FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Men's Dress Worn By Women - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Men's Dress Worn By Women (/showthread.php?tid=25362)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


Men's Dress Worn By Women - INPEFESS - 02-07-2009

Quote: <DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px">Quote:Originally Posted by <B>INPEFESS</B>

Well, there are ambiguities, but I think my point is clear. If you make an effort to cover yourself with a modest skirt, that is going to be less tempting than someone whose clothes outline what the skirt is supposed to hide.
</DIV>
One must never forget function though. Besides modesty, function is a very important element of clothing. For many, the function of trousers is needed (and who is someone to say they are not needed by a certain person?).
With all due respect, sir, I think it is very dangerous to justify, as it seems by your reasoning you are doing, the wearing of potentially immodest clothing because such stringency inhibits function. So, too, could the wearing of a veil interfere with function, but this was no cause to eliminate this custom. The belief in God is also inconvenient and interferes with my normal function in society. Is this to say that we may compromise? Adherence to many of the rules of Traditional Catholicism is also inconvenient and sometimes prevents me from efficiently functioning in our modern society. Should these, too, be forfeited? It is likely that, by this point in this post, you laugh at these questions, for these are completely erroneous assumptions of your intentions. However this is the logical conclusion of your reasoning.

 
Quote: <DIV align=center><DIV style="WIDTH: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px">Quote:
Females aren't <I>generally</I> as tempted to look at a man's legs as a man is to look at a females.
</DIV></DIV>
Not so much legs, but glutes. I think men often forget women are more or less just like men in some ways.
</DIV> This seeks to compromise with morality. If it is not sinful for men to change clothes together, and if it is not sinful for women to change clothes together, then by your reasoning both sexes would be permitted to change clothes together so long as they did not lust after one another. We must take precautions to prevent the occasion of sin - the wearing of pants on women eliminates this caution.
  
Quote: <DIV align=center><DIV style="WIDTH: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px">Quote:
If it is a concern that women may be looking at your body, cover up in whatever way you can. If it's severely impractical to hide it, then it's not your fault - at least you're trying. Women today make no effort to hide it by wearing a skirt.
</DIV></DIV>
Well, I do wear in public a coat which covers much (even in summer).
</DIV> LaRoza, I must say that is very admirable of you. You are the first that I've known to do this. I do, however, fail to understand how you are so concerned about your own modesty yet don't see the danger involved in that of others'. Please, before you contend that statement, consider this: There are more males likely to be sexually attracted to and tempted by a woman wearing pants (men are, by nature, more sexually driven) then there are women likely to be sexually attracted to a muscular man (considering that many women are not attracted to a muscular physique, but almost all men are attracted to a woman's physique, it follows that more men are attracted to the very nature of a female's body then women are attracted to a muscular physique of a man's body).

 
Quote: <DIV align=left> <DIV style="WIDTH: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px">Quote:
Regardless of what physique they possess, most of them just wear pants anyway without a valid, moral excuse. </DIV></DIV>

Yes, but that is not a reason to condemn trousers as a whole for women. We cannot presume to judge others.
</DIV>  I mean this in the most charitable way possible, but, unfortunately, this contention is the most reflexive, hackneyed refutation that surfaces when two persons disagree on modesty. Considering I have provided no evidence that I have ever judged a woman's soul for wearing pants, this does not justify the wearing of them by women. I do not presume to judge anyone's soul, but when it is a constant occasion of sin, we can judge the sin itself and judge the bad fruit reaped by this very action - in this case, the augmented occasion of sin.   
Quote: <DIV align=left><DIV style="WIDTH: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px">Quote:Originally Posted by <B>INPEFESS</B>

