Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

  • Thread starter Thread starter JOL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vico said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not that I am unaware of scandal or setting a bad example. (though one has to agree the thing is in fact actually bad before this applies.)

I was simply talking about temptation in response to a query from another poster; an entirely different subject.
 
Ailina said:
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?
Click to expand...
I have heard women say that this is why they like the National Football League, instead of baseball. Maybe nobody should get to wear tight pants.

Let’s not get started on what kind of moral life we’d get if we “followed our biology” without also using that nice big brain and and the complex social structure that it made possible. The ability to exercise control over our more basic urges for gratification is also in our unique human biology, too. Modesty is a form of self-control, too, and no, it isn’t just for women.
 
adstrinity said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is true. Skirts or dresses for women is not currently a discipline of the Church. Pants are allowed. It is also not taught that pants on women are particularly immodest attire, or that a woman has to have some special reason for wearing them.

I don’t mind hearing from men who have struggles with purity or women who feel more feminine in dresses. I don’t like the implication that this issue was something that was wrongly left out of the catechism, or only left out because it would take a lunk head not to know it.
 
adstrinity, you said:

“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.”

The Church shows us what could be a sin which depends upon our intent (a sin, knowledge it is a sin, and action) in the circumstances. Wearing pants may be sinful and so may missing Church. Only you can know for sure.
 
Ailina, you said: “Is it my fault if I lose control?”

Yes, if we intentionally give in to our desires without resistance it is mortally so, because we have free will. It is not sinful to be tempted however, that is only fallen natural.
 
EasterJoy, you said:

“I don’t like the implication that this issue was something that was wrongly left out of the catechism, or only left out because it would take a lunk head not to know it.”

I agree.
 
As an aspiring Catholic of 60 years of age I have trouble with the regular microscopic examination received by women’s dress. How about spending a similar amount of time on the works of mercy? Devout prayer? Study, etc…

Once years ago I was criticized about my clothing. I was devastated, crying for hours, and later asked my husband, who was just a friend then, what he thought. He said there was nothing immodest about what I was wearing, nothing showed that shouldn’t have showed, and he thought the critical person “was tempted and decided to share it.”

I wish I were a more sophisticated computer user–the best post I ever saw on a modesty thread was a photograph of St. Gianna Beretta Molla, on the ski slope, wearing pants. The pants were ski pants of the stirrup type and were generously enough cut so as not to draw the eye to the feminine form. They were just pants.

Res ipsa loquitur–the thing speaks for itself.**
 
EasterJoy, you also said: “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.”

Being tight is the issue here.

I think this started as a comparison between modest dresses/skirts and loose pants. The original point was that bending over in pants was more revealing than in a skirt. Then the remark was made that men bending over is also a temptation for women. So one solution is to wear either loose pants and not bend over around others (for men and women) or modest dress/skirt (for women), or kilt (UK, Ireland, Scotland). It all depends on the situation.

People can get conditioned by previous experiences too so that just the clothes are a problem or a body part, forming a fetish. One may not know about it, so cannot avoid the situation.
 
Vico said:
EasterJoy, you also said: “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.”

Being tight is the issue here.

I think this started as a comparison between modest dresses/skirts and loose pants. The original point was that bending over in pants was more revealing than in a skirt. Then the remark was made that men bending over is also a temptation for women. So one solution is to wear either loose pants and not bend over around others (for men and women) or modest dress/skirt (for women), or kilt (UK, Ireland, Scotland). It all depends on the situation.

People can get conditioned by previous experiences too so that just the clothes are a problem or a body part, forming a fetish. One may not know about it, so cannot avoid the situation.
Click to expand...
My question is who finds themselves so tempted by modest pants that it is a real problem for them? What exactly is it that they are being tempted to? A few impure thoughts? Fornication? Rape? If the latter, is that perhaps not more reflective of a problem within the person than anything without? Should we expect people to wear clothes that somehow ensure that there is NO possibility of temptation? Could such a goal even be reached? If that isn’t what we need to do, where is the line? At what point does the “tempting” person discharch her responsibility to avoid being tempting? Is it really a bad thing, a temptation, that we notice other people are sexually attractive, or is it part of what is supposed to happen - I rather get the impression that some people think that it is temptation any time a person is sexiually attractive to another.
 
Bluegoat, you wrote: “What exactly is it that they are being tempted to?”

