Pants

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuietTimes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Karin said:
:rolleyes: :banghead:

and acutally you can wear pants when visiting the Vatican if you are a woman…so #8 is a bit inaccurate…
Click to expand...
I do not know when the article was written or to what timeframe it applied.

Personally, I like how women look in pants, yet it is a confusing world in which women can literally wear any type of male clothing, yet if a man were to do that they would be thought poorly for doing so. Weird upside-down world.
 
Tom317 said:
I do not know when the article was written or to what timeframe it applied.

Personally, I like how women look in pants, yet it is a confusing world in which women can literally wear any type of male clothing, yet if a man were to do that they would be thought poorly for doing so. Weird upside-down world.
Click to expand...
the problem if you want to call it that is that pants are no longer considered “mens” clothing…they are unisex…👍
while a dress has always been a womans article of clothing…same for skirts…but that last category does not include KILTS
 
Karin said:
:rolleyes: :banghead:

and acutally you can wear pants when visiting the Vatican if you are a woman…so #8 is a bit inaccurate…
Click to expand...
I don’t even know how one would research such a thing, yet the article makes a claim for Padre Pio, who lived from 1887-1968, so most of his life was lived during times when women wearing pants was still fairly uncommon. Perhaps the writer of the article was speaking of a time that coiceided with Padre Pio’s life…hard to say.

Women wearing pants became hugely popular in the later part the 20th century. Check this out:
  • Trousers (or pants in Canada, South Africa and the U.S., and sometimes called slacks or breeches…is an item of clothing worn on the lower part of the body, covering both legs separately (rather than with cloth stretching across both as in skirts and dresses). Historically, as for the West, trousers have been the standard lower-body clothing item for males since the 16th century; by the late 20th century, they had become extremely prevalent for females as well. Trousers are worn at the hips or waist, and may be held up by their own fastenings, a belt, or suspenders (braces). Leggings are form-fitting trousers of a clingy material, often knitted cotton and lycra.*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers
 
Karin said:
the problem if you want to call it that is that pants are no longer considered “mens” clothing…they are unisex…👍
while a dress has always been a womans article of clothing…same for skirts…but that last category does not include KILTS
Click to expand...
Yes, that is obviously true. I wonder though, if men started wearing dresses as women took-up wearing pants, how would society respond? Would dresses then become “unisex” as pants are now?
 
Tom317 said:
Yes, that is obviously true. I wonder though, if men started wearing dresses as women took-up wearing pants, how would society respond? Would dresses then become “unisex” as pants are now?
Click to expand...
I think men would start having to use a lot more shaving cream! 😃
 
thechrismyster said:
that site is one long sales pitch for her products and services…

never trust someone selling something.
Click to expand...
I totally agree…but somone asked who this person was so I posted her personal website link so they could find out;)
 
I did notice Ms. Hammond uses quite a bit of makeup. Isn’t makeup used to attract others to you? Or at least to make yourself look “better” to others around you?
 
Just a friendly reminder to keep the thread on the original topic under discussion (morality of women wearing pants). Please feel free to start a new thread/s in the appropriate Forum/s to discuss other related issues. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
 
Karin said:
your back:eek: 😃
Click to expand...
:bigyikes: I am not that limber. What is a single man to do?! :hmmm:🙂

I mean I am one of the poor souls that people can’t tell where on my neck my haircut and ends but can see where I stop shaving. 😦 No clearing in the forest, as it were. Must be my Italian heritage. Or maybe it is the French half?

But getting back to the original topic. I would think that when a woman dresses in presents herself in an androgenous or masculan manner, that is clearly wrong. Working for a clothing manufacturer, I can assure you that even ski jackets and ski pants are cut differently for women. Women have a differnt body shape. Period. (I have never seen a ski dress. Can you imagine a woman skiing down a hill when it is 15 degrees in a dress? She would get cold and wet in the worst possible place. And it would be, uh, an occasion of sin for the men behind her.)

Men’s pants and shirts look funny on women. (Besides women can’t button them because the buttons are on the wrong side for them! 🙂 ) Because of these factors, I do not buy a blanket prohibition on pants. Just like men look funny wearing women’s blouses and pants. This is true even for a pair of jeans.

I will accept what many women have told me; they feel more like a lady when they wear a dress. And I like to see women in dresses, and no, it is not because I like to see a lot of leg.

I used to date a woman who felt that wearing pants did not glorify God. She did not own even a single pair of pants. (Thankfully, she did not like to ski either.) She claimed to have ugly legs (I never knew). Her dresses were all about calf length and she usually wore leggings or tights rather than hose, so you did not see her legs anyway.
 
rpp said:
In some cultures, like China, women have worn pants for millenia. In others, Scotland for instance, men wear a skirt-like garment (kilt).

We should all, men and women, dress modestly. I have seen women wear dresses in church that were most certainly not modest. Of course many women wear pants which are. I think it is a matter of good judgment.

Personally, I like the way most women look in a dress. While pants do not turn me off by any means, a dress certainly enhances a woman’s femininity. To me, either are acceptable.

I have noticed, however, that there seems to be corelation between the degree of observable deoutness and the frequency I observe a women wear a dress. I think that may simply be due to the choices a truly devout woman are naturally lead to. (On the male side, you will generally not see a devout man show up at Mass wearing a T-shirt and no one has to tell him.)

There is, of course, obvious exceptions for practicality and those who have some type of injury, disfigurment or scarring. (I do not were short sleeve shirts or shorts because of scars on my arms and legs from injuries and repeated knee surgeries.)