I'm talking about a modest, full skirt versus a pair of loose-fitting slacks or comfortably-fitting jeans (for women). Regardless of what modesty is in mind, I am going to be much more <I>inclined</I> to stare (even if it's not squeezing tight) at the pelvic area of the female in a sinful manner.
</DIV>
If even the vaguest outline of a women's legs/pelvis (such as that formed on both men and women by wearing any form of useful trousers) is a temptation, I would say that it is your personal struggle, not the fault of the women. </DIV>
 </DIV>  I see. And I am disappointed that you see me this way. My friend, I am not an alien in this world who alone struggles against impurity. This temptation is not a vice unique to my person, but a battle fought by millions around the world. Unfortunately, the world is often unaware of its sins and is not legitimately concerned about Holy Chastity. God's standards do not change with the strength of His children to resist them. If only a few were tempted to violate the Sabbath, would it then cease to be a law?  We're not discussing the "vaguest" outlines of a woman's figure; we're discussing pants tailored to fit a woman's body. If the clothing that conforms to the vaguest outline of a woman's body is condemnable, then there would be no need for tailoring. If it must first be tailored to a woman's pelvic area, then it is in some way outlining the aspects of her physique that are sexually attractive to a male. I am not claiming to be sexually attracted to an XXXL pair of pants on a size-4 lady.
 
Quote:I am easily tempted by beautiful hair, that is something I would notice, but I do not blame women for not wearing head coverings.
 I see the logic in your argument, but I nevertheless fear that it is an erroneous application of reasoning. I will not presume to determine your motive for this would be a judgment of your soul, and, as we've both agreed, is wrong. However, the percentage of men that are attracted to the definition, even if not grossly specific, of a woman's glutes, legs, and thighs is significantly higher than those who are sexually attracted to hair, a part of the female body of which nourishment and accentuation was permitted by God:  <DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px">Quote:Originally Posted by <B>1 Corinthians 11:14-15</B>

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
</DIV> There are men to which I have spoken and of whom I have heard that suffer from "fetishes" of all sorts including hands, feet, and toes. But these rare cases are no reason to conceal these appendages. The attraction of a male to an area of the female body unique to her gender is a "fetish" shared by almost all mankind. 
Quote: <DIV align=left>  <DIV style="WIDTH: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px">Quote:
I'm sure I'm not the only one who is tempted in this way. </DIV></DIV>No, but that is no reason to blame the article of clothing itself. Clothes fulfill a purpose besides modesty. They are meant to be functional. In areas where men wear "skirts", they do while working role them up over the knees. Would you consider this a workable option for women who have things to do which may be restricted by a full skirt?
</DIV> Please see the first response in this post... May God bless you all!




Men's Dress Worn By Women - Historian - 02-07-2009

The_Harlequin_King Wrote:??? There isn't anything to indicate that typical Sikh warriors are gay. Plus, LaRoza posted an image of Samson the Judge. Not exactly a poster-boy for homosexuality, either.

Yes, I was confused by that statement as well, and either took it as an improper joke, gross ignorance or blatant racism and let it pass. Sikh's have a morality that is quite admirable.

I am always bemused (note, this is not the same as "amused") by those who see short hair, shorn guys in suits as being the definition of masculine. There is nothing wrong with the image, but it is entirely born of the times, and not what one would choose as being definative of masculine.


Men's Dress Worn By Women - Historian - 02-07-2009

INPEFESS Wrote:With all due respect, sir, I think it is very dangerous to justify, as it seems by your reasoning you are doing, the wearing of potentially immodest clothing because such stringency inhibits function. So, too, could the wearing of a veil interfere with function, but this was no cause to eliminate this custom. The belief in God is also inconvenient and interferes with my normal function in society. Is this to say that we may compromise? Adherence to many of the rules of Traditional Catholicism is also inconvenient and sometimes prevents me from efficiently functioning in our modern society. Should these, too, be forfeited? It is likely that, by this point in this post, you laugh at these questions, for these are completely erroneous assumptions of your intentions. However this is the logical conclusion of your reasoning.

Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake for wearing men's clothing (this was the official reason), and the Church determined that she was justified and that was not a crime because it was needed to fulfil the will of God. (She cut her hair and wore men's clothing for battle and in prison).

By my saying that function is an important part I do not mean that is the only part. Modesty is first. Adam and Eve clothed themselves (rather poorly) with fig leaves, despite there being no reason for function. God did mention thorns and working with the earth after, which would indicate a certain function of clothing was needed after. It is these two elements which I take into account. I do not see any style of clothing (in general, a "skirt" or a "trouser" style) as being immodest, only styles of them. I also see definitions of what is for men and what is for women changing. I do not think we should equate clothing with gender.

Men and women are created different, not clothed different. That being said, in this society, I'm highly supportive of long skirts, but I do not condemn trousers because they are needed. I know someone who works in a factory, has two children and is very active. She wears trousers almost all the time (although, she used to wear skirts almost exclusively) is that wrong? She is a modest person and does not flaunt anything at all.

Men shaved their faces for convenience. Men cut their hair for convenience (industrial age, and world wars). Men wore trousers for convenience (despite them being seen as feminine). In WWII, women took many jobs in factories, and did all those things (except for shaving their faces, as women naturally do not have hair on their face). It isn't the putting aside of values for convenience, but the putting aside of previous customs for a purpose. The Church does not dictate style, only modesty.




Quote:This seeks to compromise with morality. If it is not sinful for men to change clothes together, and if it is not sinful for women to change clothes together, then by your reasoning both sexes would be permitted to change clothes together so long as they did not lust after one another. We must take precautions to prevent the occasion of sin - the wearing of pants on women eliminates this caution.
No it doesn't. I was just pointing out that it isn't all men who are tempted. If you could slip in among the girls, you'd see they talk about men more than most men talk about women and comment on passersby much more than you'd think.

Quote:LaRoza, I must say that is very admirable of you. You are the first that I've known to do this. I do, however, fail to understand how you are so concerned about your own modesty yet don't see the danger involved in that of others'.
I am just not one to say that trousers on women are de facto immodest. I have not made any other claims. I do not support modern immodest styles of trousers or skirts or blouses.

I also do it for practical reasons, in high school and other areas where I was able to be social in groups, I did get a lot of improper offers and even physical violations of my personal space. For the most part, society doesn't condemn this because I'm a man, but it is just as bad and offensive as men doing it to women.

Quote:Please, before you contend that statement, consider this: There are more males likely to be sexually attracted to and tempted by a woman wearing pants (men are, by nature, more sexually driven) then there are women likely to be sexually attracted to a muscular man (considering that many women are not attracted to a muscular physique, but almost all men are attracted to a woman's physique, it follows that more men are attracted to the very nature of a female's body then women are attracted to a muscular physique of a man's body).
That is false.

Lets say a women wearing trousers is wearing the same general style and fitting I'm wearing. The only thing which would be even remotely outlined would be the buttocks, if developed. I wear a coat in all public places (people often say I wear a suit, although I don't.) When the coat is a hinderance, like if I'm doing something physical, I take it off for because it is an impediment. This is all governed by modesty and function (in that order).

Women by nature as sexually driven, they are just not as vocal about it to men. When I say I'm muscular, I do not mean to give the impression I'm very large. I'm not that big. I'm muscular. I can tell you that women are as just as attracted to such a physique as men are to a well shaped women. My beard actually helps in this area, as I am often told I should shave my beard to look better. I know what I look like without a beard, and I know I would "look better", or at least, be in line with modern societies definition of what a man's face should be, but that is precisely why I don't shave.

Quote:Regardless of what physique they possess, most of them just wear pants anyway without a valid, moral excuse.
That is true. Most men shave without a valid moral excuse as well :) Shaving blurs gender distinctions more than clothing. Me in drag would like a man in women's clothing. Me in drag and shaved would look like much more like a women (although, my face would be rather masculine for a women).

Now I do recognise the difference between shaving (removing a gender distinction) and immodest styles of female trousers (the most common) so don't get all in a fit Stevus, I am not equating with your shaving to women who wear trousers as tight as their skin, or tighter.

Quote:I see. And I am disappointed that you see me this way. My friend, I am not an alien in this world who alone struggles against impurity. This temptation is not a vice unique to my person, but a battle fought by millions around the world. Unfortunately, the world is often unaware of its sins and is not legitimately concerned about Holy Chastity. God's standards do not change with the strength of His children to resist them. If only a few were tempted to violate the Sabbath, would it then cease to be a law?
My statement was about the concept of "trousers on women" in general, not the most common styles which are grossly improper.

Quote:We're not discussing the "vaguest" outlines of a woman's figure; we're discussing pants tailored to fit a woman's body. If the clothing that conforms to the vaguest outline of a woman's body is condemnable, then there would be no need for tailoring. If it must first be tailored to a woman's pelvic area, then it is in some way outlining the aspects of her physique that are sexually attractive to a male. I am not claiming to be sexually attracted to an XXXL pair of pants on a size-4 lady.
I see. I agree with that.

