Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[Ailina]

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

Well, I must say that women look sexier and more feminine in skirts and dresses than pants. Long tight skirts, short flirty, swingy skirts, long flirty swingy skirts, .long tight dresses that hug every curve, short short dresses that reveal long shapely legs…there is so much to choose from! And to think how accessible women are under those easily slipped up hems…just one hike and…

Really, to be totally unsexy, we women should just wear shapeless sackcloth with no embellishments so much as a belt because even that can be cinched in to show off tiny waists and big bosoms. Maybe we should just stick to baggy pants. And of course, we must cover our heads, because the Good Lord knows, men are so weak and cannot control themselves when they see us.

 

[Vico]

TC2, you wrote: “Seems to me if women should wear skirts to cover more, then men should take up robe wearing, as in biblical days.”

I would be willing to wear a robe.

However, there is a difference in the way the brain works between men and women, and that difference is that different areas of the brain develops. The male becomes more visually influenced, but that is not to say that women are not visual, rather it is relative.

So, skirts or robes do not reveal the form as much as slacks, and loose slacks still show the from quite closely when bending over. Can you say that women in general find that men in loose slacks, bending over, are a source of temptation?

 

[Bluegoat]

TC2, you wrote: “Seems to me if women should wear skirts to cover more, then men should take up robe wearing, as in biblical days.”

I would be willing to wear a robe.

However, there is a difference in the way the brain works between men and women, and that difference is that different areas of the brain develops. The male becomes more visually influenced, but that is not to say that women are not visual, rather it is relative.

So, skirts or robes do not reveal the form as much as slacks, and loose slacks still show the from quite closely when bending over. Can you say that women in general find that men in loose slacks, bending over, are a source of temptation?

Loose slacks? Who is it, Russle Crowe? If so, yes.

I think many women notice men in tight slacks in a sexual way.

 

[Vico]

Bluegoat, I’ll ask you. To control for exceptional personalities, I can restate, do women find that men in general, wearing loose slacks, bending over, are a source of temptation? (I am not considering here, homosexual attraction.) I suspect that tight garments may be immodest for any sex.

Attractiveness to a male and female, according to psychologists, means different things. General physical attractiveness is most simply related to waist hip ratio of females and chest waist ratio of males, ideal being 70%. But general attractiveness may not be the issue of this thread, rather pants vs skirts which relates to below the waist.

 

[Vico]

Ailina, you wrote “And to think how accessible women are under those easily slipped up hems”

And how accessible women are wearing “look at my …” pants.

About skirts and dresses you mention tight, short, flirty, form hugging. So true the torso and style could be a problem area too. Considering loose pants vs modest dresses or skirts, I still would say the skirts are less form revealing.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

TC2, you wrote: “Seems to me if women should wear skirts to cover more, then men should take up robe wearing, as in biblical days.”

I would be willing to wear a robe.

However, there is a difference in the way the brain works between men and women, and that difference is that different areas of the brain develops. The male becomes more visually influenced, but that is not to say that women are not visual, rather it is relative.

So, skirts or robes do not reveal the form as much as slacks, and loose slacks still show the from quite closely when bending over. Can you say that women in general find that men in loose slacks, bending over, are a source of temptation?

YES! Men bending over in loose slacks can give me thoughts that must be confessed!!

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, I’ll ask you. To control for exceptional personalities, I can restate, do women find that men in general, wearing loose slacks, bending over, are a source of temptation? (I am not considering here, homosexual attraction.) I suspect that tight garments may be immodest for any sex.

Attractiveness to a male and female, according to psychologists, means different things. General physical attractiveness is most simply related to waist hip ratio of females and chest waist ratio of males, ideal being 70%. But general attractiveness may not be the issue of this thread, rather pants vs skirts which relates to below the waist.

Many woman notice the rear end of a bent over male in reasonable physical shape. A source of temptation - well, they likely think - what a nice rear end. They might think a little further about it. Very rarely do they reach out and goose his butt.

But I am sometimes not sure what people mean by a source of temptation in such situations.

