Question For The Men...

[ContemporaryCaflicCrusader]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1308260518' post='2254788']
No offense, but I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If it's not, I will have a long reply coming stat....
[/quote]

No that wasn't sarcasm.

[Cherie]

The idea of women not wearing pantaloons for religious reasons comes from Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." While we, as Christians, are not bound to Old Testament law as such, I'm sure many Christians would agree that many of those practices still have merit today. Anyway, that's the verse that most skirt-wearers-for-religious-reasons quote. And that's not derogatory, either - I'm pretty much one of them.

There are also passages in Scripture which describe the thigh as "nakedness." Therefore, according to my ideal of modesty, the thigh should be covered. I think that's a good guideline to go by regarding bottoms, rather than inches, etc.

Anyway, I'm not a man so I guess this question doesn't really apply to me, huh? But I really do find it interesting to bring out passages in Scripture involving modesty; I think it's good for the discussion.


[b][b][url=""][/url][/b][/b]

[Cam42]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1308412348' post='2255579']
The idea of women not wearing pantaloons for religious reasons comes from Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." While we, as Christians, are not bound to Old Testament law as such, I'm sure many Christians would agree that many of those practices still have merit today. Anyway, that's the verse that most skirt-wearers-for-religious-reasons quote. And that's not derogatory, either - I'm pretty much one of them.

There are also passages in Scripture which describe the thigh as "nakedness." Therefore, according to my ideal of modesty, the thigh should be covered. I think that's a good guideline to go by regarding bottoms, rather than inches, etc.

Anyway, I'm not a man so I guess this question doesn't really apply to me, huh? But I really do find it interesting to bring out passages in Scripture involving modesty; I think it's good for the discussion.



[/quote]

That is a pretty narrow view. We should embrace women in pantaloons. How else are we going to love nuns?

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='ContemporaryCaflicCrusader' timestamp='1308408860' post='2255563']
No that wasn't sarcasm.
[/quote]

The truncated version of my reply is: something is wrong when 1) you think women need to wear "as much clothing as possible" to avoid sin; and 2) you need to purge your passions. Passions are a good thing. Letting them get out of hand is something that all people have to struggle against, not just guys. "As much clothing as possible" is a burka (pictures of burkas here if you want to see one http://secondcitystyle.typepad.com/second_city_style/2009/06/france-may-be-planning-burka-ban-fashion-world-has-mixed-feelings-.html)

My point is that something is wrong with a society that thinks that the way to purge its passions is for women to wear as much clothing as possible. Something is wrong with Muslim societies that prohibit women from showing their beauty in public for fear that some guy will lust after her. Muslim men have been conditioned to be pig-headed BECAUSE of that outlook, in my opinion. We as Christians can avoid that if we can look at a woman, recognize that she is beautiful and attractive, and say, "Wow, thank you God for making such beauty. I know she will be a gift for whichever man she will marry." Muslim men (sorry to be using the same example; it's the most accurate one, though) can't look at a woman and recognize that she is beautiful and will be a gift for her husband. That's a problem. It's suppressive to women to impose a burka just because some guys are too narrow-minded to appreciate her for all she is.

Women should be allowed to dress beautifully and attractively and guys should be able to appreciate her as something beautiful and attractive, not a carcass of sin that needs to be wrapped up in sheets to prevent him from getting aroused.

That view just puts men and women into such small boxes. We weren't made for that kind of bondage.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Totus Tuus

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308412477' post='2255581']
That is a pretty narrow view. We should embrace women in pantaloons. How else are we going to love nuns?
[/quote]

The reason I don't think her view is narrow is because she recognizes that it's a matter of personal preference for her. She doesn't condemn those of us who disagree with adopting those guidelines for ourselves.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1308421620' post='2255624']
The reason I don't think her view is narrow is because she recognizes that it's a matter of personal preference for her. She doesn't condemn those of us who disagree with adopting those guidelines for ourselves.
[/quote]
He's trolling. Don't feed into it.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1308412348' post='2255579']
The idea of women not wearing pantaloons for religious reasons comes from Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." While we, as Christians, are not bound to Old Testament law as such, I'm sure many Christians would agree that many of those practices still have merit today. Anyway, that's the verse that most skirt-wearers-for-religious-reasons quote. And that's not derogatory, either - I'm pretty much one of them.

There are also passages in Scripture which describe the thigh as "nakedness." Therefore, according to my ideal of modesty, the thigh should be covered. I think that's a good guideline to go by regarding bottoms, rather than inches, etc.

Anyway, I'm not a man so I guess this question doesn't really apply to me, huh? But I really do find it interesting to bring out passages in Scripture involving modesty; I think it's good for the discussion.


[b][b][url=""][/url][/b][/b]
[/quote]


I would just like to point out that in biblical times, no one wore pantaloons. And in the 16th century men wore tights.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1308422847' post='2255633']
I would just like to point out that in biblical times, no one wore pantaloons. And in the 16th century men wore tights.
[/quote]
sexy.....

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1308005605' post='2253356']
I personally feel that the, "I should wear shirts that are two fingers below the collar bone, such and such should only show up to 3 inches when I bend over, shorts should pass my fingertips.... on and on" approaches to modesty are dangerous. I'm not a guy, but I feel that imposing those guidelines on ourselves 1) does not acknowledge the fact that all men are different (what is tempting to one may not be to another. Some men are turned on by women in Burkas.), and 2) does not acknowledge that all women are different (what is modest on me might not be modest on someone with a different body type.

I know we can exhaust the modesty issue to death, and that's not what I'm trying to do. What I am trying to contribute is that speaking of modesty in a "how much/little can/should be covered" type of way leaves out a whole plethora of other things that should be taken into consideration and flirts both with scruples and skankiness at the same time, depending on which way you utilize the "rules" that people (*cough*certainmodestybookauthors*cough*) have put forth.
[/quote]


[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1308006533' post='2253364']

like times a thousand!

Someone once told me that modesty isn't a line drawn on your body, it's a line drawn on your heart. I think this speaks volumes because like you said, body types are different. Modesty isn't about "what can't I show?" it's about "what should I hold onto with dignity for myself and others?" That being said, while us girls do need to focus on dressing modestly to 1)show them love and 2)prevent them from sinning, I also think the men out there need to train themselves more. I'm sick and tired of the "well she's baring all so I can stare, I'm a dude" excuse.
[/quote]
Really like these.

Now, I'll say that I notice I move, feel, and probably act a bit different when I wear a skirt instead of trousers. No, I don't wear skirts all the time, but I'm trying to wear them more often. I think I need some bloomers, though, because my legs get cold and tights annoy me at times. There are times, though, when I find a skirt impractical (if I were still a field archaeologist, field work would be a bit more difficult in a skirt, to give a more extreme example), though.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1308423039' post='2255636']
Really like these.

[b]Now, I'll say that I notice I move, feel, and probably act a bit different when I wear a skirt instead of trousers. No, I don't wear skirts all the time, but I'm trying to wear them more often.[/b] I think I need some bloomers, though, because my legs get cold and tights annoy me at times. There are times, though, when I find a skirt impractical (if I were still a field archaeologist, field work would be a bit more difficult in a skirt, to give a more extreme example), though.
[/quote]

I've found this to be the same for me, as well. But it's difficult nowadays to find cute, comfy skirts. I have two that I absolutely love, though.

[Socrates]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1308412348' post='2255579']
The idea of women not wearing pantaloons for religious reasons comes from Deuteronomy 22:5: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." While we, as Christians, are not bound to Old Testament law as such, I'm sure many Christians would agree that many of those practices still have merit today. Anyway, that's the verse that most skirt-wearers-for-religious-reasons quote. And that's not derogatory, either - I'm pretty much one of them.

There are also passages in Scripture which describe the thigh as "nakedness." Therefore, according to my ideal of modesty, the thigh should be covered. I think that's a good guideline to go by regarding bottoms, rather than inches, etc.

Anyway, I'm not a man so I guess this question doesn't really apply to me, huh? But I really do find it interesting to bring out passages in Scripture involving modesty; I think it's good for the discussion.


[b][b][url=""][/url][/b][/b]
[/quote]
Yeah, I thought the whole Trad anti-pantaloons argument has less to do with modesty per se, and more about the idea of pantaloons being intrinsically masculine clothing, and thus improper for a woman.

I'm not so die-hard with this as some, and think there can be feminine pantaloons, and nothing wrong with wearing them, especially in certain circumstances for which skirts would be impractical, but think women should wear skirts and dresses when appropriate, as they are more feminine and womanly.

And generally, I find skirts and dresses more attractive and "sexier" than pantaloons on most women. I don't think pantaloons are a modesty issue or source of temptation unless they are excessively tight.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1308422077' post='2255628']
He's trolling. Don't feed into it.
[/quote]

Thanks.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1308422077' post='2255628']
He's trolling. Don't feed into it.
[/quote]


So, you don't like my new persona? Interesting. Ya know...I was doing exactly what was asked of me. I was being accomodating. I was being open. I was inclusive of all people in a way that accepted every position and I was using the terminology of the mainstream Church.

