Is It A Sin?

[Aloysius]

i do question whether or not it's alright to do it 'just for laughs'...

i know for a play it'd be alright, i'm not sure about just for laughs though. probably should avoid doing it just for laughs just because there's really no reason and if it MIGHT be a sin we should leave it alone.

[amarkich]

I agree with the stance that pants are crossdressing for women, and I have made points on previous threads about this subject and have already realized that further discussion is futile. In any event, I would just like to add that any comment which is made against the argument that pants are men's clothing must be made against all Western cultures collectively (possibly all cultures--I do not know enough about other cultures to say) because that is what they all believed until the 20th century, so Smerf, I mean, Merf, maybe you should recant on your brick wall comment which was not only uncharitable but also closed-minded (to use a phrase from someone of your leanings).

Edited July 29, 2004 by amarkich

[Oik]

Dear Cmom, your awesome.

[quote]Many men find skirts--even modest long skirts, not just skimpy imodest ones--far more lusty than pants. I have read things from priests who comment on this and say that often pants are much more modest than dresses or skirts.[/quote]

On this point, I think there is osme validity to it. The real question is why?
My thoughts(read: unresearched):
1) Men might has disordered desire directed at properly ordered attractions.
i.e. Since our culture has bombarded us with sex, we find modesty more attractive BECAUSE we are oversexed.
OR
2) Women look why more attractive/ men are more attracted to the modest woman

Extra thought, Moslem women are attarctive to me because I am attracted to thier CHOICE to dress from head to toe (read: it's the choice that attracts me).

Also, I have noticed that since I have (thank God) put a vice grip on my previously rampant sexuality, things that once bothered me have less and less power over me.

:ph34r:

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jul 29 2004, 07:50 PM'] I agree with the stance that pants are crossdressing for women, and I have made points on previous threads about this subject and have already realized that further discussion is futile. In any event, I would just like to add that any comment which is made against the argument that pants are men's clothing must be made against all Western cultures collectively (possibly all cultures--I do not know enough about other cultures to say) because that is what they all believed until the 20th century, so Smerf, I mean, Merf, maybe you should recant on your brick wall comment which was not only uncharitable but also closed-minded (to use a phrase from someone of your leanings). [/quote]
On what basis you you find pants to be cross-dressing?
Where in the bible or anywhere else are women to forbidden to wear pants?
Where does it state categorically that pants are mens clothing?
If you look at the example I posted from medieval times men were wearing [u]dresses and tights[/u].!!!
In bible times everybody wore LONG FLOWING DRESSY outfits, so when did PANTS get to belong to men?

[Azriel]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 29 2004, 06:58 PM'] On what basis you you find pants to be cross-dressing?
Where in the bible or anywhere else are women to forbidden to wear pants?
Where does it state categorically that pants are mens clothing?
If you look at the example I posted from medieval times men were wearing [u]dresses and tights[/u].!!!
In bible times everybody wore LONG FLOWING DRESSY outfits, so when did PANTS get to belong to men? [/quote]
Rock on Cmom!

[catholicguy]

mistake

Edited July 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[amarkich]

Just to clarify, this post is from amarkich, not catholicguy. Catholicguy did not log out. Here is the post:

As I said earlier, this is a futile discussion because it turns into Phatmass vs. me (or me and one or two other people) and it is impossible to present an argument. I do not have the time to spend right now on message boards, especially discussing topics like this which are overly exhausting for people who are of the minority (at least as far as modern culture is concerned--we are actually on the overwhelming majority of history and all cultures, at least Western, before the [i]sexual and feminist revolutions[/i]). In any event, I will go through these few questions to illustrate the false pretenses. I will not continue any debate because of the reasons I have already given. Here are my responses to your questions which will illustrate the erroneous pretenses:

[quote]On what basis you you (sic) find pants to be cross-dressing?[/quote]
I find them to be cross dressing on the basis of history, tradition, and the unchanging standards of Catholic (European and all Western cultures in general) culture as it stood unmarred by the errors of feminism and the sexual revolution.

[quote]Where in the bible or anywhere else are women to (sic) forbidden to wear pants? [/quote]
Again, this is a ridiculous question since pants were not worn by anyone at that time. "Where in the Bible or anywhere else are men forbidden to wear bras?"

