Modesty

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

If you feel uncomfortable and think you are sending the wrong message, it is time to change your clothes. Obviously certian codes need to be followed for Mass, but dont get bogged down in rules.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Your description of pants leads me to believe you don't know too much about womens fashion and different styles of pants, guys. lol

Would you say the pair of pants I am wearing in the picture below are immodest? They are not tight, but neither are they baggy. They DO make pants that have wider legs and do not cling to the bum and thighs like a vacuum sealed keilbasa. (While the pants I am wearing in the picture aren't the widest legged pants out there I think they do well enough to demonstrate my point.) Obviously, I believe that some women/girls push the line and try and get pants as small and tight as they possibly can which would be sinful for sure, but not all styles of pants fall under this category (nor do the women who wear them) and are most certainly modest.

[img]http://dreamsnatchers.com/coppermine-1.1.0/albums/userpics/normal_Baptism1.jpg[/img]

[jmjtina]

If you would look at some teachers in the elementary grades, and secondary grades, you will find many who wear pants which are modest and not baggy. I own many pairs. Pants is no more masculine than a T-shirt is. T-shirts are made differently just as pants are for men and women. I mean, don't ya'll shop?!?

And Katie, your outfit is cute! I like the shirt!

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Jun 29 2004, 11:53 AM'] Your description of pants leads me to believe you don't know too much about womens fashion and different styles of pants, guys. lol

Would you say the pair of pants I am wearing in the picture below are immodest? They are not tight, but neither are they baggy. They DO make pants that have wider legs and do not cling to the bum and thighs like a vacuum sealed keilbasa. (While the pants I am wearing in the picture aren't the widest legged pants out there I think they do well enough to demonstrate my point.) Obviously, I believe that some women/girls push the line and try and get pants as small and tight as they possibly can which would be sinful for sure, but not all styles of pants fall under this category (nor do the women who wear them) and are most certainly modest.

[img]http://dreamsnatchers.com/coppermine-1.1.0/albums/userpics/normal_Baptism1.jpg[/img] [/quote]
LOL. I was just goin' to say the same thing.

Great minds think alike.

Isn't it funny how we forget that men in Jesus time wore what we consider dresses. Hahaha.

Please, amarkich, can you point us to where God or His Church teach us what "mens clothes" are as apposed to "womens clothes".

Jesus also taught as about the SPIRIT of the law. And the spirit of this law is, men shouldn't make themselves appear as women, and vise versa. i.e. not necessarily in clothing, but the spirit of which indicates that one should readily be able to identify the gender of a male of female. It is for our own benefit, the benefit of society. So that, in the Spirit of the Law, we need not be burdened with "what should I wear", rather, that we should be conscious of how we appear in dignity toward others. For a male to appear as a female would be scandelous for another male who might be attracted to the "female". I don't think I need to list all the sins and confusion that this might foster.

Therefore, this passage in Scripture I don't believe is dealing specificly with modesty, but rather with dignity of one's identity.


And shorts?? C'mon, you're kidding right?

Modesty is a lot different then oppression.

Edited June 29, 2004 by Jake Huether

[jmjtina]

[quote]Isn't it funny how we forget that men in Jesus time wore what we consider dresses.  Hahaha. [/quote]

You beat me to that......good points jake.

[Dave]

Katie, when you say "guys," I hope you're not referring to me. I was the one who tried to make the point in the first place that pants for women don't have to be tight OR baggy and can yet be modest.

And amarkich, when I said pants are not pants, that wasn't a typo. My point was that all pants are not the same. In other words, you were essentially saying "pants are pants." And so I was telling you the opposite.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Dave' date='Jun 29 2004, 02:29 PM'] Katie, when you say "guys," I hope you're not referring to me. I was the one who tried to make the point in the first place that pants for women don't have to be tight OR baggy and can yet be modest.

And amarkich, when I said pants are not pants, that wasn't a typo. My point was that all pants are not the same. In other words, you were essentially saying "pants are pants." And so I was telling you the opposite. [/quote]
You're right Dave, I guess I momentarily forgot that you had brought up that point. My apologies.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Thanks Tina and Jake.

Edited June 29, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

Katie, I can't see the pic, it's too dark.


Let me tell ya something though, not once in my life have I ever been approached by anyone being mistaken for a man, and not once have I ever been approached and told that me that my clothing was immodest or 'manly'.

Most of it is completely how you present yourself.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I'm sorry, the pic is rather dark... it was taken in Church after Adrienne's Baptism and most of the lights were already off. lol I'll take another picture in the same pants in better lighting if I have to, but it won't be exactly the same. I weigh less than I did then (I was 3 months post-partum and now Adrienne is nearly a year old most of the baby-fat I had then is gone now) so they will very likely be a little looser. It was what I had on my computer and was easy to post without taking more pictures to demonstrate my point. lol

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

That's ok! I'm guessing that's Adrienne your holding, eh?

[amarkich]

Jake, you bring an interesting point concerning the Chuch's definition of men's clothing and women's clothing. Since the Church has never made a declaration on the matter, we must follow Tradition or be forced to conclude that there is [i]no[/i] discrepancy between men's clothing and women's clothing, and thus there is no such thing as crossdressing. Certainly anyone can see that this is nonsense, but we cannot claim that "since the Church has not specifically left a directive on this issue, it is not true", for then that would mean that I could wear lipstick, a dress, a wig, other make-up, and various other feminine clothing and claim that I am not crossdressing "because the Church hasn't said this is feminine clothing; ergo, it does not constitute crossdressing." I am sure anyone would agree that this is false, but they balk at saying that women wearing pants is crossdressing. The only reason this is true is that it is common place, and such a reasoning is tantamount to the Rationalists who discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible simply because it contains miraculous events even after its authenticity can be proved. With that being said, we see that women wearing pants originated with feminism which was, of course, an evil movement against a woman's role and essentially against the natural law as well as the authority of history and Tradition, among other things. By the way, you attend (or attended) Steubenville, correct? I by no means subscribe to New Oxford Review, but I was told there is a good article written against Scott Hahn. I read it, and it was quite convincing. I was wondering whether or not you have read it and your opinion on the matter. God bless.

Adam

[IcePrincessKRS]

(I don't think Jake ever attended FUS, he's from CA and an engineer....)

[amarkich]

Maybe I have confused him with someone else, but I thought that he was the one who posted his thesis paper about Saint Mary Magdalene on here. Thanks for the information. God bless.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I'm not sure, he may have written something like that but I am almost positive he never attended FUS. It may have been Laudate Dominum or Carson who posted the paper... Now I'm all curious and will have to see if I can find it. lol

Pfft... Ok, I can't search for too much longer, so far the only thing I found was a link provided by Good Friday to an article he wrote. [url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=23156"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=23156[/url]

Edited June 29, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS