Is It A Sin?

[catholicguy]

Just to add, it seems to me that if one admits that women wearing pants originated from the feminist and sexual revolutions (regardless of the intention of the current women), and if my definition is accepted, then the debate is essentially over, so I presume that the argument forthcoming will focus primarily or exclusively on the definition of men's clothing and women's clothing.

[Quietfire]

Theres nothing sad about my story. So no need to feel sorry for me. And it isnt my 'life story' but a simple point that just because I wear pants doesnt mean Im crossdressing.

As far as the rest.

Its still your personal opinion compared to mine.

Find me Church teaching to prove your point or, as you say, the topic is closed.

I still hold to my view that common sense still lacks on this subject.

Peace.

Edited July 30, 2004 by Quietfire

[amarkich]

I apologize for the statement above Quietfire's last response. That also should be from me, not catholicguy.

Quietfire, truth is not a matter of opinion. Either pants for women are crossdressing or they are not. Since the Church has not given us a direct teaching on this matter, we must use logic and exercize prudence in discerning whether or not this is the case. Considering the source of this practice, we should be skeptical of its foundations and its validity. In any event, since the Church has not given a direct teaching on this matter, we must use logic to discern whether or not the practice is acceptable. This is similar to what most people do concerning the issue of modesty (even though the Pope has already given directives which I have posted on this website before). In any event, in the past it would have been well enough to go to our Pastors for the final say on the matter but with the current crisis in the Church this would be neither wise nor prudent, so we must exercize our own consciences (which must be properly formed) to discern whether or not this practice is acceptable. Arguments have been presented on both sides. Until one of the two sides submits that the other has won (unlikely) or until one of the sides has been stumped (possibly), then it is probably best to continue the debate until the closest possible thing to a common consensus is found. God bless.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 30 2004, 03:46 PM'] Just to add, it seems to me that if one admits that women wearing pants originated from the feminist and sexual revolutions (regardless of the intention of the current women), and if my definition is accepted, then the debate is essentially over, so I presume that the argument forthcoming will focus primarily or exclusively on the definition of men's clothing and women's clothing. [/quote]
What about WWII? It seems to me that women entering the workforce en masse during the 1940s while their husbands were at war, doing jobs which up to that point had been done by men would be more precisely an origination point for pants-wearing than would be the sexual revolution. From my read of fashion history, this is the point at which pants-wearing started to enter the female world.

Playing off that, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to work around manufacturing machinery wearing a skirt -- too much free fabric to get caught in machines and such. I also don't want to wear a skirt while riding a bike for the same reason, or while hiking. So if, for safety reasons, I choose to wear pants while engaging in those activities, am I cross-dressing?

Also, I live in Indiana, and winters here get pretty cold. We're not talking Antarctica cold, but cold nonetheless. I do own several heavy skirts, but I have found that pants are much warmer than skirts, particularly when the wind starts kicking up. Am I cross-dressing in wearing pants in winter?

[carrdero]

GodConquers writes: I gotta tell you.... this statement REALLY hurts your argument.

Yeah, I guess it would but I am not initiating an argument here at this point

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

Who am I to judge? Maybe I did something to you that you thought I deserved to get hit with a hammer. Maybe you are short tempered. I may be entitled to an opinion but I am not entitled to judge your actions as right or wrong.

mmmerf writes:'Natural Law does not judge', then natural law has nothing to say in the matter.

Not really, the only thing Natural Law would be able to accomodate us with would be how I would hit the floor and which direction the blood would flow from my head. In which anyone would probably observe that that is exactly what I would look like if I did get struck in the head with a hammer. Natural Law does not announce such conclusions as "OUCH, that must hurt" or "gee what a tragedy that was". Natural Law deals with the NATURE of things. It does not have an opinion or conscience. Humans do.

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

In more ways than one. But if it did ever come to pass I would have to arrive to my own opinions and understanding about the situation. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to turn to NATURAL LAW for my answers, why were you getting second thoughts? I'm about due for a change in mindset right now.

mmmerf writes: But if natural law speaks to this issue, then it speaks to every issue. If there is an absolute morality, then every act is a moral one.

This is the best way to explain NATURAL LAW though it is not my favorite example.

Many functions in your society mirror the intentions of NATURE that needed to BE created so everything could operate in unison with the ONE. A simple example of this would BE traffic lights. The concept of traffic lights was created by humans for the PURPOSE of regulating and handling traffic orderly and efficiently. Nobody stands around to watch to see if the traffic lights are doing their job unless they malfunction. Although traffic lights do not judge, they still have a job to perform.

Getting back to the converation of homosexuality, yes it is UNNATURAL because the
act of having intercourse is not NATURAL and the NATURAL reproduction of life that sometimes occur is not going to be possible between same sex couples. Having homosexual sex is not impossible you just have to find UNNATURAL ways to achieve it. You should also not confuse something that is not NATURAL as sinful or unholy, these are manmade constructs.

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

Look at all the violent crimes that occur daily. Everyone still goes out and takes their chances and rarely do any of the "victims" have anything to say about it. It would probably be a strange world if violent criminals did ask permission from their victims before they act.

mmmerf writes:...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.

I was concerned about the very same thing when I typed it. Many people could say that the I Ching, or the ROAD LESS TRAVELLED or SEER OUT OF SEASON or the 12th PLANET, or HELLO IT'S ME; An Interview With GOD or even the Bible was their source in such debates but I did not join this forum to promote sales on other authors book. I figured if anyone was interested in where I received my insight they would jusk ask me.

Aloysius; 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.

The dictionary describes disorder as;
Disorder-Lack of order. confusion a public disturbance. out of order

Homosexuality is not a disorder to many homosexuals. Some homosexuals know exactly what they are doing and are completely competent in mind and body. According to homosexuals nothing is "out of order" for them. Homosexuality is not a new occurance it has been going on longer than anyone has lived in this generation. Its here, its not going anywhere, there is no cure. The only opinion people can decipher is if this lifestyle is appealing to them or not. Preference (theres that word again).

Edited July 30, 2004 by carrdero

[Quietfire]

While I agree that common sense or intellect should decide this, I also feel that since the Church has not deemed what is the rule as per pants on women and such that this is a non-issue.

All this does is waste time and energy that could be spent on more important issues and should be left to the Church to decide when and if she is ready. We all have our opinions, thats why we all have a brain. But that doesnt necessarily mean one's opinion is law, except in one's own personal household.

If the pope fainted because I entered the Vatican wearing pants, you can bet I would never wear pants again.
Until then, pass me my levis.

Also, the womens movement happened in the late teens and early twenties of the last century, although that was also its culmination, as far as women earning the right to vote. As far as the latest fight for equal pay for equal work and many of the other issues we have today, I must be honest and admit I dont really keep up on them. Women started wearing pants outside of the home for pleasure sometime during and after WWII. Twenty years after the 'feminist movement'. First for their jobs, then for their enjoyment. This was done first because of the great need to fill jobs left vacant by our fighting men, but this doesnt validify your point on it being a strictly feminist thing.
Women realized that it was far easier to do many things in pants that skirts and dresses would not allow. There is nothing evil here. (nor was I implying that anyone had this train of thought.) Using the feminist movement simply isnt a strong arguement for the reason why women wear pants.

Also, my greatgrandmother often wore pants in the fields when she farmed, as it was far too dangerous to wear skirts out there. And it wasnt unheard of for many a farming woman to run their chores in pants. My great grandmother was born sometime in the 1800's but I cant remember exactly when. I just remember seeing pictures of her and my great great grandma, in pants also.

Now while I agree that dressing in clothing meant for the opposite sex, (like me wearing a three piece suit designed exclusively for a man) with the intention to lead people to think I am a man is a sin, I simply cannot validate any other arguements against pants on women as being wrong. And again, since the Church has no position as of yet on this subject then, out of respect, we shouldnt decide it for her.


Oh, and just to clarify something. My remark on common sense in my last post wasnt my remark. It was Sheed's.

I quote:
"Common sense is a marvelous gift, a pity it's so rare." F.J. Sheed.




Peace.

[Oik]

[quote]Also, I live in Indiana, and winters here get pretty cold. We're not talking Antarctica cold, but cold nonetheless. I do own several heavy skirts, but I have found that pants are much warmer than skirts, particularly when the wind starts kicking up. Am I cross-dressing in wearing pants in winter?[/quote]

Why not wear long jane (hahaha) pants under the long skirts and then some leggins (which are very very awesome, but I guess that's the midwest boy in me,btw, I love rhubarb pie!).