Examples were provided in the scandal posting I send. You said you understood.
 
Shin, thanks. I checked and they add 3" to the back tail of the shirt to cover the gap. It is a little different than a tunic that goes to 4" above the knee, it still does not cover the butt.
 
Vico said:
Bluegoat, you wrote: “What exactly is it that they are being tempted to?”

Examples were provided in the scandal posting I send. You said you understood.
Click to expand...
I am specifically asking about the things people are being tempted to when viewing a member of the opposite sex in a pair of modest pants. It relates to my question about what level of responsibility the individual has to avoid being tempting to others, and the level of temptation we should expect in normal life as fallen human beings.

Personally, I don’t think it is possible to so clothe people that they become unattractive and uninteresting to the opposite sex. Even where women cover completely, men report being attracted to their eyes, their wrists, the way they walk or smell or sound of their voice. I am sure some of these men are tempted in various ways. Does this happen less or to a less serious degree than the men tempted by the women in modest pants?

My suspicion is that there is a level at which more protection by clothing, more covering, makes no difference at all in the level at which people will be sexually tempted. People’s sexuality seems to operate at a certain level of activity, even without any external movers.

Some societies in the past and present have tried to get around this by removing opportunities for opposite sex people to be together at all. I don’t even think that is effective - there is a definite correlation between such cultures and certain kinds of homosexual activity. It seems to me that if proper objects for our sexual interest are totally removed, it often moves to improper objects.
 
Bluegoat, you said:

“I am specifically asking about the things people are being tempted to when viewing a member of the opposite sex in a pair of modest pants.”

Well, if the pants are modest then what more can be done, by definition they are modest. But the way the body is presented in modest pants (we mentioned bending over) can be immodest, which could be a scandal. (Could be, based on intent and knowledge.)

This is an excerpt of what I posted, in addition to fetishes for specific materials:

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.
 
Vico said:
Bluegoat, you said:

“I am specifically asking about the things people are being tempted to when viewing a member of the opposite sex in a pair of modest pants.”

Well, if the pants are modest then what more can be done, by definition they are modest. But the way the body is presented in modest pants (we mentioned bending over) can be immodest, which could be a scandal. (Could be, based on intent and knowledge.)

This is an excerpt of what I posted, in addition to fetishes for specific materials:

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.
Click to expand...
Yes, those are many possible ways a person can fall into sin. But it gives no information about how much real difficulty actual people have in the type of situation under discussion. The claim under discussion is that even “modest” pants are immodest, at least on a woman. But it is difficult to judge this without knowing how much those actual garments affect real people, and comparing them to other garments and the effects they have. (Then you would somehow have to correct for cultural conditioning too.)
 
If we start covering ourselves up for extreme modesty, we will in effect dress as other religious groups do.On my way to work I see men in tunics as described by Shin, and women all covered up.
Wearing a tent,will not contribute to my husband thinking: I am still very attracted to the woman I married. And that is part(not the most important of course, but still a part)of a lasting marriage.To keep looking fit and
attractive for each other and not letting yourself go, so that he may not like better what he sees at the office.
 
Tamsulosin, I would not promote or prevent tent clothes (Burka). You said: “Wearing a tent,will not contribute to my husband thinking: I am still very attracted to the woman I married.”

Where people where a Burka, they take it off at home, so their spouse sees them normally.

I’m concerned about something in your post though, you said: “…so that he may not like better what he sees at the office”.

It is likely that a man will desire another woman that they do not love, due to the fallen nature we humans have, that is why we have to control lust. The spouse proves their love through exercising this control in face of desires. Also, wearing the Burka is so that other men do not see your wife.
 
My opinion is that dresses and skirts not only look nicer and are more modest, but are more comfortable as well. I like to wear pants but I find that they never stay up and require constant adjustment. Wheras a nice dress just fits and looks wonderful, it’s a chance for women to actually wear the clothes instead of having the clothes wearing them.

Except I draw the line at those new ‘maxi dresses.’ They are so long and flowing that it is ridiculous. :rolleyes:
 
I just simply do not agree with some posts here.Some seem to be taking the modesty issue to extremes.Some are aroused by just about anything.How can they even function in the world, I wonder.Perhaps having a husband or a wife, whatever the case be,will
give them some sexual relief, and they would not be so uptight.That is my advise.
Forgive me if someone gets offended.It is not my intention to offend anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top