Should Women Wear Skirts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RhyannaRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fidelis said:
As a 49 year-old married man my opinion is that skirts are much more lady-like, attractive, and even modest (tight pants, believe it or not, leave less to a mans imagination). I wish my wife wore them occasionally, but she detests hose.

I’m not advocating any rule here; just my personal opinion (for what it’s worth).:twocents:
Click to expand...
What does “hose” have to do with skirts??

I must admit I rarely wear skirts (I’m definitely a shorts/capris/pants woman myself). However, on the few occasions I do wear a skirt, I certainly do NOT wear hose!! That is what a tan is for! 😃
 
Catholic90 said:
What does “hose” have to do with skirts??

I must admit I rarely wear skirts (I’m definitely a shorts/capris/pants woman myself). However, on the few occasions I do wear a skirt, I certainly do NOT wear hose!! That is what a tan is for! 😃
Click to expand...
Foer me it does mean hose if my skirt is dressy and now for casual. 🙂 But I do not tan and have had skin cancer a couple of time already.😦
 
Why is it an issue of skirts or jeans - what happened to the pants suit?
 
Catholic90 said:
What does “hose” have to do with skirts??

I must admit I rarely wear skirts (I’m definitely a shorts/capris/pants woman myself). However, on the few occasions I do wear a skirt, I certainly do NOT wear hose!! That is what a tan is for! 😃
Click to expand...
Tan in a can or tan at the salon or tan in the sun (or variations of the above) yes, I still think in very limited circumstances hose is an option.

So far, I have yet to see a need for it at Mass.

Did Mary have hose?
 
<<< Tan in a can or tan at the salon or tan in the sun (or variations of the above) yes, I still think in very limited circumstances hose is an option.

So far, I have yet to see a need for it at Mass.

Did Mary have hose? >>>

I’m also a non-hose person, but living in Michigan I have to bear with it for half of the year if I wear skirts that show my legs. Not to mention sometimes long john bottoms under the long skirts. But I will remember that one! 😉
 
No, Mary didn’t have hose/stockings…

She did have the availability of make-up, jewelry, and adornments… yes. This is a historical fact, proven via archeology of other women of the same time (regardless of wealth or social stature).

Did she wear them - we don’t know. Our only record of her appearance is paintings or drawings made 1K+ years after her death… supposition prevails in what we believe is true…
 
RhyannaRose said:
<<< Tan in a can or tan at the salon or tan in the sun (or variations of the above) yes, I still think in very limited circumstances hose is an option.

So far, I have yet to see a need for it at Mass.

Did Mary have hose? >>>

I’m also a non-hose person, but living in Michigan I have to bear with it for half of the year if I wear skirts that show my legs. Not to mention sometimes long john bottoms under the long skirts. But I will remember that one! 😉
Click to expand...
My late Grandma said that during the Depression women would paint their legs, even painting a stripe down the middle of their legs because the hose back then had seams.
 
Personally,

I grew up a tom-boy, who played outside with her older brother. Digging holes to China were an everyday ordeal! (Hey, we got a good three feet into the ground, quite the accomplishment- half-way there!!) Sports were always going on… you get the picture.

I detested skirts and dresses! My mom had to literally force me to wear a shirt when my brother and his friends would be out only in shorts!!

Needless to say, I’ve only really worn jeans. I have become more comfortable with skirts and I find that I am once again enjoying them. But, in today’s culture, I don’t think pants vs skirts are a modesty issue except within themselves. There are some pants that are far too tight and low hanging to be modest. But there are also skirts that can be quite immodest. I think both need to be looked at individually.
 
Vittorio23 said:
Personally,

I grew up a tom-boy, who played outside with her older brother. Digging holes to China were an everyday ordeal! (Hey, we got a good three feet into the ground, quite the accomplishment- half-way there!!) Sports were always going on… you get the picture.

I detested skirts and dresses! My mom had to literally force me to wear a shirt when my brother and his friends would be out only in shorts!!

Needless to say, I’ve only really worn jeans. I have become more comfortable with skirts and I find that I am once again enjoying them. But, in today’s culture, I don’t think pants vs skirts are a modesty issue except within themselves. There are some pants that are far too tight and low hanging to be modest. But there are also skirts that can be quite immodest. I think both need to be looked at individually.
Click to expand...
I am the same way. I have always been into sports and outdoors. I have also worked at a chemical company and two factories. I have never had an office job. My work always required uniforms (and sometimes PPE). I am more comfortable in pants, but I never wear them low cut or tight. They are modest.
 
Jay2 said:
No, Mary didn’t have hose/stockings…

She did have the availability of make-up, jewelry, and adornments… yes. This is a historical fact, proven via archeology of other women of the same time (regardless of wealth or social stature).

Did she wear them - we don’t know. Our only record of her appearance is paintings or drawings made 1K+ years after her death… supposition prevails in what we believe is true…
Click to expand...
You are right, we don’t know.

