dspen2005 Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 this thread is ridiculously humorous... please continue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 I move that we re-phrase the age old saying "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and bishops" to "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of women who wear pants." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Well... that's one thing about EENS: he gets the daily post count up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 17 2006, 08:21 PM']I move that we re-phrase the age old saying "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and bishops" to "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of women who wear pants." [right][snapback]951577[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And you can tell [i]their[/i] skulls, because they have the little horns, right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 18, 2006 Author Share Posted April 18, 2006 [quote name='philothea' date='Apr 17 2006, 09:21 PM']Well... that's one thing about EENS: he gets the daily post count up. [right][snapback]951578[/snapback][/right] [/quote] and all this time i thought we were friends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 [quote name='philothea' date='Apr 17 2006, 10:22 PM'] And you can tell [i]their[/i] skulls, because they have the little horns, right?? [right][snapback]951585[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 08:23 PM']and all this time i thought we were friends? [right][snapback]951587[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Wasn't an insult, dear. Just noting that we all seem to like to argue with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 18, 2006 Author Share Posted April 18, 2006 [quote name='philothea' date='Apr 17 2006, 09:26 PM']Wasn't an insult, dear. Just noting that we all seem to like to argue with you. [right][snapback]951600[/snapback][/right] [/quote] that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusITrustInYou Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Apr 17 2006, 10:59 PM']Don't jump the gun, not the key difference between practice, and appropriateness. This is a matter of what is appropriate, and women wearing pants, unless they are doing some real dirty work, ought not be wearing them. Of course, I mean jeans; why can't women dress like women? It's because they hate us, i know it. All I ever wanted was to see women in dresses, and the only person who does it is that pagan girl in school... Catholics are a dissapointment sometimes.. Some people are of the erronous belief that it's not what you wear but what is in your heart that reflects true modesty. Please, allow me to wear a speedo, and then tell me how modest it is. Yes, women who wear those jeans that hug you more so than a loved one would don't realize that it is quite unchaste, and immodest. I'd ask, but I wouldn't expect anyone here to agree, would you mind seeing Mary depicted in the type of pants, even those that go down to your ankles that women wear today? Most tend to stick to your curves. If you have no problem invisioning the perfect example of feminine chastity dressed in that sort of rubbish, then by all means advocate it. I can see her wearing a dress, or a skirt... and don't find it morally offensive to depict her thus. God bless, Mikey [right][snapback]951518[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'm not sure whether this post was in reply to mine, but I'm assuming it was. Either way...you said "...women wearing pants, unless they are doing some real dirty work, ought not be wearing them." I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why, as long as they're modest enough. Would you mind explaining your statement by telling me why you think women shouldn't wear pants? (and please let it be understood that I'm talking about modest pants, not the too tight or too low kind) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Well, it's all quite simple, or complicated, or both. We'll see. Pants are, historically, a worker's wear type thing, although, they have been more or less refined for royalty at times. Nonetheless, they are man's thing, and have been since the middle ages, because they were meant for physical labor that regular coverings would not do very well for. (like mounting a horse, or digging, or workign in a shop later on, then for mining, etc.) interesting note that I should bring up mining, women were actually working in mines during the dark years of the 2nd industiral revolution... and in those cramped spaces they still wore dresses. Now, men continue to wear pants, and women wear their dresses and skirts and such, and everyone is happy, until you get to about the 1920s.. 30s.. when the contraceptive movement and crazy women feminazis put on pants to show their equality with men.. some.. very few, but there are some. As you go on, slowly by their influence, women began to be seen in pants in the 60s (not 50s.. they stil wore dresses for the most part) . And as we all know the 60s are a decade of evil and sin and anything that came out then was wrong (except for VII.. which was far away from the cultural revolution here). That was a joke, that has a truism in it. To be more specific, it was an attempt to destroy gender roles... now, I could be wrong, but social reform and strong political statements aren't hallmarks of Catholics.. we are a moral and religious people.. not a revolutionary people. In fact, even in catholic France it was the athiestic intilgista working up the the high class parisians to accept any movement to gain rights at the cost of losing their king. Catholics aren't known for such foolishness as trying to attain rights, we endure suffering and are happy that we are truely free in christ, not oppressed.. so when women start wearing pants, to show that they will do away with some injustice (as in having to be women) and thats a sort of protest of the counterculture of the 60s.. well i tell you, it doesn't ring of modesty and not humility anywho. So, what the problem then is that women are wearing pants today because of rebelious druggies in the 60s and feminazies earlier who wanted to abort babies and use contraceptives. It's not a matter of modesty.. it's a matter of humility. It is of the fruits of that ilk.. could it possibly be good? It does break down the bearer between gender differences (which may seemingly be good, but then again, the best way to point out gender differences is just to be completely nude, we need not wear clothes and pretend that we are more similiar than we really are.) It is an attack on the proper place of man and woman; that is their different spheres. That is the problem with it. Excuse the ranting nature of all that. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missionarybelle Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 I do find it interesting that Mary has never even APPEARED in pants.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indescribable Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 i think i'm going to be condemned for saying i'm in love with high fashion. that's just like artwork being transposed to honor the human body... and certainly one could argue that certain designers focus on a sexualized approach of the human body. but otherwise i only occasionally bake.... when i put on my pants for school in the morning i don't say "i want to look like a boy today" or "i think that i have the exact same genetic structure as a boy" but usually i'm thinking, "i don't want to freeze in my school" or "i don't want to wear a hoochie skirt that encourages the little boys" in response to michael... i wear pants bc of druggies and abortion rates? i think it has more to do with the introduction of women into the work force during the first and second world wars. most feminists would say that was where women really got their push into becoming equal or at least as respected as the role of men. not druggies. that's completely different and a much more important aspect of our social morality declining. attributing the want to wear pants to that is just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 (edited) I think I said something to that effect... nor is she depicted in pants.. nor even any of teh holy women.. including the saints who died in the camps in the 40's (we did find a picture of a modern day saint who was wearing pants because this conversation never stops.. but you know St. Thomas Aquinas didn't believe that babies were human until the 15th day of pregnancy, not that he advocated abortion). God bless, Mikey Edit: You would say the workforce.. but.. umm that too is a push to end gender roles, which was the point. The same brood that wanted abortion and contraception wanted to see the end of gender roles (that was one of the justifications for legalizing contraceptives). Regardless of what you think when you put it on, it is and will continue to be an act that is rooted in defiance of your role as a woman to look not like a man... and me to not look like you (which I am not tempted to do as no major movement of men has tried to get pregnant for gender equality purposes). Edited April 18, 2006 by MichaelFilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusITrustInYou Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 (edited) Hmmm...I'm going to think about this, mayhaps...or maybe I'll just try to forget I ever read this thread. No, seriously, there have been good points brought up on both sides, but...I just don't think it's a big deal. Girls who would be concerned about modesty (and don't worry, there [i]are[/i] plenty of those girls out there) either have someone who would tell them whether or not they're dressing modestly, or, if they don't, they follow their own conscience. And girls who don't care about modesty...well, how 'bout we all post a Hail Mary on the Rosary thread on Open Mic for those girls, eh? btw, Michael, thanks for answering me and explaining! Edited April 18, 2006 by JesusITrustInYou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 You know it is funny but this thread when I read it called to mind that proverbial "Catholic School-girl outfit". Now if you say that I garrauntee the incidence of leading guys into sin with just a phrase is higher than saying "low-rise-jeans" Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts