have prayed about it to wear pants, and then be alright with women of other cultures (Christian women, even) to wear pants?

And, fine, quote the saints, and your authors, and Pius XII, or the X, even, but, 1) They all talk about modesty, not pants. 2) The time we have when a Pope mentions pants on a woman, over 1,000 years ago, he says it’s not an issue. 3) There are signs at the Vatican. Pants are okay and encouraged at the Vatican, shorts and short skirts are not.

You have got to be kidding me…the previlance of pedophilia…you mean the time when it was virtually “unspoken”. Honestly, it is easier for a child molester to get up a child’s skirt than it is to try manuever through pants. 60 years ago the child was NOT believed and the blame was placed on the child. To say simply that it is a matter of modest dress…is an oversimplfied, irresponsible statement to such an heinous act against a child.

And, here’s the thing, JOL, you say you may not look down on me or anybody wearing pants, BUT, you ascribe to this kind of logic, which, the rest of us, find insulting and illogical. It’s NOT that children are more abused now (though, honestly, statistically, I don’t know, and, in rough numbers, probably certainly just because there are more children now), it’s that we know about it more now and respond to it more now. And, to allude to pedophillia being a pants problem, but, it’s not. It’s just not. Nor is rape or anything of the sort. We’re being told by a group of people who seem to think they are better than us, no matter what they say, that life will go back to perfect if only we ALL would wear skirts or dresses. There would be no more ill treatment of women or children and men would become gentlemen. This is a logic fail argument.

 

[adstrinity]

adstrinity;5492089:

And, concerning bikinis being like panties and bras, one year, as a practice for my University’s Mock Trial class, our hotel had a pool. The fit girls, when we stopped at a WalMart or something, went to the swimwear…which was mix and match, and much too expensive, a scam, if you will. The one girl commented that she could just swim in her panties and bra…and that’s exactly what she did. She was covered.

Wearing a bra and panties is being covered?? Yes, she wouldn’t be arrested for indecent exposure, I suppose.

I once read something that struck me… if a bikini isn’t immodest, then what is immodest? Because the next step is complete nudity of one or both of our most intimate areas. So, may I ask all of those that state a bikini is ok - what type of clothing do YOU call immodest? I am seriously asking this, not trying to be obnoxious.

What kind of bikini are we talking? Those granny bikinis of the 50s and 60s? Pasties and a g-string?

I am beginning to think that it’s a matter of attitude, not dress that is an issue here. The women who have nothing else going for them, no personality, no ideas, no desire but to have sex, are the ones who show off their bodies in a bikini all the time. I’m thinking of the, “I’m hot” attitude of women typically seen on VH1 reality shows. Opposed to women walking the red carpet with the designer dresses. They have something to promote, they have a reason to be there, they have a purpose, and, no matter what they are wearing, they have confidence; it is not a turnoff.

Hmmmm…it seems that if we are to keep replying to each other, we will take up a page each rather than a post.

 

[Bluegoat]

What kind of bikini are we talking? Those granny bikinis of the 50s and 60s? Pasties and a g-string?

I am beginning to think that it’s a matter of attitude, not dress that is an issue here. The women who have nothing else going for them, no personality, no ideas, no desire but to have sex, are the ones who show off their bodies in a bikini all the time. I’m thinking of the, “I’m hot” attitude of women typically seen on VH1 reality shows. Opposed to women walking the red carpet with the designer dresses. They have something to promote, they have a reason to be there, they have a purpose, and, no matter what they are wearing, they have confidence; it is not a turnoff.

Hmmmm…it seems that if we are to keep replying to each other, we will take up a page each rather than a post.

You really should read C.S. Lewis on this topic, he addresses it in some detail in Mere Christianity. Incidentally, what he says is entirely compatible with the official Catholic position.

 

[EasterJoy]

What kind of bikini are we talking? Those granny bikinis of the 50s and 60s? Pasties and a g-string?