For myself, I do not feel that noticing that someone is physically or sexually attractive is temptation. Any more so than noticing a beautiful flower. It is annoying if it keeps intruding on my mind beyond that, but also doesn’t worry me - there are ways to deal with such things and as long as I don’t consent, it’s not a big issue. I would of course be culpable for willing to continuing thinking about it - in which case clearly I should stop. But that is about me, not the bum in question. If I find myself thinking about doing something about the whole thing, then that would indeed be a problem.

To use a metaphor - if someone plants a nice garden, I am responsible for my willed responses to it, not the garden itself. The fact that it is lovely and that makes me notice it is not in itself a bad thing - God likes it when we notice beauty. If I find my mind unwillingly dwelling on it against my will, that is unfortunate, but part of what I expect being a fallen human being. If I keep having problems with pinching flowers, I need to stop walking near attractive gardens. Of course they may still cross my path, but we can’t control everything, only do our best.

 

[Tamsulosin]

As I understand it, you have nothing to confess if an impure thought pops in your mind, since that is out of your control.
If you dismiss it summarily, and look away, you are fine.
The problem is if you entertain it and dwell in it.
Even worse if you act on it.
Having the control board in your head, you can manage the situation no matter what attractive character you may encounter, be wrapped in a dress or slacks.

 

[nice2000]

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 have only read this first thread and I agree. I am definately a fallen one as far as when it comes to fashion. As for myself, I would love to wear a dress or skirt as my permanent way of my daily wear. At one time, I was into the tight wearing jeans that snugged so tight they looked like they were painted on. I am still wearing jeans today, but very loosely. Even the loose fitting slacks reveals people shapely bodies. As ladies we have to be very careful in what we wear as our daily clothing. Today in these present times we have woman and men lusting after us. My future goal one day is to give up slacks all together. I am not there yet though. God be patient with me. I’ll get there I promise.

What kind of led me to ease up on the tight wearing clothing is that one day I asked one of my Sister-n-laws why she always wear her clothes(slacks) baggy? She said because where I come (live) from there are men and women who lust after you. She stated “She was celibate and she did not want to tempt anyone or be tempted”. Her comment made me think real hard about how I wear my clothing. You know what, she told the truth.

 

[TC2]

Yep, women notice.
Now whether they then have sinful thoughts is an individual occurance, I’d say.

Myself, I notice the slimness of a mans hips, how they relate to the breadth of
his shoulders. The length and strength of his legs, and of course, his backside.

It’s a whole package thing for me. Doesn’t mean I have sexual thoughts about
the guy, but I do appreciate the overall view.

My problem is that people seem to be saying that a womans body is immodest,
but a mans is not. Men and women aren’t that different in how they react to
such things, IMO.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yep, women notice.
Now whether they then have sinful thoughts is an individual occurance, I’d say.

Myself, I notice the slimness of a mans hips, how they relate to the breadth of
his shoulders. The length and strength of his legs, and of course, his backside.

It’s a whole package thing for me. Doesn’t mean I have sexual thoughts about
the guy, but I do appreciate the overall view.

My problem is that people seem to be saying that a womans body is immodest,
but a mans is not. Men and women aren’t that different in how they react to
such things, IMO.

Brain science would say that most men are far more prone to visual stimulation than most women. There is a reason that the most popular trash for men are racy photographs, while women’s most popular trash are those racy paperback novels and daytime soap operas. That isn’t to say that there isn’t a woman or man out there who are exceptions.

Having said that, the opinion that pants are inappropriate or immodest for women per se is just that: an opinion. This may have been different in different times, when a woman in pants might necessarily be sending a message of rebellion against social taboos and norms. Now, though, there are pants made especially for women, these are not men’s clothing, and the pants are not all made for the purpose of flaunting one’s body.

Furthermore, if you go to a bar, restaurant, or movie that panders to men’s desire to see women in revealing clothes, if you look at what people looking to make a buck on a men’s wandering eyes select for that purpose, you won’t find that pants are necessarily favored over skirts. Cut is everything. You won’t find any “men’s” bars in which the waitresses wear “mommy slacks”. I think that makes the case pretty well.

One thing that hasn’t been treated in these “modesty” threads is the vanity of competition between women. Impurity is not the only sin that we can commit when we select our clothes. Vanity is another, and spiritual pride another. IMHO, if anyone finds herself thinking that wearing a skirt makes her better than women who wear pants, she is better off in pants herself.

 

[Vico]

Bluegoat, Regarding temptation of seeing the beautiful body, you said:

“But I am sometimes not sure what people mean by a source of temptation in such situations.”

I think many may have an unclear understanding of scandal. Scandal is setting a bad example. More formally, scandal is an external act or omission that is itself evil or appears to be evil, which induces another to sin. Scandal is being malicious, that is, not charitible. It could be a bad example given to children, for example, or to those that are weaker than you to resist a sin. It is active when intentionally done, such as fornication, adultery, soliciting prositution, perjury, theft, drunkenness, living together in invalid marriage, etc. In fact it does not have to be a sin in itself for you but for the other, such as giving a drink to an alcoholic.

Concupiesence (Greek epithumia) is the result of the fall of Adam and Eve, and means a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason, and reason here means both modesty and temperance to which modesty belongs, and also charity and sexual purity. The desire is not a sin, rather yielding to it is, when it is disordered. Entertaining arousal outside of the natural matrimonial union open to children is an error.

So some examples related to clothing are where your dress causes another to:

1. be tempted to copy the bad example of another such as also dressing scantily, such as a child or adolescent might do
2. have lustful thoughts immediately, or
3. is encouraged to attempt fornication or adultery as a result
4. recalls later what was seen and sins from what was perceived (such as masturbation)
5. get others to take a look at you because you are so exiting to see.

How this scandal may occur is through:

1. wearing too little clothing, or even with modest clothes, positioning the body in such a way that another is excited (as a stripper or pop-star does)
2. advising a friend to wear revealing clothes to get a date or win affection, etc.

 

[Vico]

EasterJoy, you said: “You won’t find any “men’s” bars in which the waitresses wear “mommy slacks”. I think that makes the case pretty well.”

Why would a men’s bar go for a slight excitement, when one can capitalize on the
maximum tolerated by law?

In fact this points out the desensitization we experience when we see little modesty about us.

 

[adstrinity]

(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.

I have made the suggestion. For some reason, all but one man didn’t take me up on the offer and he was asking more questions about it, but, I doubt he did it.

Also, no man stepped up, even though the majority of men and women told me I should be wearing dresses/skirts, to buy me one. How odd.

TC2, you wrote: “Seems to me if women should wear skirts to cover more, then men should take up robe wearing, as in biblical days.”

I would be willing to wear a robe.

However, there is a difference in the way the brain works between men and women, and that difference is that different areas of the brain develops. The male becomes more visually influenced, but that is not to say that women are not visual, rather it is relative.

So, skirts or robes do not reveal the form as much as slacks, and loose slacks still show the from quite closely when bending over. Can you say that women in general find that men in loose slacks, bending over, are a source of temptation?

Did anybody watch the Discovery Channel’s Dirty Job’s Marathon yesterday? There was an episode where Mike Rowe, for some reason, was ill and had already thrown up 6 times. He needed to get up out of bed quickly and the camera showed him in his briefs. White briefs. One could see the outline of what was in his briefs. I must admit, it did look VERY nice and sufficient and I thought about that outline and how it would look out of his undies the rest of the day. …He appears to shave, too.

I think if men understood how my mind worked, they would wear burquas.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…Did anybody watch the Discovery Channel’s Dirty Job’s Marathon yesterday? There was an episode where Mike Rowe, for some reason, was ill and had already thrown up 6 times. He needed to get up out of bed quickly and the camera showed him in his briefs. White briefs. One could see the outline of what was in his briefs. I must admit, it did look VERY nice and sufficient and I thought about that outline and how it would look out of his undies the rest of the day. …He appears to shave, too. …

I’m sorry, but this is just too much information and much too graphic. I’d appreciate it if you would please carefully consider self editing before you post.