Was it a game? Kinda. But not really.

See, here's the deal, straight up with ABSOLUTELY NO BS (I'm not talking about a degree).

I took an extended break from phatmass.com. I did it for a couple of reasons.

1. I moved from Detroit back to Iowa. In settling into a new life, I became very busy. I was connecting with people I hadn't seen in years, I had a new job, and I was living in a new place.

2. I was too involved here. It really had become an addiction for me. That is never a good thing, so I had to step away.

When I decided to come back, I picked a time that I thought was a good one. But, as it turned out I came back directly after an extended tussle (trying to be nice) with what you deem to be "wackness manifestedters." Because I made the move to traditionalism full time shortly before I came back, I was zealous about the Traditional Latin Mass being a full time venture for me with regard to my spirituality. I'm sure that no one here has ever been excited about a new found full time spirituality. Sure, I had been sympathetic to it for a very long time, as many of you know, but I had never really assisted at the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively until January of 2011.

Because I was zealous about it, I was ready to support it and talk about it. The timing however was terrible, because why? Well, because some phatmassers had just been in a very raw fight with some other phatmassers about this very issue. That being the case, I was scapegoated (yes, that is the correct term) because emotions were close to the top, so no matter what I would have said regarding tradition and Tradition would have come under the same fire. And it did.

Most of you who are old timers here know that I am a little stubborn. Those of you who are new since my hiatus, really know that I am stubborn. It isn't something that I am proud of, but it is something that is part of me. So, once I came under attack (yes, that is the correct term too), I became defensive. Can you blame me? I would hope not, because many of you became very defensive toward me too...so I suspect you can understand.

The thing that hurt me most is that regardless of what happened here while I was gone, I was not given the benefit of the doubt. NOBODY (not one MOD, not dUSt, not one ADMIN) pm'd me to discuss things...the only people who approached me, the wackness manifestedters. So, where was I to go? You answer that. It is obvious. Being a human person, I am going to gravitate toward those who are willing to support me and accept me unconditionally...the wackness manifestedters did that....the phamily (as it has always been called) DID NOT!!! I thought I would have been given a little more respect, but once it was clear that I wasn't going to get any, why should have I returned that bit of charity? I'm only human and I do have feelings, regardless of whether or not I show them or admit them.

So the fight began...and I wasn't going to give up. Mainly because I hadn't said or done anything wrong. I still stand by EVERY SINGLE word that I've said here. I challenge any of you to show me where I have been wrong in any position I've taken here. You won't be able to do it. I'm not being arrogant, I'm being truthful.

If I have offended anyone, I apologize. But that apology comes with one stipulation...in order for it to be given, those who have offended me must offer an apology too. The street runs both ways. And the charity can exist with both parties expecting an apology. That is fair. I take full responsibility for my actions. I was hurt by phatmass. I was hurt by members of phatmass.

Phatmass is not perfect and at times phatmass can be VERY, VERY uncharitable. So can I. I have been. The new persona is an example of this, but I think that it served it's purpose...nobody wants to see me being all sappy and lovey...and the Church doesn't want that from the mainstream Church either....there is more to the Church than just love. There is justice. Part of justice is knowing when there is culpability....I just took responsibility for mine. I hope that the members of phatmass who played a part in this will do the same.

This reminds me of a quote from Superman: The Movie...

[quote]Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and your power are needed. Always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son.

[/quote]

Phatmass can be that light...but not until the members understand that it takes everyone to be Kal-El.....not just a few.

I came to this revelation after a long phone conversation with jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff). It was the first time we have talked in about 3 years. I'm willing to make it right...are you?

[4588686]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308441603' post='2255756']
So, you don't like my new persona? Interesting. Ya know...I was doing exactly what was asked of me. I was being accomodating. I was being open. I was inclusive of all people in a way that accepted every position and I was using the terminology of the mainstream Church.

Was it a game? Kinda. But not really.

See, here's the deal, straight up with ABSOLUTELY NO BS (I'm not talking about a degree).

I took an extended break from phatmass.com. I did it for a couple of reasons.

1. I moved from Detroit back to Iowa. In settling into a new life, I became very busy. I was connecting with people I hadn't seen in years, I had a new job, and I was living in a new place.