[quote]Where does it state categorically that pants are mens (sic) clothing? [/quote]
The above answer follows for this question. "Where does it state categorically that bras are women's clothing?"

[quote]If you look at the example I posted from medieval times men were wearing dresses and tights.!!! (sic)[/quote]
The outfit I saw in the above thread from a medieval man's attire is in no way feminine and was not worn by any woman in that time or before that time. The clothing illustrated in your above posts are true examples of masculine attire. Tradition and Catholic culture dictate as much; you are falsely asserting that pants are the [i]only [/i]acceptable men's clothing simply because they are men's clothing. If you look through fashions throughout history, men's and women's clothing never mixed or became subjective or irrelevant. The clothing of men was only worn by men and the clothing of women was only worn by women. As it was stated earlier, a cassock is man's clothing. A Victorian dress is woman's clothing. The fact that both of these outfits are one-piece articles of clothing does not somehow mean that they are women's clothing. This is faulty logic, as I stated.

[quote]In bible times everybody wore LONG FLOWING DRESSY outfits, so when did PANTS get to belong to (sic) men?[/quote]
Again, you are asserting an almost legalistic outlook here. You say that "Unless it is written in the letter of the law, it is not valid." This is no different from the Protestants saying "Unless it is written in the Bible, it is not valid." You completely disregard tradition and prudence of Catholic culture. You also make the false assertion that because something is a one-piece outfit, it is automatically feminine. Your entire argument hinges on this misconception. Pants became men's attire when they were invented. They were worn by men and men alone from the onset of their invention and were not worn by women until the feminist revolution and the sexual revolution. The reason that women began to wear pants was to assert their "equality" with men and their homogenous connection to men, that, essentially, men and women are [i]no different in nature [/i]and that there is no [i]such thing as men's clothing and women's clothing[/i], but only 'clothing'. This position seems to be held by most, if not all, who support pants on women.

Edited July 30, 2004 by amarkich

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Just a thought...
What about the fact that pants for women are different than pants for men?

and...

amarkich and catholicguy,
Are ya'lls borthers?

[catholicguy]

Thedude, yes, we are brothers.

Edited July 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[amarkich]

Thedude, how are they different? The differences either cause women's pants to be immodest or are so small as to only denote a difference in fashion and not in the actual kind of clothing; this is really true of pants altogether, including those which are immodest.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jul 29 2004, 11:17 PM'] Thedude, how are they different? The differences either cause women's pants to be immodest or are so small as to only denote a difference in fashion and not in the actual kind of clothing; this is really true of pants altogether, including those which are immodest. [/quote]
That was a rather ignornat statement....

They are different because of the cut. While some styles of women's jeans, for example the low-riders, are immodestly cut. However, jeans with a normal waistline (or even those which sit slightly below the waist) are cut differently than mens jeans to accomodate the curves women have but men don't. Mens jeans are generally straight cut, i.e. it is a straight line from the waist to the cuff all the way around. Women's jeans are smaller at the waist then get larger to accomodate the hips, etc. Generally they will then narrow.

Ask one of the women here how different it feels to wear men's jeans rather than women's. There is a significant difference.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would also like to comment on this line of debate, because I think it is very relevant and speaks to the heart of the issue:

Before I get into it, however, Mr. Markich, it's good to see you again, welcome back!

Now, I will absolutely agree with you that the Church's position is unchanging and that crossdressing is, and has always been, condemned, regardless of the age one is in.

However, the Church has never come out with a defined list of what types of clothes are/are not acceptable. This is because (I think) that in her wisdom, the Church recognises that fashion - even modest fashion- changes with the times. Thus, a modestly dressed person of 2004 will look different from a modestly dressed person of 1850, who will in turn look different from a modestly dressed person of 1200 or even 500.

Also, Mr. Markich, I agree with you that the outfit from the middle ages is distinctly masculine, people of our age simply have a hard time recognising the fact because we are not used to it.

So, how then, without a positive rule of what is defined as men's vs. women's can we determine what constitutes crossdressing?