I am beginning to think that it’s a matter of attitude, not dress that is an issue here. The women who have nothing else going for them, no personality, no ideas, no desire but to have sex, are the ones who show off their bodies in a bikini all the time. I’m thinking of the, “I’m hot” attitude of women typically seen on VH1 reality shows. Opposed to women walking the red carpet with the designer dresses. They have something to promote, they have a reason to be there, they have a purpose, and, no matter what they are wearing, they have confidence; it is not a turnoff.

Hmmmm…it seems that if we are to keep replying to each other, we will take up a page each rather than a post.

I think it is very much a matter of attitude and transmission of intent.

A Polynesian woman might wear next to nothing, and yet transmit no intent of impurity. A woman in California might be wearing slightly more, but the intention she transmits can be little short of bluntly putting a pricetag on her bottom. I do not exempt the women on the red carpets. And I’m sorry, but it doesn’t matter if a woman is a neurosurgeon, she can still fall prey to the idea that she falls short if she goes out in public and neglects to make any effort to look “sexy.”

We are in a culture that uses sex to sell, that uses sexual attractiveness to give women a sense of self-worth (as opposed to a sense of personal dignity) and that teaches both men and women to value women in terms of their ability to arouse sexual interest in men. The ideal seems to be to have one man, who is rich and chooses to shower you with material support in exchange for both sexual favors and the right to show you off, and to make all the other men fall into covetousness for his good fortune in having you among his enviable possessions. Cars are sold in order to attract such a woman. Houses are built in order to appear worthy of such a “successful” couple. Women spend billions of dollars in order to look like such a woman. It is disgusting.

We may not have to wear so much as a woman of the Victorian era, but we have to wear far far more than a contemporary Polynesian woman, if we are to transmit the attitude that we are not mere objects of mens’ desires, no matter what our IQs are.

But the thread is about where pants fall into all of this. I think the issue with pants is whether they are currently “men’s” clothing. I don’t think so. Just putting on pants does not constitute an androgynous look. It is the androgynous or frankly masculine look that attempts to dress like a man. It is well to avoid that. Nevertheless, I think that there are certainly dresses that do more to incite lust and covetousness than pants covering the same amount of real estate do.

I think that has to be the question: what effect does the total choice of clothing and hair styling have? Does it look like you’re trying to look like the opposite sex, or like you have no gender? Not good. Does the clothing invite lust or covetousness? Also bad. Those are the two boundaries, whether you are a man or a woman.

I don’t think, though, that it is possible to make a blanket statement that all pants that don’t make you look like you approve of impurity must make you look like you want to pass for a man. This isn’t true. Now, while I would grant that a dress will generally make you entirely safe from being mistaken for a man, it will not keep you safe from leading the imagination in inappropriate directions, and may even make certain activities far harder to perform in a modest manner. Nobody is going to mistake a cassock or an alb for a dress. Likewise, there are pants for women that clearly fall between the boundaries for appropriate clothing.

I think the actual effect is far more important than the theoretical effect.

 

[A_R_Smith]

I happen to prefer men’s clothing simply due to personal reasons and the fact that it covers up my body to the standards I’ve set for myself in regards to modesty. Yes, I understand I can reach the same level of modesty in a dress, however, I feel I draw more attention in feminine attire than male attire. Male attire allows me to remain unnoticed. In fact, wearing feminine clothing makes me highly stressed. These are my personal experiences, of course. For those who insist that women who wear male attire to church are deviant, allow me to state the following. *Not every woman who chooses such attire has homosexual or bisexual inclanations. *I most certainly *do not *like women in a romantic sense, nor am I trying to entice them into sin by wearing male clothing. I’m not trying to entice anyone. When I wear male attire at church, I’m there for Mass and the amazing healing power of Jesus Christ. I’m too busy focusing on Him to really give a hoot what the couple two pews behind me thinks of the fact that I’m wearing a black vest, long-sleeved white dress-shirt, blacks slacks and an optional tie. My clothing hides my figure and I purposely make certain that the cut is baggy and will therefore not cling to any part of my body at all, which keeps me much more at ease. That’s just me.

 

[adstrinity]

And, you bring up something I wanted to comment on, A_R_Smith. So what if women DO wear male attire? I’ve seen news reports and such that a pair of jeans that are basically the same (I don’t know if this is true) cost more if they are in the female department than the male. …So, I guess, to be more modest, one would spend more money.