2. I was too involved here. It really had become an addiction for me. That is never a good thing, so I had to step away.

When I decided to come back, I picked a time that I thought was a good one. But, as it turned out I came back directly after an extended tussle (trying to be nice) with what you deem to be "wackness manifestedters." Because I made the move to traditionalism full time shortly before I came back, I was zealous about the Traditional Latin Mass being a full time venture for me with regard to my spirituality. I'm sure that no one here has ever been excited about a new found full time spirituality. Sure, I had been sympathetic to it for a very long time, as many of you know, but I had never really assisted at the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively until January of 2011.

Because I was zealous about it, I was ready to support it and talk about it. The timing however was terrible, because why? Well, because some phatmassers had just been in a very raw fight with some other phatmassers about this very issue. That being the case, I was scapegoated (yes, that is the correct term) because emotions were close to the top, so no matter what I would have said regarding tradition and Tradition would have come under the same fire. And it did.

Most of you who are old timers here know that I am a little stubborn. Those of you who are new since my hiatus, really know that I am stubborn. It isn't something that I am proud of, but it is something that is part of me. So, once I came under attack (yes, that is the correct term too), I became defensive. Can you blame me? I would hope not, because many of you became very defensive toward me too...so I suspect you can understand.

The thing that hurt me most is that regardless of what happened here while I was gone, I was not given the benefit of the doubt. NOBODY (not one MOD, not dUSt, not one ADMIN) pm'd me to discuss things...the only people who approached me, the wackness manifestedters. So, where was I to go? You answer that. It is obvious. Being a human person, I am going to gravitate toward those who are willing to support me and accept me unconditionally...the wackness manifestedters did that....the phamily (as it has always been called) DID NOT!!! I thought I would have been given a little more respect, but once it was clear that I wasn't going to get any, why should have I returned that bit of charity? I'm only human and I do have feelings, regardless of whether or not I show them or admit them.

So the fight began...and I wasn't going to give up. Mainly because I hadn't said or done anything wrong. I still stand by EVERY SINGLE word that I've said here. I challenge any of you to show me where I have been wrong in any position I've taken here. You won't be able to do it. I'm not being arrogant, I'm being truthful.

If I have offended anyone, I apologize. But that apology comes with one stipulation...in order for it to be given, those who have offended me must offer an apology too. The street runs both ways. And the charity can exist with both parties expecting an apology. That is fair. I take full responsibility for my actions. I was hurt by phatmass. I was hurt by members of phatmass.

Phatmass is not perfect and at times phatmass can be VERY, VERY uncharitable. So can I. I have been. The new persona is an example of this, but I think that it served it's purpose...nobody wants to see me being all sappy and lovey...and the Church doesn't want that from the mainstream Church either....there is more to the Church than just love. There is justice. Part of justice is knowing when there is culpability....I just took responsibility for mine. I hope that the members of phatmass who played a part in this will do the same.

This reminds me of a quote from Superman: The Movie...



Phatmass can be that light...but not until the members understand that it takes everyone to be Kal-El.....not just a few.

I came to this revelation after a long phone conversation with jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff). It was the first time we have talked in about 3 years. I'm willing to make it right...are you?
[/quote]


Nvm.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Hasan

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308441603' post='2255756']
I challenge any of you to show me where I have been wrong in any position I've taken here. You won't be able to do it. I'm not being arrogant, I'm being truthful.

If I have offended anyone, I apologize. [b]But that apology comes with one stipulation...in order for it to be given, those who have offended me must offer an apology too[/b]. The street runs both ways. And the charity can exist with both parties expecting an apology. That is fair. I take full responsibility for my actions.
[/quote]


Dear Cam,

I LOVE you. In fact, I just graduated with a degree in music (concentration in Sacred Music) because I really admire the posts you used make in that regard. But I have to say, I think you are wrong here. Relationships ARE a two way street, yes. Apologies.. not so much. A true apology is unconditional. Sometimes we get them. Sometimes ...we don't. And yeah, it's not fair. Life rarely is. But holding a grudge has never made any situation better. The best example I can of is that Jesus didn't say "I'm only getting on that cross if they apologize" and Jesus didn't even do anything wrong. Granted, we can only get to heaven in we repent, but He still leaves the door open for us. And it's unconditional.

It does seem like there was a great series of unfortunate events, perhaps involving over reaction. Personally, I avoided phatmass during that time because those events involved a lot of people I considered friends. Throw an ex in there and it makes it super awkward. But I don't think that throwing your hurt in others' faces is doing any good. It may be just making you look foolish.

Anyway, Just my $0.02.

With Love,
Cat