Is It A Sin?

[mmmerf]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Jul 30 2004, 08:34 AM'] 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.
[/quote]
First, let me ease your worries. I have no desire to hit you in the head with a hammer. I mean, I've got nothing against hammers.

However, you miss my point. According to your philosophy of preference, there's absolutely nothing wrong with my desire to hit you in the head with a hammer.

You'd just [b]prefer[/b] I didn't, in the same way you might prefer coagulated milk on your hamburger, or to wear a tie one day and not the next. There would be nothing [b]objectively wrong[/b] with my hitting you in the head with a hammer. It all comes down to preference.

And then, what if [b]I preferred[/b] to hit you in the head with a hammer? Your preference versus mine! Whose preference should take precedence? I say mine, you say yours! If 'Natural Law does not judge', then natural law has nothing to say in the matter.

I have a feeling such a situation, if it ever came to pass, would leave quite an impression on you.

But if natural law speaks to this issue, then it speaks to [b]every[/b] issue. If there is an absolute morality, then [b]every[/b] act is a moral one.

And if there isn't an absolute morality, then you've got nothing to say when one day you go out and get hammered.

[mmmerf]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Jul 30 2004, 08:34 AM'] These are excerpts taken from a book I once read:
[/quote]
...and for next time, 'A book I once read' means nothing in a debate. I mean, many people could say 'Mein Kampf' is a book they once read, or the Communist Manifesto, or for that matter 'Slaughtering Orphans for Fun and Profit' or what have you. Doesn't mean a quote from it is gonna amount to a hill of beans. Lots of idiots get published. This is why we have biographies about Cher.

[Aloysius]

actually, according to many psychologist homosexuality is quite explainable. there are common threads that go through all people who have homosexual tendencies. there's always developemental problems, they don't befriend boys at a young age right, and then are attracted to boys because they never developed right at the point of polarization (where boys and girls kinda seperate and develope sepereate, because of this seperate developement they later become attracted to each other because of the differences). This attraction turns sexual when they reach puberty and all that. other common threads include some or all of the following: bad fatherly relationships, overbearing motherly relationships, sexual abuse, or bad body image.
FYI: the person who actually made the decision to take homosexuality off of the list of psychological disorders recently REVERSED his decision after actually looking into the process by which people are cured. 1/3 of people who seek treatment are able to reverse their attractions and have normal heterosexual attractions, 1/3 are able to come to peace with a chaste lifestyle despite homosexual attractions staying with them, and 1/3 end up without any sexual attractions to either sex and thus come to peace with a chaste lifestyle as well.

Homosexuality is a psychological disorder and it is a disservice to homosexuals that it was taken off the books, cause it makes it harder for them to get treatment for their problems.

homosexuality is unhealthy psychologically and physically.

[Sojourner]

On the whole women's vs. men's clothing issue ... JeffCR07, you've got some great points. I think the question is one of definition here, and it strikes me as being a good definition to say that women's clothing is that which is cut to fit women, while men's clothing is that which is cut to fit men.

This would rule out the whole question of men being forbidden to wear bras ... bras are not cut to fit a man's body. (Although I've seen some men that could use one, but that's beside the point).

Women's clothing is cut and fitted differently than men's clothing, and while some of it is admittedly immodest, I don't believe that women wearing pants would fall into that category. I'm wearing a pair of jeans today embroidered with butterflies and flowers ... I know of no straight man who'd be comfortable wearing them, even aside from the fact that the fit would be all wrong.

[p0lar_bear]

Also, for those arguing that women wearing pants is crossdressing...


What about cultures wherein women have worn pants as long or longer than men?

If an Inuit woman wears pants, is it crossdressing even though historically women have worn pants longer than men have in western culture? What if an Inuit woman lived next door to a woman who had moved to Alaska from, say, Nebraska...would the woman from Nebraska be cross-dressing by wearing pants while the Inuit woman isn't?

In China, women wore pants long before men did. Is it, then, crossdressing for a Chinese man to wear pants?

Or is Western/European culture the only important culture and all other cultures are to be measured by how they conform to it?

[amarkich]

Thank you for the warm welcome back, Jeff. By the way, I do not think you are closed-minded (I am speaking to you, not to Phatmass in general; in any event, I prefer the terms "objective" and "subjective" or at least "biased" rather than "opened-minded" and "closed-minded"). Thank you for the scholarly reply. I will do my best to reply effectively.

First of all, thedude, professional uniform pants seem to be more masculine than any other. This is one example of a style of pants which can be worn by both men and women and is not designed for either. It would seem that those who support pants as women's clothing would, by definition of men's clothing and women's clothing, object to this kind of generic clothing which is not cut for either of the two sexes specifically (correct me if I am wrong). Further, if women were required to wear pants for a job (and if wearing pants were deemed to be cross dressing), then the woman who wants the job would have to ask for a skirt option or simply not take the job. It is important to notice that uniform pants for women were non-existent until the feminist movement.


Does anyone believe that women wearing pants originated from anything other than the feminist movement and the sexual revolution? This should be enough to give one a reason not to support its cause. I will attempt to address the specific issues that Jeff proposes anyway.

As Jeff wishes, I will address his second point (not the definition) first. I will discuss the definition later in this post, though. As far as your point about women's and men's pants being designed for a different purpose and the difficulty with a man and a woman wearing the other sex's style of pants, I agree that all that you say is true (and, if your definition of women's clothing is accepted, that you have proven your side of the argument). It is true that women would be uncomfortable wearing men's pants and men would be uncomfortable wearing women's pants, but to what extent do you apply this? Does a woman who wears a generic style of pants commit the sin of cross dressing (which usually means, simply, masculine pants since they have no distinguishing features, which was essentially the definition of man's pants earlier)? Does a woman who wears a pants suit constitute as cross dressing? Does even Madonna commit the sin of cross dressing when she wears a man's suit and tie and a hat? How far do you consider the "Argument from Design" (I am sure you know the allusion) to extend concerning what women can wear without committing the sin of cross dressing?

Now, the more central dispute can be made. The definition seems to be the only issue here. I have defined men's clothing and women's clothing as the clothing which is acceptable and judged to be prudent by "history, tradition, and the unchanging standards of Catholic culture as it stood unmarred by the errors of feminism and the sexual revolution." I will do my best to present my issues with your definition. It would seem that clothing which is "cut and made in such a way as to be worn by a women" could be a definition of women's clothing, but it is incomplete at best. In Roman times, a toga praetexta (the purple-colored toga worn by senators and boys before the age of manhood) could certainly fit the female figure with comfortableness and ease. Just as certainly, the woman's stola and chiton could easily and comfortably be worn by a man with ease. The main distinguishing marks of masculinity and femininity came in other articles of clothing like jewelry, but still women would never wear a toga praetexta or a toga virilis (the toga of manhood), and a man would never wear a stola or a chiton. The reason for these facts is not that the articles of clothing could not fit the form of either sex but that prudence and moral judgment provided that these not be worn by one another. Any of the four above-mentioned garments had something of a generic design, a design which in no way favored one sex's body form over the other's. This seems to negate the principle that men's clothing and women's clothing is based solely, or even chiefly, on its purpose and design.

Polar Bear, European culture is not the standard; Catholic culture is. I was simply illustrating that European culture is usually the best reflection of Catholic culture. Notice that you mention a pagan culture and an atheistic culture. European culture is rich with theological, moral, and religious truths while the other cultures you mention have few or none of these truths.

I would like to conclude with a challenge (if I can call it that without sounding to Life Teen-ish) to those who do not believe that pants constitute as cross dressing for women. Remember that I completely would have agreed with you less than a year ago. I have actually changed my mind about this issue after studying it objectively without bias. This is something that is almost never seen within mainstream Catholicism today, especially when a belief is contrary to the world and to society. The fact is that most 'faithful' Catholics hold beliefs completely compatible with the average American (at least the average conservative American). This is quite interesting in a time of secularism, feminism, and Modernism. I would understand the connection completely in the 1950s or before, but with all kinds of liberalism contaminating American culture today, it baffles me that so many people fall right in line with typical modern American values. With that being said, I simply give the challenge that you all be objectively minded in your inquiry of this matter rather than simply trying to defend something you already believe. Seek truth rather than a defense for your current practice. Thank you. God bless.