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, I would like to continue our discussion. I think, perhaps, it might be best to pick up where we left off (that being your last post in response to me) just in the interest of the debate not getting overly burdened by the numerous interjections and side conversations. I am not trying to say that they are irrelevant, or that your responses to them were not well done, I am merely trying to focus the debate. In this interest, would you be willing to seperate our debate from the points brought up in conversation with others?

If you do not feel that doing so would be in the best interest the discussion, please tell me and I will modify my response, however, until that time, I will respond strictly to the points you brought up in your previous post to me.


[quote]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.[/quote]

This seems to be the crux of the debate at this point, and, because it is what you spent most of your time focusing on, it is what I will discuss.

I think that the example you gave is a good one, and provides valid questions to my definition, which I am more than happy to modify in order to more adequately address the issue (I will get to this modification later).

However, it seems to me that this example can only serve to harm your position. You have presented a historical case in which clothing was, for all intents and purposes, materially androgenous, and yet the Church did not condemn it. This, while I admit that it shoots down my previous definition, also seems to pierce your argument like a sword as well.

Moreover, the modifications to the definition need not be all that drastic in order to prove my point. We need only say that "women's clothing" can be defined as that clothing which is [i]intended[/i] for women - whether by physical cut or by societal assumptions.

With this definition in place, one can see that Roman togas have there place as well, and do not fall under "crossdressing" despite their androgenous nature, because of common social understanding of their meaning.

Please do not interpret this to be some form of moral relativism, but merely an extention of common sense. Times change, as with fashion, the call to modesty, however, does not change, nor does the prohibition on crossdressing. Thus, it would merely be common sense to define women's clothing as that clothing which is inteded for women, and mens clothing as that clothing which is intended for men, and to understand that the intent can be determined either by common social understanding, such as in the case of Roman antiquity, or by the actual cut and make of the material.

So, having revised the definition in a manner which addresses the problems that you have raised in a simple, non-complex manner, let us apply the new definition to women's pants.

Not much thought need go into this, seeing as the previous definition is contained within and was elaborated upon in the new definition. So, because women's pants are indeed of a different cut and make than those of men, they can be considered articles that are truly women's clothing. The logical conclusion is that, as before, when a woman wears women's pants, she is not crossdressing.

If you have any issue with the new definition, or would like to attack the argument from another angle, please feel free to respond briefly or in great length, whichever you desire! Thanks!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Socrates]

Okay - here's my 2 cents worth,

Let's not complicate things - just use common sense!
If it's real honest-to-God crossdressing (if you're really trying to look like a woman and this is done to give you or others sexual pleasure) this is a serious sin.

However, I see no harm in something blatently ridiculous done for laughs (like a big, hairy, ugly guy wearing a frumpy dress and talking in a squeaky falsetto in a silly skit) where there is obviously nothing sexual going on.

[cmotherofpirl]

Socrates if you are looking for common sense, this is the wrong place.

[Tora-Musume]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 30 2004, 05:09 PM'] All this does is waste time and energy that could be spent on more important issues and should be left to the Church to decide when and if she is ready. We all have our opinions, thats why we all have a brain. But that doesnt necessarily mean one's opinion is law, except in one's own personal household.

[/quote]
I don't think anything is a waste of time or energy. I mean, think about it. If discussing who should be wearing pants, men or women, is a waste of time and energy, then responding to this post is considered a waste of time and energy.

Thanks for the welcome.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Jul 28 2004, 01:36 PM'][url="http://www.gianna.org/Biography/Photo_Album/photo_album.html"]http://www.gianna.org/Biography/Photo_Album/photo_album.html[/url]

Check out that link. The woman in those pictures is a SAINT. She is wearing pants in about half of them.

[img]http://www.gianna.org/Bl.gianna.3.jpg[/img][/quote]


Best post in the whole thread.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 30 2004, 04:16 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Thank you for that Quietfire. You are indeed right. As far as it's name, this company did indeed call it the "bro". [url="http://www.gynecomastia.org/content/treatment/living/bro.shtml"]The "bro"[/url]

However, that was not my point. I should clarify. I was talking about the use of a bra by a male recreationally, just as women use their pants. However this point is addressed by Jeff's revaulation of his original definition. Thank you for that Jeff.

God bless,

Mikey

[Guest JeffCR07]

No problem, I hope Adam has time to respond soon, I know he's a really busy guy though, so we may have to wait a bit, but its all good

[picchick]

Here is another saint. St. Joan of Arc. :wub:

She wore pants. Not to crossdress but to protect her purity. Was this wrong?