Another point I would like to make is that many women seem completely unaware of how their dress is often an occassion of sin for men. I believe dressing modestly is as much about caring for yourself as it is about love of neighbor and the desire not to lead your neighbor into an ocsassion of sin.
Click to expand...
Men in Scotland do NOT wear kilts. Perhaps they used to, but not now.

Moreover, pants immediately bring ones eyes up, to the apex of the triangle between your legs, to the crotch area.

Perhaps pants are not sinful, but it is always better (at least for men) for women to wear skirts, at least that way the men have nothing to look at below the belt.

You hit the nail on the head with women wanting to wear skirts as they progress in faith. I think it is a natural progression, although not everybody will do it, as one moves closer to Christ, I think it is self-evident which choice of clothing is more respectable.
 
Magicsilence said:
Men in Scotland do NOT wear kilts. Perhaps they used to, but not now.

Moreover, pants immediately bring ones eyes up, to the apex of the triangle between your legs, to the crotch area.

Perhaps pants are not sinful, but it is always better (at least for men) for women to wear skirts, at least that way the men have nothing to look at below the belt.

You hit the nail on the head with women wanting to wear skirts as they progress in faith. I think it is a natural progression, although not everybody will do it, as one moves closer to Christ, I think it is self-evident which choice of clothing is more respectable.
Click to expand...
men will always find something to look at…be it a woman wearing pants then as you say they are drawn to her crotch…or her rearend…if she wears a skirt or dress then it is either her legs, arms or something else that is distracting them…
perhaps woman would be better off if all men where required to wear “blinders”😃 http://www.salamandersociety.com/slamtoons/captions/blinders/041209stray_mutt_blinder2.jpg
otherwise woman are going to have to dress like this …:eek: so men are not tempted to look at something that might perhaps turn them on
http://www.frhavn-gym.dk/opslag/Burka-a7.jpg
 
Karin said:
men will always find something to look at…be it a woman wearing pants then as you say they are drawn to her crotch…or her rearend…if she wears a skirt or dress then it is either her legs, arms or something else that is distracting them…
perhaps woman would be better off if all men where required to wear “blinders”😃 http://www.salamandersociety.com/slamtoons/captions/blinders/041209stray_mutt_blinder2.jpg
otherwise woman are going to have to dress like this …:eek:
AEIOU.pt
Click to expand...
:rotfl: You are the best!

Another poster mentioned that men’s eyes are drawn to bare flesh, and that this is a good reason to cover up. I don’t agree. Frankly, my eyes are drawn to bare flesh (I am a woman). This certainly doesn’t happen to me because I think bare arms are sexy… we look because light colors (especially flesh colors) naturally draw the eye. It’s as simple as that.

I hate to sound like a paranoid feminist, but I half think that those who don’t like us to wear pants are trying to hold us down. It’s easier and more comfortable for me to do just about any work or go just about anywhere in pants. I can get dirtier, I can do things that would wrinkle a skirt, I can bend or squat without worrying about flashing my underwear, I can jump or climb over things or crawl around on the floor with the babies, I can keep my legs warmer… Not to mention the fact that a pair of pants is less expensive than a nice dress, shoes, and an endless supply of nylons.

Some women have pretty, feminine shapes and will attract the eyes of others (male and female) no matter what they are wearing. The only thing that will prevent this is wearing an ugly dress, which I’m sure nobody is suggesting. 😉

Just last week at mass there was a lovely young lady in a very modest (but pretty and fashionable) skirt and blouse. She was entirely covered from the neck to the knee, and her arms were covered, too. Yet I saw that she unknowingly turned the heads of several men as she walked by. I am sure she didn’t incite lust in these men… she was just being herself, and she was beautiful and people noticed her.

I guess my point is that a woman isn’t necessarily immodest just because her body or clothing causes people to look at her. So just because pants or sleeveless shirts tend to catch the eye, it doesn’t follow that they are immodest garb.
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
:rotfl: You are the best!

Another poster mentioned that men’s eyes are drawn to bare flesh, and that this is a good reason to cover up. I don’t agree. Frankly, my eyes are drawn to bare flesh (I am a woman). This certainly doesn’t happen to me because I think bare arms are sexy… we look because light colors (especially flesh colors) naturally draw the eye. It’s as simple as that.

I hate to sound like a paranoid feminist, but I half think that those who don’t like us to wear pants are trying to hold us down. It’s easier and more comfortable for me to do just about any work or go just about anywhere in pants. I can get dirtier, I can do things that would wrinkle a skirt, I can bend or squat without worrying about flashing my underwear, I can jump or climb over things or crawl around on the floor with the babies, I can keep my legs warmer… Not to mention the fact that a pair of pants is less expensive than a nice dress, shoes, and an endless supply of nylons.

Some women have pretty, feminine shapes and will attract the eyes of others (male and female) no matter what they are wearing. The only thing that will prevent this is wearing an ugly dress, which I’m sure nobody is suggesting. 😉

Just last week at mass there was a lovely young lady in a very modest (but pretty and fashionable) skirt and blouse. She was entirely covered from the neck to the knee, and her arms were covered, too. Yet I saw that she unknowingly turned the heads of several men as she walked by. I am sure she didn’t incite lust in these men… she was just being herself, and she was beautiful and people noticed her.

I guess my point is that a woman isn’t necessarily immodest just because her body or clothing causes people to look at her. So just because pants or sleeveless shirts tend to catch the eye, it doesn’t follow that they are immodest garb.
Click to expand...
Gotta agree with many of your points…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top