It seems to me that, as some people have hinted already, the truth lies in how the clothes are made.

My first instinct is to say that women's clothes are defined as those clothes that can be worn by women. However, I immediately discarded this definition be virtue of the fact that we are having this discussion. If crossdressing is defined as a man wearing women's clothing, then women's clothing must at least be [i]capable[/i] of being worn by a man.

So a better definition is this: Women's clothing can be defined as all clothes which are cut and made in such a way as to be worn by a women - that is, women's clothing is cut to fit the female figure.

Going any further that this would be to commit the logical fallicy of complexity (making things more complicated than they have to be) so we will stick with this for the remainder of my argument (if you wish to switch definitions, I will be glad to talk about it, though I think it more prudent for you to argue my next point).

Now, with regards to pants. Even the most cursory glance at a pair of women's pants side by side with men's pants shows that the two are not nearly identical, and each is made with an individual figure in mind. Women's pants tend to flare out at the hips and get smaller at the waist, while men's pants are widest at the waist and do not change at all in the hips. I would have a hard time fitting into a pair of women's pants, and a girl would most certainly not be comfortable in a pair of men's pants (what with having to constantly pull them up and all).

Thus the only logical conclusion is that, seeing as women's pants are made specifically to fit the female frame, they constitute as women's clothing, which, having been given, necessitates that it is not crossdressing.

Also, just to comment on the following quote:

[quote]The reason that women began to wear pants was to assert their "equality" with men and their homogenous connection to men, that, essentially, men and women are no different in nature and that there is no such thing as men's clothing and women's clothing, but only 'clothing'. This position seems to be held by most, if not all, who support pants on women.[/quote]

1.) you have not given any data substantiating this claim, nor is it the logical extension of any presuppositions we have made, and, as such, is invalid and should not be used in this discussion.

2.) even if the entirety of your claim were agreed to (which it is most certainly not) it would not change a single one of the objective facts/conclusions in my above proposition, and so, would not change the objective reality that, whatever the motive, women's pants are still just that, [i]women's pants[/i] and thus, [i]women's clothing[/i].

Hey, Mr. Markich, I just want you to know that I know you feel ganged up on, and that we are closed minded and stuff, but I really do enjoy having these conversations with you, because you're always intellectual in the manner in which they proceed. I respect your willingness to stand up for what you think is right, and so I would beseech you not to let the discussion die, but please respond, I think the dialogue could be a good one.

- Your Friend, and Brother In Christ, Jeff

[carrdero]

mmmerf writes-Your philosophy of 'preference' means that the only reason I shouldn't take a hammer to your head is because you'd prefer I didn't. Don't you think we need more reason than that?

I admire your techniques for aquiring further knowledge but just keep in mind this is a charitable debate not a wishful one. In response to the hammer in the head thing I would hope that you didn't prefer to put a hammer to my head in the first place and if you did prefer to put a hammer to my head I would hope that you would have enough respect to ask me if I wanted (preferred) a hammer to my head. Though if you did prefer to put a hammer to my head it would probably be unreasonable (if not unrealistic) to try to talk you out of it. As for more reason why homosexuals would want to be homosexual I feel you are entitled. Actually there are many reasons why somebody would prefer to be homosexual.

These are excerpts taken from a book I once read:
"It could BE simple loneliness. It could BE confusion on the part of individuals to express themselves sexually. One man may feel it is convenient and comfortable to share his feelings and sexual intimacy exclusively with other men. It can BE the fact that, in one or many previous lives as a woman, someone may come back as a man but still retain the preference of sharing with another man. The damaging or disappointing effects of a heterosexual relationship can bring on homosexuality in this lifetime. These are not MY reasons; they are just some of the reasons I have observed throughout your history."

Though I think the best source for why somebody would choose (prefer) to be homosexual is to ask or research the reasons why homosexuals feel to live that particular lifestyle.

Edited July 30, 2004 by carrdero

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Another thought...
What about professional uniform pants?

[God Conquers]

[quote]It can BE the fact that, in one or many previous lives as a woman, someone may come back as a man but still retain the preference of sharing with another man.[/quote]

I gotta tell you.... this statement REALLY hurts your argument.