Pants Vs. Skirts For Women ...

[Wikitiki]

I generally wear skirts for the same reason I keep my hair long - I feel it communicates very clearly to others that I am proud of my femininity, and am not trying to be like men, like so many other girls and woman seem to be (not to say that I think all women that prefer pants, or short hair, a "boyish" (shapeless/extremely skinny) body, or anything else is trying to be, that's just a general pattern among some woman; nor am I saying that all women that wear skirts, long hair, or anything near that are doing it to tell others they even feel have a feminine roll to fill in society; but I think that my crucifix and general behavior/personality kind of helps).

I have no physical limitations and I have no qualms with wearing leggings, stalkings, or even pants under my skirt when it's cold. My school and places I've volunteered at have never had a problem with skirts. Pants actually are horribly uncomfortable for me, and have been since I was little. It seemed either too tight or way too big, and would always try to slide off my butt no matter how high-riding (lol, is that the term?; is there even a term for that?) I got them and no matter how many belts I was wearing. I actually never wore jeans because the fabric bothered me so much until maybe late elementary school - early middle school, and that was simply because all of my friends were, too. I learned the wonders of the skirt in eighth grade, and I never looked back.

I generally try to follow the "far past the knees, at least to the elbows, no more that two fingers' breadth" thing, which is easy because it's super hard to feel comfortable in a skirt when you have to worry about how your legs are positioned whenever you sit, and the skin on my chest feels super weird when it's exposed. I guess I just need to work on the sleeve length, though I'm pretty sure what really matters is that I have sleeves that don't murder people's eyes with my terrible armpits when I raise my arm.

...People have probably said all of this before, and I just have a bad memory, heh.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' timestamp='1284747180' post='2174118']
At least to me, one of the most beautiful national costumes is the shalwar qameez, the national dress of Pakistan, worn by both men and women, which consists of a very long tunic worn over a pair of pants (which can differ in style). I have never seen a woman or man for whom this dress was not both modest and flattering. I have seen the shalwar qameeze worn as very simple, practical, everyday wear, and also as gorgeous, much more elaborate dress for formal occasions. Somehow the shalwar qameeze seems to combine the flattering nature of a dress (at least for women), with the practical side of pants. I also find the national costume looks just as good on men as it does on women. And, it looks very comfortable.

I would feel like a "poser" if I wore this dress, but I have often thought that the Pakistani shalwar qameeze combined "the best of both worlds."
[/quote]
I completely agree! Some people at my old parish are Pakistani, and I love their outfits. If I thought I could get away with wearing those, I would.

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1284772773' post='2174182']
Well here is what I have to say. The whole pants vs. dresses has nothing to do with modesty. I think people are missing the point. It is not intrinsically evil for a woman to wear pants or any sort of clothing. The sinfulness of a woman or man wearing immodest apparel would fall to the intention or circumstance (consequences in moral theology) of that person wearing that particular clothing in order for the decison or act to be immoral or sinful and it would have to be severly or substantially immodest in the intention or the effect of consequence to constitute a mortal sin. For example a woman makes a knowing choice (which is an intention) to wear severely immodest clothing in order to seduce a man to have sex with her..

Clothing expresses one's role in the Church and in society. Soldiers wear uniforms fitting for their role. Priest wears collars as an expression of their office. Nuns wear the dress and veil. The reason women should generally wear dresses is to express that substantially different role given in God's plan in creation as opposed to that of a man. The essence of the issue is that of one's own role. It has nothing to do with modesty. Certain dresses can be just as immodest as pants. And it isnt intrinsically evil for a woman to wear a pair of pants anyway. So it is all an expression of role, just like the wearing a veil in Church. Saint Paul wasnt ignorant or mistaken when he commanded that. He understood the substantial difference in roles between men and women. So I think woman should wear dresses in general with exceptions of course to express their feminity, and their God-given role in the Church and in the world, in the family, in society. Perhaps that is why Saint Pio would not hear those women's confessions. I doubt seriously doubt he had modesty in his mind. And this is why Mary I think still wears a dress when she appears on earth to modern men and women as an example of her role par exellance.
[/quote]
Hmm, interesting. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks, kafka.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1284744349' post='2174108']
Living in a pornographic culture shouldn't lower our standards. And culturally "Catholic" doesn't necessarily mean moral. All sorts of immorality goes on in countries historically and culturally "Catholic."

In her life on earth, Mary probably would have dressed more like women in Muslim countries than standard modern Western dress. It's highly doubtful the Blessed Virgin would publicly flaunt her body in a string bikini or such.

Practicing modesty in dress in behavior is an important virtue, but some people also get too obsessed or carried away with it.
[/quote]

I'm not in disagreement with what you've said here above.

Aside from the practical purpose of the burqa in dry, hot, climates (the body is protected from the sun and cooled with sweat by wearing loose clothing) - it has no real practical purpose in France or the U.K. but used for religious purposes - the burqa has the side effect of protecting women from intra-species competition as that pertains to natural selection.

Seductive clothing inherently encourages competition and objectification.

It's extremely difficult for married people or single lay persons that never take religious vows, to obtain sainthood, at least extraordinary "heroic" virtue when it comes to sex. I don't think I need to go into the mechanics of how the male's penis becomes erect. Suffice it to say for most males (of any animal species) that comes about through selfish motivations and some level of objectification of the other person. This is true of homosexuals too. As one might suspect, active homosexuals aren't trying to unselfishly create offspring.

The marital bed is not holy. It's Darwinian. Virginity is holy if pursued for virtue and sacrifice to God and Church. I want to point this out, because I picked up a book from the library over the summer. It was a compilation of Catholic essays. One essay in particular irked. Me Catholic woman in the United States complains [i]average[/i] married life is not recognized as saintly by the Catholic Church. That picking up your child's shoes thrown in the house, and have hot, grinding, sex should be regarded by the unenlightened hierarchy of the Church as saintly.

No, I call that just living as an average human.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' timestamp='1284749896' post='2174129']
Really?!! I've never come across that before - that's very interesting!! I can see how blues would have been the color for girls, since blues were popular for women during most of the 19th century, but pink for guys?! Wow. Guess it is true that you learn something every day!
[/quote]

Supposedly, Americans viewed pink as a fierce or firey color, so, it was regarded as a color for boys.

As a side bar, colors as you know, have symbolic meaning or associations, within the Catholic Church (and every major religion and all cultures on earth), and today the color blue is the standard color the Virgin Mary is usually depicted in. But it was not always so. In early Christian history the Virgin Mary was usually depicted in red. It's theorized that this had to do with lack of quality blue dyes in the Western world at the time. The best or richest blue hues came from some plant or dyes from India. Was it indigo? I don't remember.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1284772773' post='2174182']
Well here is what I have to say. The whole pants vs. dresses has nothing to do with modesty. I think people are missing the point. It is not intrinsically evil for a woman to wear pants or any sort of clothing. The sinfulness of a woman or man wearing immodest apparel would fall to the intention or circumstance (consequences in moral theology) of that person wearing that particular clothing in order for the decison or act to be immoral or sinful and it would have to be severly or substantially immodest in the intention or the effect of consequence to constitute a mortal sin. For example a woman makes a knowing choice (which is an intention) to wear severely immodest clothing in order to seduce a man to have sex with her..