 

[adstrinity]

I’m sorry, but this is just too much information and much too graphic. I’d appreciate it if you would please carefully consider self editing before you post.

Believe me, I did. I was going to give more detail, and with more precise language, but, I thought better of it. I beleive I got my point across without getting to overt. There’s a LOT more I can say on it, but, because I understand that some may be sensitive, I can refrain.

 

[Vico]

adstrinity, you wrote:

“Also, no man stepped up, even though the majority of men and women told me I should be wearing dresses/skirts, to buy me one. How odd.”

Nobody buys me gas to get to Church, although it is something that I have been advised to do, and I do it. Alas, the purchase will have to be part of your penance I suppose.

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy, you said: “You won’t find any “men’s” bars in which the waitresses wear “mommy slacks”. I think that makes the case pretty well.”

Why would a men’s bar go for a slight excitement, when one can capitalize on the
maximum tolerated by law?

In fact this points out the desensitization we experience when we see little modesty about us.

My point is that pants are not more exciting than skirts, per se. They just aren’t. The difference lies in the cut of each and the individual taste of particular men. I base this on having talked to guys. Other than showing a lot of skin or being tight, they just don’t all find the same thing to tempt them to make a woman into an object of desire. For some, pants are more objectifying than dresses; for some, it is the other way.

 

[Ailina]

Bluegoat, Regarding temptation of seeing the beautiful body, you said:

“But I am sometimes not sure what people mean by a source of temptation in such situations.”

I think many may have an unclear understanding of scandal. Scandal is setting a bad example. More formally, scandal is an external act or omission that is itself evil or appears to be evil, which induces another to sin. Scandal is being malicious, that is, not charitible. It could be a bad example given to children, for example, or to those that are weaker than you to resist a sin. It is active when intentionally done, such as fornication, adultery, soliciting prositution, perjury, theft, drunkenness, living together in invalid marriage, etc. In fact it does not have to be a sin in itself for you but for the other, such as giving a drink to an alcoholic.

Concupiesence (Greek epithumia) is the result of the fall of Adam and Eve, and means a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason, and reason here means both modesty and temperance to which modesty belongs, and also charity and sexual purity. The desire is not a sin, rather yielding to it is, when it is disordered. Entertaining arousal outside of the natural matrimonial union open to children is an error.

So some examples related to clothing are where your dress causes another to:

1. be tempted to copy the bad example of another such as also dressing scantily, such as a child or adolescent might do
2. have lustful thoughts immediately, or
3. is encouraged to attempt fornication or adultery as a result
4. recalls later what was seen and sins from what was perceived (such as masturbation)
5. get others to take a look at you because you are so exiting to see.

How this scandal may occur is through:

1. wearing too little clothing, or even with modest clothes, positioning the body in such a way that another is excited (as a stripper or pop-star does)
2. advising a friend to wear revealing clothes to get a date or win affection, etc.

You know what? I find fully clothed men who are in shape and fill a pair of pants nicely to be lust-inducing for many women. I am sure I am not the only one to check out a man’s butt, much the way men check out ladies. In fact, in my younger days, we young women did it all the time. Sad, but true. And dare I mention how men in suits can be so hot?

Even women are more attracted to attractive men, just as men are more attracted to more attractive women. I believe this is part of the ‘attracting a mate’ that so many of us seemed to be biologically programmed for. I’m also a sucker for beautiful eyes so maybe men need to wear burkas to protect them from my lustful gaze. Is it my fault if I lose control?

 

[adstrinity]

adstrinity, you wrote:

“Also, no man stepped up, even though the majority of men and women told me I should be wearing dresses/skirts, to buy me one. How odd.”

Nobody buys me gas to get to Church, although it is something that I have been advised to do, and I do it. Alas, the purchase will have to be part of your penance I suppose.

OR…maybe, just maybe, if people are so concerned with the way I look, they can buy me what they think is appropriate or shut their hymn holes.

The difference is, the Church says it is a sin to miss Mass, She does not say it is a sin for women to wear pants.