…I’m just throwing these arguments out there. We know this is how secular society would see this issue.

 

[Bluegoat]

And, you bring up something I wanted to comment on, A_R_Smith. So what if women DO wear male attire? I’ve seen news reports and such that a pair of jeans that are basically the same (I don’t know if this is true) cost more if they are in the female department than the male. …So, I guess, to be more modest, one would spend more money.

…I’m just throwing these arguments out there. We know this is how secular society would see this issue.

The problem, potentially, with wearing male attire is that is could be a way of either trying to be seen as a man, or negating gender differences and saying that they don’t exist. Obviously, in a culture where clothing is the same for both sexes, it wouldn’t apply in the same way.

Some people see the wearing of pants by women in modern Western culture as being linked to feminism, which they see primarily as trying to negate sexual differences between men and women. If that were true, it would be a reasonable argument.

Of course that is a rather restricted view of the changes in how we see women, and women and men. This view tends to think only of a certian expression of the feminist movement that began in the 1960’s. In fact, changes in how people look at women, what some might call the women’s movement, can be traced back at least to the Suffragettes of the Victorian era. It includes things like the vote, allowing women into educational institutions, allowing them to own property, recognizing that they are not property but people, that they can choose a vocation other than motherhood/family life, nursing or teaching, can be involved in government and have opinions on public policy, that they should be able to nurse their babies in the mall, or be considered seriously in the arts or sports…

Even today, the “feminist” movement is not some unified block, it has many faces, and not all try to reduce sexual differences between men and women to a bit of flesh.

So, are pants on women part of this movement to see women as people? Are they an attempt to negate gender differences? Are they just part of the normal changes in cultural perception of clothing that has been going on, it seems, since the garden?

I haven’t seen any convincing arguments here that they can be definably linked to the desire to negate sexual differences, or to the desire to be immodest. But rather a lot of fundamentalist arguments, which just don’t seem to be taking a Catholic approach at all.

 

[JOL]

I’ve admitted to everyone that I’m not convinced of dresses-only. Modest dress most definitely. Jeans you are poured into…not. I’d like to bring up some things that are from Scripture and influenced my thinking, and I’d LOVE to have comments. Truly! Tell me you agree, or I’m nuts and so is anyone who thinks this makes sense.

I went online to get a couple other translations of this text, I looked at the NASB and the Douay-Rheims. I am not going to post both translations, if anyone wants to compare translations go ahead. I found the Douay-Rheims translation to be very interesting:

Isa 47: 2-3: 2 Take a millstone and grind meal: uncover thy shame, strip thy shoulder, make bare thy legs, pass over the rivers. 3 Thy nakedness shall be discovered, and thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and no man shall resist me.

I find this interesting because it says “strip thy shoulder, make bare they leg.” which would further modesty from not just shorts and short skirts but tank tops, sleeveless, and swimwear as well. Which takes me back to that “attention catholic” booklet I posted about last week where the ‘standard’ for women’s dress was to have dresses/skirts and shirts with sleeves to or past the elbow.

Further, going back to the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve walked the garden naked, and it was good. Before they sinned against God, they didn’t even know they were naked, maybe they did and it didn’t bother them, there was no shame, nothing to be ashamed of. When they fell into sin they discovered their nakedness which resulted in their feeling of shame. I am not ashamed of my body, but I would feel ‘shame’ to walk outside, in public, without enough to cover myself.

In the NASB 1 Tim 2:9 says: Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, In the Douay-Rheims: In like manner, women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire:

The Merriam-Webster definition of “Modest” is: 1 a: placing a moderate estimate on one’s abilities or worth b: neither bold nor self-assertive : tending toward diffidence
2: arising from or characteristic of a modest nature 3: observing the proprieties of dress and behavior : decent 4 a: limited in size, amount, or scope b: unpretentious
synonyms see shy, chaste
— mod·est·ly adverb