Clothing expresses one's role in the Church and in society. Soldiers wear uniforms fitting for their role. Priest wears collars as an expression of their office. Nuns wear the dress and veil. The reason women should generally wear dresses is to express that substantially different role given in God's plan in creation as opposed to that of a man. The essence of the issue is that of one's own role. It has nothing to do with modesty. Certain dresses can be just as immodest as pants. And it isnt intrinsically evil for a woman to wear a pair of pants anyway. So it is all an expression of role, just like the wearing a veil in Church. Saint Paul wasnt ignorant or mistaken when he commanded that. He understood the substantial difference in roles between men and women. So I think woman should wear dresses in general with exceptions of course to express their feminity, and their God-given role in the Church and in the world, in the family, in society. Perhaps that is why Saint Pio would not hear those women's confessions. I doubt seriously doubt he had modesty in his mind. And this is why Mary I think still wears a dress when she appears on earth to modern men and women as an example of her role par exellance.
[/quote]

Informative post, kafka. Having listened in one of my undergraduate classes, philosophy majors and and philosophy graduates, argue minute points with jargon and excellent vocabulary, I have no desire to attempt a theology debate with you!

I cede your expertise in that area.

I will make disagreement with you on two points though: (1) The catechism of the Catholic Church speaks about modesty, and if I remember correctly, as that applies to dress attire too. (2) I'm not sure the robed garments Mary is depicted in qualifies as a modern interpretation of a "dress." Jesus is depicted in robes too. In fact when I was in the Middle east I saw plenty of Arab men wearing those loose pull over robes. As I recall, they were always white robes too (not sure why).

So, why not depict Mary in a pair of tight blue jeans or in a two piece bikini? I think our conscience knows why but we wish not to admit it, and it has nothing to do with symbolizing her role as [i]mother[/i]. Plenty of modern mothers wear tight jeans.

[kafka]

right Chi. I was focusing on one's clothing symbolizing the fundamental difference in roles between men and women. Modesty is important too but I think it is a different issue and doesnt solve the debate of men wearing pants and women wearing dresses.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284836791' post='2174303']

The marital bed is not holy. It's Darwinian. Virginity is holy if pursued for virtue and sacrifice to God and Church. I want to point this out, because I picked up a book from the library over the summer. It was a compilation of Catholic essays. One essay in particular irked. Me Catholic woman in the United States complains [i]average[/i] married life is not recognized as saintly by the Catholic Church. That picking up your child's shoes thrown in the house, and have hot, grinding, sex should be regarded by the unenlightened hierarchy of the Church as saintly.

No, I call that just living as an average human.
[/quote]


You're wrong.

The Church teaches that sex is holy.

The life of a married person demands heroic virtue and sacrifice. Picking up after children, discharging the marriage debt to one's spouse and performing all the other duties of married life is saintly.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[Sarah147]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1284839671' post='2174313']
You're wrong.

The Church teaches that sex is holy.

The life of a married person demands heroic virtue and sacrifice. Picking up after children, discharging the marriage debt to one's spouse and performing all the other duties of married life is saintly.
[/quote]


Amen!

[kafka]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284838793' post='2174309']
So, why not depict Mary in a pair of tight blue jeans or in a two piece bikini? I think our conscience knows why but we wish not to admit it, and it has nothing to do with symbolizing her role as [i]mother[/i]. Plenty of modern mothers wear tight jeans.
[/quote]
One thing too. You should be discreet when you speak about Mary. It is wrong to talk about her in reference to tight jeans and bikinis.

And I wasnt making a point about the way she is depicted. I was referring to when she appears on earth like Fatima, La Salette. She appears in a dress with a veil and this symbolizes her role not first as a woman, and as a mother. And this is an example to modern women.

Edited September 18, 2010 by kafka

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1284839671' post='2174313']
You're wrong.

The Church teaches that sex is holy.[/quote]

Does it? I might be incorrect on Church teaching on that then. It was my understanding that the Church (as it usually raises the bar high, like any good athletic program) gives a number of constants or variables that must be present for sexual intercourse achieve a holy nature.[mod]Mature content--ICP[/mod] According to the catechism the fetish of "domination and submission" in sexual role play, is conditional (a consequence and requires) of original sin.

And not to split hairs, but sex from a strict biological perspective is an amoral issue. Rape is neither right nor wrong from the biological perspective of hormones, reproduction, and natural selection.