Quote:However, the percentage of men that are attracted to the definition, even if not grossly specific, of a woman's glutes, legs, and thighs is significantly higher than those who are sexually attracted to hair, a part of the female body of which nourishment and accentuation was permitted by God:
That is true. It isn't the same. Hair is more of a distraction to me than a temptation of the same kind of immodest trousers.

Quote:There are men to which I have spoken and of whom I have heard that suffer from "fetishes" of all sorts including hands, feet, and toes. But these rare cases are no reason to conceal these appendages. The attraction of a male to an area of the female body unique to her gender is a "fetish" shared by almost all mankind.
I'm met women with such fetishes as well. It can be quite unsettling for one trying to be modest.



Men's Dress Worn By Women - didishroom - 02-07-2009

Quote:Bedtime apparel
Why do people wear special clothes to bed? Seems kinda pointless. And why would you wear a suit at home?



Men's Dress Worn By Women - didishroom - 02-07-2009

LaRoza said:
Quote:There is nothing wrong with the image, but it is entirely born of the times, and not what one would choose as being definative of masculine

This is excellent. On another thread somebody quoted one of the Fathers of the Church who said men who shaved their beards and didn't have hairy chests were effeminate. Besides genitalia(which should always be covered) facial hair is the biggest factor in seperating the sexes. Forget pants and skirts, which are culturally subjective. Men who shave their God-given external signs of masculinity are the real gender benders.



Men's Dress Worn By Women - LRThunder - 02-07-2009

didishroom Wrote:LaRoza said:
Quote:There is nothing wrong with the image, but it is entirely born of the times, and not what one would choose as being definative of masculine

This is excellent. On another thread somebody quoted one of the Fathers of the Church who said men who shaved their beards and didn't have hairy chests were effeminate. Besides genitalia(which should always be covered) facial hair is the biggest factor in seperating the sexes. Forget pants and skirts, which are culturally subjective. Men who shave their God-given external signs of masculinity are the real gender benders.

What about jobs that don't allow men to wear beards or mustaches?



Men's Dress Worn By Women - didishroom - 02-07-2009

Oh I have no problems with men shaving. Please, don't mistake me. I'm just using the logic of those that say if women wear pants there are blurring the lines of gender. One of the persons on these boards think Cary Grant was the epitome of masculinity, when it fact he only thinks that because of the culture he was raised in. See the point? Culture and fashions change. We shouldn't take past cultural assumptions concerning women and pants and apply them to morality.



Men's Dress Worn By Women - Historian - 02-07-2009

LRThunder Wrote:What about jobs that don't allow men to wear beards or mustaches?

That is a necessity and has a function usually.

I also find it amazing that people "wear" or "have" beards, when it is the natural state of most men. It is like a women wearing breasts, as if she had a choice! Of course, she could barbarically remove them, but this is only done in times of medical neccessity, unlike most men who shave.


Men's Dress Worn By Women - Historian - 02-07-2009

didishroom Wrote:
Quote:Bedtime apparel
Why do people wear special clothes to bed? Seems kinda pointless. And why would you wear a suit at home?

I wear special clothes to bed, it is called (clean) underwear with my robe nearby in case I need to get up before I'm ready to get dressed.


Men's Dress Worn By Women - Historian - 02-07-2009

didishroom Wrote:Oh I have no problems with men shaving. Please, don't mistake me. I'm just using the logic of those that say if women wear pants there are blurring the lines of gender. One of the persons on these boards think Cary Grant was the epitome of masculinity, when it fact he only thinks that because of the culture he was raised in. See the point? Culture and fashions change. We shouldn't take past cultural assumptions concerning women and pants and apply them to morality.
That is exactly correct.

I'm all for modesty, but I take issue with those who make dogmatic decrees on what is appropriate clothing (like trousers in general, not skin tight trousers) and what is appropriate hair styling based on a single period in time. When one tries to point out standards have changed, as they always have, we are accused of being moral relativists, and when we point out past styles are in direct contradiction to the proclaimed styles of choice we are accused of living in the past. I suppose it is only the past period of time (which was 40 years before I was born!) in which they choose, and anyone else doesn't have the ability to have an opinion.