Discreet: 1: having or showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech : prudent ; especially : capable of preserving prudent silence
2: unpretentious, modest <the warmth and discreet elegance of a civilized home — Joseph Wechsberg> 3: unobtrusive, unnoticeable
Sober: 1 a: sparing in the use of food and drink : abstemious b: not addicted to intoxicating drink c: not drunk 2: marked by sedate or gravely or earnestly thoughtful character or demeanor 3: unhurried, calm 4: marked by temperance, moderation, or seriousness 5: subdued in tone or color
6: showing no excessive or extreme qualities of fancy, emotion, or prejudice synonyms see serious

Adorn: 1 : to enhance the appearance of especially with beautiful objects 2 : to enliven or decorate as if with ornaments
synonyms adorn, decorate, ornament, embellish, beautify, deck, garnish mean to enhance the appearance of something by adding something unessential. adorn implies an enhancing by something beautiful in itself

It seems the issues we as a people have to uncover is:

1. Whose standards are we following, the Lords/Church or society?
2. Does it matter, is it just up to an individuals choice?

I know I have other questions, but I can’t think of them at the moment.

 

[vybzngh]

Hmm…I think this discussion is so interesting. For me when I would go to read on the altar, I would prefer to wear loose fitting pants simply becuase there would be no chance of anything (ie… underwear) showing from beneath a skirt or having a skirts drape in such a way as to attract undue attention. (yes, ladies, it can happen with loose, modest skirts)

What is fascinating to me is the sleeveless equation simply becuase I live in a tropical country where sometimes it is sweltering. It seems to me to be more modest to wear a sleeveless top with a high neck than top with sleeves and a very low cut neck to ward off the heat. And I never heard of the two inches below the top of the neck rule, to me , once your cleavage or breast area is not showing in any way, you were fine. Just looking at some of those restrictions, I feel hot…whew! Some of those guidelines do seem to me to be designed to me in temperate countries becuase I wear short ( just above the kneecap) skirts and no stocking becuase stockings are too hot!( not to mention they cost a bundle). As for the pants thing, I think women can wear pants becuase there are pants that you KNOW are for women! That is just my two cents…

 

[budgie2]

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

I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy on this subject. A lot depends on the length of the skirt and sometimes trousers are far more modest. It can sometimes appear like sexism when schools ask for students to wear a shorter skirt than trousers and may look like the heads of the school want to look at girls legs. It can be modest if it’s below knee length, mid-ankle to ankle length. However, I think there are also concerns about feminine hygiene with regards to tight fitting trousers which may be less suitable for a menstruating woman.

 

[Vico]

I would say that pants on women reveal more front and rear detail, below the low hip line to the knee, than a near-knee length skirt does, and are therefore more tempting for men when viewed.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

I would say that pants on women reveal more front and rear detail, below the low hip line to the knee, than a near-knee length skirt does, and are therefore more tempting for men when viewed.

Maybe men should take “control” of their eyes.

 

[Vico]

BlyssfulDreamer, I agree with you that men should take control of their eyes, but even more generally, all people should take control of their eyes. This may involve avoiding others that dress certain ways. Also all people should not become the source of temptation for others as this is scandal. For example men should also wear pants that are not too tight and avoid kilts or shorts (the male skirt equivalents) if immodest.

vybzngh wrote: “I would prefer to wear loose fitting pants simply becuase there would be no chance of anything (ie… underwear) showing from beneath a skirt or having a skirts drape in such a way as to attract undue attention.”

The seven holy virtues: humility, charity, kindness, patience, chastity, temperance, and diligence.

 

[TC2]

(this post deals with pants wearing only, not other kinds of clothing)

It’s always interesting how it’s considered immodest for women to wear pants, but not for men.

Pants show the outline of the body, and even properly fitting ones are often considered
a no-no. Yet not a head is ever turned by a man in pants, no one questions that maybe not even MEN need to be wearing such things.

Seems to me if women should wear skirts to cover more, then men should take up robe wearing, as in biblical days. But this is never offered as a solution. So women should hide their bodies, but men are okay to have their legs and crotch outlined, to say nothing of the backside.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense, that does.

 

[Lainey63]

Maybe men should take “control” of their eyes.

And their thoughts as well-just like we have to.