[quote]
The life of a married person demands heroic virtue and sacrifice. Picking up after children, discharging the marriage debt to one's spouse and performing all the other duties of married life is saintly.
[/quote]

I would have to respectfully disagree. Some would like to overuse and devalue the term "saintly" like contemporary vernacular does to the English word "love."

All those things you mention are not saintly - no more than a brick layer fulfilling his job description per his or her vocational training - but merely expectations and some might say functions, of the vocation of marriage and or parental life. A prostitute can be married and pick up after her children. In fact a married prostitute and remain silent about known homicides and missing persons.

[Chi Zhuzi]

Evidencing my point, Lill:

Story: [url="http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/103106624.html"]My link[/url]

[quote]
[b]Wife denies Lock was her pimp [/b]

[b]Shalanda Lock testifies she was told to lie about spouse[/b]
By [email="jdiedrich@journalsentinel.com" ]John Diedrich[/email] of the Journal Sentinel

Sept. 16, 2010 |[url="http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/103106624.html?page=1"](52) Comments[/url]

The Preacher's Mob [url="http://www.jsonline.com/lock"][img]http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/lock180.jpg[/img][/url]

[url="http://www.jsonline.com/lock"][b]The Rise and Fall of a Milwaukee Crime Boss[/b][/url]

Go to our [url="http://www.jsonline.com/lock"][b]special section[/b][/url] to read the five-part series on Michael Lock, explore an interactive map and timeline, watch a mini-documentary, listen to audio interrogations and interviews, and more.

Michael Lock's wife clashed with a prosecutor Thursday, testifying that her husband didn't know she and other women working for him were prostitutes - and possibly exposing herself to perjury charges.

Shalanda Lock's testimony in Milwaukee County Circuit Court contradicted what she told Assistant District Attorney Kurt Benkley and investigators in March when she said her husband ran a prostitution ring across the Midwest over five years, according to a video recording of that meeting.

Shalanda Lock accused Benkley of telling her to lie in her testimony about her husband and suggested her attorney had improperly coached her on how to testify.

After Shalanda Lock testified, her attorney, Robert LeBell, was summoned to court. He withdrew from representing Shalanda Lock and she was appointed a new lawyer. Afterward, Benkley said he was unable to comment on Shalanda Lock's testimony.

The drama played out in the third day of testimony in the prostitution trial of Michael Lock, who ran a multifaceted criminal organization in Milwaukee for over a decade, according to his homicide, kidnapping, drug-dealing and mortgage fraud convictions.

Shalanda Lock repeatedly said on the witness stand that her husband did not know she and other women were selling sex. After each answer, Benkley played video where she had answered differently.

"Was there a ventriloquist in the room or was that you answering? Yes or no?" Benkley said.

She shot back, "You told me to say that. I talked to you on the phone and you told me to use certain words and I taped you."

Then she tried to ask Judge Jeffrey Conen a question. The judge ordered her to answer questions, not ask them.

No tape of Shalanda Lock talking to Benkley ever materialized.

Conen later recused himself from sentencing Shalanda Lock, saying doing so would remove any hint of impropriety in the case.

Known by the stage name of "Pleasure," Shalanda Lock admitted she worked as a stripper and prostitute from 1998 to 2003, traveling to clubs in rural Wisconsin and several other states, but said that Michael Lock - then her boyfriend - just thought she was a stripper. She said she took in more than $100,000 during that time.

Michael Lock's attorney, Russell Jones, has argued that his client was not a pimp but a strip club booking agent.

On friendly cross-examination by Jones, Shalanda Lock said she lied in her initial statement because she was scared about prison. Under the original charges, she faced life in prison. Under the plea bargain, she can get no more than 18 months.

"It was demanded otherwise I would do all this time," Shalanda Lock, 37, said, as she wiped away tears.

Milwaukee police officer Dean Newport later testified that he was present for each of Benkley's interviews with Shalanda and said she was never threatened or told to lie.

Shalanda Lock's mother, Cassandra Randle, testified that she confronted Michael Lock years ago and told him to stop prostituting her daughter.

"He told me to mind my own (expletive) business," she said. "He told me Shalanda was his - mind, body and soul."

Shalanda Lock's brother, Ed Hankins, testified that he saw how Michael Lock ran the prostitution operation. After being "groomed" by Michael Lock, Hankins said, he started pimping his own wife.

Earlier in the trial, three women testified that they worked as prostitutes under the direction of Michael Lock. The jury also heard Lock himself talking about selling sex in recorded jail calls.

This is Michael Lock's third trial. He was earlier convicted of selling drugs and kidnapping, torturing and sometimes killing rival dealers and burying them under concrete. Separately, he was convicted of mortgage fraud. He has been sentenced to life in prison. He is appealing those convictions.

For over a decade, Lock eluded authorities, acting at times as an informant as he continued to expand his illicit enterprises, which was documented in a 2009 Journal Sentinel series, [url="http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/45157997.html"]"The Preacher's Mob."[/url]

Lock told the judge late Thursday that he would not testify. Closing arguments are expected Friday morning with deliberations to follow.

[/quote]

Compound this with the fact approximately 50% of marriages in the United States end in divorce. Vocation in the Priesthood or the married life, does not de facto result in saintly actions or the saintliness of the person.

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1284843475' post='2174335']
One thing too. You should be discreet when you speak about Mary. It is wrong to talk about her in reference to tight jeans and bikinis.

And I wasnt making a point about the way she is depicted. I was referring to when she appears on earth like Fatima, La Salette. She appears in a dress with a veil and this symbolizes her role not first as a woman, and as a mother. And this is an example to modern women.
[/quote]

Ah, Okay. Cool. On both paragraphs.

[Lilllabettt]

You use a lot of graphic description in your posts. I feel that you have some twisted mental images in your head and that is coming out in your language. Just fyi, if that keeps up I'm going to have to put you on "ignore," because it is offensive and disturbing to me.

Sex is holy.

Pre-marital, pornographic, forcible sex etc. are wrong precisely because it mocks what is sacred.

From the Catechism:

[quote]
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152[/quote]


Men and women sanctified by the vocation of marriage:
St. Anne and St. Joachim, whose conjugal union gave us Our Lady
St. Peter, the first Pope
St. Timothy and his wife St. Maura
St. Perpetua and St. Felicity, early Christian martyrs
St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton
St. Margaret of Scotland
St. Thomas Moore
St. Monica
St. Isobel of Portugal
St. Louis, King of France
St. Elizabeth of Hungary
St. Natalia and her husband St. Adrian
St. Gianna Molla
Blesseds Louis and Zelie Martin
Blesseds Louis and Maria Quattrocchi.
Blessed Maria Corsini

additionally ... although Our Lady and St. Joseph abstained, still it was in their vocations to family life (e.g., picking up after Our Lord Jesus,) that they both grew in grace.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[Sternhauser]

Chi, as Lillabett indicates, tone it down. Way down.

~Sternhauser

[Cherie]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284859729' post='2174433']
Chi, as Lillabett indicates, tone it down. Way down.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I must agree. I certainly didn't mean for this thread to take a turn like that - I simply wanted to respectfully discuss Phatmasser's opinions on women wearing skirts vs. women wearing pants. It's something I've discussed and dealt with myself, and I would love to hear others' wisdom or opinions on the subject. I realize that a discussion on modesty would often follow or become intertwined, but I would hate for a thread that I started to degrade into something VERY far from its original purpose. I would hope that we can discuss our opinions on the subject of "pants vs. skirts for women" without people getting angry or taking things personally; we can always agree to disagree, and until recently it seemed like that was the case. But I definitely think this thread has started to take a turn for the worse.

If we can get a bit more back on topic, I'm sure everyone would greatly appreciate it!

Edited September 19, 2010 by CherieMadame