But- we do know this. Mary only wants us to know Him, her son.

Make up, jewelry and adornments are spoken of in the Scripture.

Never in association with Mary though.

We can only go on what we know about her.😉
 
Personally, I like comfort so I’m in slacks/jeans most of the time. But I’m an old lady LOL. Slacks can be more modest…if they’re not tight fitting. If a girl goes by with a short skirt on vs jeans, I think the construction guys will whistle at the girl with the short skirt.

Long skirts are not necessary more modest. Reminds me of the time I was working in the early 70’s and the flouncy Prairie skirts were in vouge. I wore one of these while standing on a stool and filing at a file cabinet when I stepped back and fell off… I landed on the floor with the skirt over my head and my “bloomers” showing! Everyone had a good laugh…except me. I never wore that skirt again. :o
 
I can’t wear nylon next to my skin at all, so on the very rare (once or twice a year) occasions that I wear a skirt, I wear socks with it. If anyone thinks it looks funny, I don’t care. That’s one of the advantages of getting older. 😃

My trousers are not tight, and show less than a skirt would. On top of that, I always wear shirts out, not tucked in – shows even less.
 
I find it interesting that I’ve never seen a conversation about whether or not men are being immodest in our culture by wearing fitted trousers without a loose, long covering shirt or robe as was worn in Jesus’s time and is worn in many countries now.

There are many men from other cultures who do believe that American men are immodest and inappropriate in wearing fitted slacks that show the body far more clearly than women’s slacks do, but it always seems to be the women’s attire being discussed here. I know that I’ve had to avert my eyes from a man wearing slacks that showed too much even in church.

Anyone want to venture a theory as to why the issue of male attire does not seem to get the attention?
 
jc-servant said:
Anyone want to venture a theory as to why the issue of male attire does not seem to get the attention?
Click to expand...
One theory: Because many people falsely believe that the sight of an immodestly-attired person of the opposite sex is an occasion of sin only for men.
 
CarolAnnSFO said:
One theory: Because many people falsely believe that the sight of an immodestly-attired person of the opposite sex is an occasion of sin only for men.
Click to expand...
I wish everyone here could see the male city workers that have been on my block trimming trees the last few days…

We could have had an interesting poll.

I think they could do a calandar and it would sell. It was a struggle to keep my eyes off a few of them…:o 😦 😊
 
Jay2 said:
I think it’s a throwback to our history. Only a few hundred years ago women had no option - they wore skirts - regardless of the task at hand.

Some gal finally figured out that wearing pants would be much more convenient for working in, and did it… but then there’s the consequence of seeing a woman’s “curves” not buried under 6 yards of cloth… but only under 1 layer… Ruh Ro Rorge…

FF a few hundred years and now a gal in a skirt (of traditional proportions/cut/fit) garners accolades.

My wife is a “farm girl”. Imagine going to work in a skirt, or in blue jeans… which would you choose?

Garments are tools. Worn to fit/fulfill a purpose. You use a tool for a particular job… (fill in the blanks here…)
Click to expand...
I received my first pair of jeans on my 8th birthday. After that it was hard to get this tomboy out of them.
I agree with Jay. Garments are a tool. I cannot imagine working in a factory or distribution center wearing anything other than jeans.
In fact, my sister asked me several times on a visit why I was always wearing a skirt. The answer was simple. My work “uniform” was jeans and a T-shirt. While visiting her, I was not at work.
The idea of a garment as tool can be moved to other activities, especially sports. Shorts/T-shirt are worn for running and a swimsuit in the pool. In-between these activities, the athlete may cover-up in a sweatsuit or wrap a towel around the waist for modesty and warmth.
Soldiers wear fatiques in the field and a dress uniform at other times–maybe even a kilt 😃 as mentioned in earlier posts
 
yet nobody here has brought up spandex…

IMHO that is the ultimate in immodest… except of course for dance and exercise where it is appropriate… not as a fashion statement! Thankfully the era of spandex is over…

Seriously, I wear what is appropriate for what I am doing and where I am going. I love skirts and dresses but I will only wear them with hose. I don’t mind hose except when it is too hot or too cold outside.
 
BlestOne said:
yet nobody here has brought up spandex…

IMHO that is the ultimate in immodest… except of course for dance and exercise where it is appropriate… not as a fashion statement! Thankfully the era of spandex is over…
Click to expand...
You haven’t visited my college campus lately, have you? Leggings are trendy. :eek:
 
SeekerJen said:
You haven’t visited my college campus lately, have you? Leggings are trendy. :eek:
Click to expand...
I remember the last time leggings were trendy. Unfortunately, way too many women didn’t really understand the concept of leggings, and the “sweater worn over leggings” outfit frequently became “sweater worn over pantyhose” (with no trousers). Talk about immodest. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top