P.S., Jeff, since you are one of the few people on this website that I feel comfortable talking to and since I use your first name anyway, I would be glad if you would refer to me simply as Adam (contrary to my previous desire for the average person and for the forum in general)

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 30 2004, 02:20 PM'] Also, for those arguing that women wearing pants is crossdressing...


What about cultures wherein women have worn pants as long or longer than men?

If an Inuit woman wears pants, is it crossdressing even though historically women have worn pants longer than men have in western culture? What if an Inuit woman lived next door to a woman who had moved to Alaska from, say, Nebraska...would the woman from Nebraska be cross-dressing by wearing pants while the Inuit woman isn't?

In China, women wore pants long before men did. Is it, then, crossdressing for a Chinese man to wear pants?

Or is Western/European culture the only important culture and all other cultures are to be measured by how they conform to it? [/quote]
Before this one arguement is repeated again and again, I'd just like to say that culture dictates what women and men wear. Catholicguy and Mr.Markich have clearly stated that. I don't think there is any point in saying, how about those places where women have worn pants longer than men. Anyone who reads what has been said by both saids will just ignore the rest of your post on the reasoning that you are repeating something that's been noted and responded to.

Jeffcr07, good definition, and it works out nicely. My only qualm with it is, if men's bras began to be manufactured, would it be right to wear them? Using your definition they would, but we know that a bra is a woman's article of clothing, but if it was cut for a man, would it be right? Just putting that out on the table.

God Bless,

Michael

[Sojourner]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Jul 30 2004, 02:15 PM'] Using your definition they would, but we know that a bra is a woman's article of clothing, but if it was cut for a man, would it be right? Just putting that out on the table. [/quote]
For some men, it would be very, very right ...

[mmmerf]

But it would be called the 'Manzier'... or possibly the 'Bro'.

Dave

[Sojourner]

I think that was a "Seinfeld" episode, wasn't it?

[Quietfire]

Oh, for crying out loud! All I'm hearing is a bunch of personal opinions.

The reason why the Church hasnt defined proper dress pertaining to women and men in fashion is because she has more sense than that. Other than deliberatly crossdressing with the intention to impersonate a member of the opposite sex, the Church leaves the decision of fashion to each individual person and culture.

The Church has common sense, pity it is so lacking here.

Pants are for men only...give me a break!

When I was growing up, we were lower middle class/POOR.
When my older brother outgrew his jeans, if he didnt destroy them first, I had to wear them. Of couse, I had to take them in to fit my body but I dare say I was NOT crossdressing, or violating any laws of the Church or Scripture.

When I outgrew those jeans, I took the waist back out and my younger brother had to wear them, if they even lasted that long. The only person who made out like a bandit was my older sister. She was a bit larger than all of us and therefore nobody could fit into her clothing.

Are you gonna accuse me of crossdressing? My younger brother still to this day gives me his old jeans so I can take the waist in and wear them. (yeah, we're cheap) So they're a bit baggier in the legs, but you couldnt accuse me of wearing skin tight jeans, nor could you accuse me of crossdressing. I definitely look like a woman wearing jeans. Besides, they look GOOD. Im not the best sewer in the world, but I do know how to make clothes look good on a budget without sacrificing modesty.

Now I realize that only pertains to jeans. I never wore any of my brothers good dress pants (if he had them)
I didnt get my first skirt until I was 13, and I had to pay for it myself.

If you think me dressing in a pair of dress pants made for a woman is crossdressing, then you have no idea how female pants fit. Good luck (as a man) trying to get into them.

Mens pants generally run lower on the waist (years of taking in and out jeans taught me this)
If I put on a pair of mens pants they will sit lower on my waist, below my belly button, but are not considered low riders for women. Those sit even lower. Still they would not be flattering on my figure unless I am built like a stick.
Womens pants hit right across the belly button, and for a man to wear these they would look ridiculous. Not to mention painful without some secret support there.

There is generally 10 inches between the difference of a waist to the hip measurement on womens slacks. If I purchase a pair of slacks with a 26" waist, they had better have a 36" + hip measurement, or Im gonna look like a stuffed sausage. The difference between waist and hip measurements on men's pants? NONE. So if I purchased a pair of mens jeans with a 26" waist, I'd never get them over my hips without a ginsu knife and duct tape.

Now, if this was the Church's biggest concern, dont you think she would have addressed this issue already?
Please stop interpreting Scripture to conform to your own personal opinions. If you simply prefer women in dresses and skirts, then you are more than welcome to support me financially so I can quit my job and walk around in them. Believe me, I would do it without arguement. Otherwise, they are simply that... Your opinions.

Good grief Charlie Brown!

As far as bras for men, guess what? They got em. They are made with the specific reason to hide the bulging of the tissue in the breast of men. It is a medical condition ( I know this cause I like to read medical books)
It is called Gynecomastia. These 'bras' are designed to hide the condition and specifically fit a mans body and therefore are not the same as bras made for women, which are for support.

And no. I dont consider that crossdressing. Usually they are worn until surgery can correct the problem. If surgery is not an option, then medication has to be perscribed. Again, men who wear these are only hiding their condition, not to enhance it.


Peace.

Edited July 30, 2004 by Quietfire

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jul 30 2004, 03:02 PM'] First of all, thedude, professional uniform pants seem to be more masculine than any other. This is one example of a style of pants which can be worn by both men and women and is not designed for either. It would seem that those who support pants as women's clothing would, by definition of men's clothing and women's clothing, object to this kind of generic clothing which is not cut for either of the two sexes specifically (correct me if I am wrong). Further, if women were required to wear pants for a job (and if wearing pants were deemed to be cross dressing), then the woman who wants the job would have to ask for a skirt option or simply not take the job. It is important to notice that uniform pants for women were non-existent until the feminist movement.
[/quote]
I have to disagree here, I'm not going to bother with the rest of your points, they are not directed at me, but I have worn uniform pants and your description is off the mark (you did ask for correction ). Sure, probably some uniform pants are pretty well universal, but MANY/MOST jobs which require uniforms still have distinct style differrences between the men's and women's uniforms, at the very least in the cut of the pants (at my job the shirts were universal, they were t-shirts, but the pants were very different). Even female military uniforms are cut differently (even the camo fatigues, as I recall, but most definately the formal dress uniforms).

If it came down to us starving or me taking a job that required me to wear man-ish pants I'd take the pants for the greater good of my family. In the work force this just isn't a black and white issue I'm afraid. (I have read many articles etc. and I still do not agree with your POV that wearing pants is sinful/crossdressing for women, since neither of us will convince the other I, as I said before, am not responding to the rest of your post.)

[catholicguy]

Did not log out, again...

Edited July 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[catholicguy]

Double post

Edited July 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[amarkich]

Quietfire, you begin by saying that all you have heard is personal opinions and then you relate your lifestory. Please do not take offense to that. It is a sad story; I agree, but that does not somehow substitute for truth. Further, just because this is not a major priority according to some people today (especially considering the rampant heresy, liturgical abuses, etc), that does not mean that it is somehow irrelevant. Unless you have a counter-argument to my argument or at least some argument which will further the discussion, please refrain from making sarcastic or demeaning comments that serve no purpose, e.g., The Church has common sense, pity it is so lacking here (both), Pants are for men only...give me a break! (the latter), Good grief Charlie Brown! (the former). Thank you. God bless.

Ice, thank you for the correction. I will recant on that point (concerning [i]most[/i], but not all occupations that have pants uniforms), but I still maintain my previous claim concerning the definition of men's clothing and women's clothing as well as the rest of my post. I thank you for your comments and ask that you would continue to contribute to the debate if you feel motivated. God bless.

MichaelFilo, thank you for that reminder to everyone. Further, your point about the bra was a valid one, and I thank you for that contribution. Although this was eventually made into a joke, the point is still relevant (as are those made in my post). I know that a response is forthcoming from Jeff, so I will wait until then. God bless.