Men's Dress Worn By Women
For the record, this thread has nothing to do with the Church under Pius XII vs. BXVI. It has been hijacked beyond recognition. Thus I'm refusing to post on the matter any further here.
Since I don't see Marty around here any more (alas, alas) I shall sum this thread up once and for all:

Down with pants!
Up with skirts!

(Sprinting away like Carl Lewis at the Olympics...)

[Image: guinea_pig.gif]
NewCatholic Wrote:Since I don't see Marty around here any more (alas, alas) I shall sum this thread up once and for all:

Down with pants!
Up with skirts!

(Sprinting away like Carl Lewis at the Olympics...)

[Image: guinea_pig.gif]

Debatable, in certain circumstances.

You have now sucessfully hijacked this thread which was started in order to let you talk about the subject you hijacked another thread with.

Your hijacking truly know no bounds. You should work for Al Queda!

Try starting a new thread for once!
I'm not hijacking any thread. All discussions whether verbal or posted on the internet naturally lead into other subjects. I am not intentionally doing anything to disrupt the thread. And if I am such a hijacker you're my accomplice for engaging in my discussions. I guess you have earned another check under the "StevusMagnus: Hypocrite" column.

p.s. And maybe people are tired of trying to understand your circular logic on why pants on women are bad as well as your tendency to call people homosexuals and cross dressers for not complying with your own personal taste in wardrobe.


Quote: INPEFESS, ever since you explained your screen name, I don't have to look at it to remember how to spell it! Brilliant stuff.


Haha! I'm glad it all makes sense now. You almost have to make the inflection as you type it to know how to spell it.


May God bless you!


I am very sorry for my delayed reply. I give you my word that I was at work and had taken quite some time to intelligently respond when the entire building lost power and I lost all of my work. Considering I had waited to reply for some time, I feel it is more than coincidence that my fleeting decision to reply at that time culminated into nothingness. All I could say was, fiat voluntas Dei. And I'm still saying that at this moment because it really was a very thorough and well-articulated response.

So, I have lost my 'fire' to reply with the initial fervor. Considering the drama with which my correspondence was terminated, I am unsure I am going to reply. I can't, for the life of me, phrase my statements with the same effectiveness or remember the analogies I used. Maybe I'll reply sometime when I'm sure I my house won't burn down [Image: wink.gif] or blow away in a storm.

I feel as if, because I am arguing what I believe to be the truth and not just a stubborn opinion, I have an obligation to continue this discussion, but I think you can probably relate to my lack of enthusiasm.

Again, forgive me.

Yours in Christ,
In Nomine Patris, Et Filii, Et Spiritus Sancti.
Dear O’Neill,

Before I begin, I ask your forgiveness for my delayed response. Unfortunately, I don’t have much time to spend on this forum so I reply when I get a chance. As I stated in my former post, my earlier attempt to reply to you ended in a very devastating power outage that erased my unsaved work. Needless to say, I’m going to save this response this time. I shall not make any further excuses.

Quote:Originally Posted by INPEFESS

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:Originally posted by O'Neill

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).

Yes, this is true. However, Joan of Arc’s mission was a specific command from God delivered by Archangels. This mission justified the wearing of pants. It would be erroneous to conclude that, because God provided an exception to one of his servants, we are all permitted to benefit from the exception. God permitted this exception because a greater good might be obtained from the fulfillment of her mission.

You, yourself, O’Neill, have repeatedly explained that God can provide one of His servants with a special grace needed to perform His holy will. If this is rigorous mortification, then He will supply the grace necessary to persevere in that life. You have also repeatedly clarified that, although God permits some of His servants to live such a life, this is not to say that He would have us all follow this path. While not an accusation of yourself, it seems that when God calls one of His servants to rigor, you contest that we are not all called to the same life, but when God calls one of His servants to a mission whereby He protects the purity of His servant in order to accomplish the greater good, we all share the benefits of a grace that we haven’t all received. This seems like a double standard, but I might be mistaken (and probably am). Please clarify if I am wrong in seeing this.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

By my saying that function is an important part I do not mean that is the only part. Modesty is first.

Yes, I agree. People must keep in mind that the primary function of clothing is to conceal, not reveal. This is indicated in Genesis, as you mentioned below, when it was written that they were ashamed of their nakedness and hid (or covered) themselves.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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.

There are many styles of clothing that are immodest when worn in public. I would consider a bikini to be an immodest style of clothing when worn in public regardless of differences among the styles. I think rather, you are trying to make a distinction between styles being modest for one sex, yet immodest for another. If so, see below.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

I also see definitions of what is for men and what is for women changing.

Yes, the definition of men’s and woman’s clothing does change, as does society’s definition of modesty and morality.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

I do not think we should equate clothing with gender.

This seems like a reasonable conclusion at first glance. But let us examine a passage from scripture as it applies to this conclusion:

Quote:Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 11:14-15

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.

We can see from this passage that the same object (practice) can be good for one sex, yet not so for the other. In this way, it is reasonable to surmise that God Himself observes a distinction between the applications of practices among the sexes.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

Men and women are created different, not clothed different.

An obese person and a slender person are created differently. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that they must be clothed differently; they will not fit properly into the other’s clothing without one of them first sacrificing modesty. Men and women are created differently. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that they must be clothed different. If you agreed with my earlier post concerning the tailoring of clothing for the genders:

Quote:...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:Originally posted by O'Neill

I see. I agree with that.

…then it is reasonable for you to acknowledge that a woman’s body might be explicitly revealed by men’s clothing of the same relative size. Again, however, I believe you mean that there should be no distinction between men and women’s clothing. However, considering God saw the necessity to condone and condemn (for different genders) the employment of hair as a cover, then, similarly, He might also require the distinction in the employment of clothing as a cover.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

That being said, in this society, I'm highly supportive of long skirts, but I do not condemn trousers because they are needed.

I beg your pardon, but while trousers may be desirable, they have only become “necessary” for function in an age that seeks to justify all evil for sake of convenience (i.e. abortion, contraception, et cetera). Amish women, Muslims women, and Apostolic Pentecostal women all wear skirts in our modern society. Why is it so hard for Catholics?

My mother (God bless her), two sisters, Goddaughter, girlfriend, and other Catholics of whom I am well acquainted have worn skirts exclusively all of their Catholic lives. My mother performed the work of a man and, along with my sisters, barn chores for many years, all the while wearing skirts. I do not deny that there are some situations in which an argument for an exception might be made. However, to make exception a standard is contrary to righteousness as it pertains to modesty.

Someone very close to me chooses not to wear pants for the sake of modesty and respect - she is a convert from liberal Catholicism, has worn pants all of her life up until this point, and has declared that her apparel directly contributes to her comportment as a lady. She has stated that she loses her sense of femininity, acts less "lady-like", and loses her spiritual conservatism when wearing pants. However, considering it is a debated issue, she provided me with the power to choose her attire concerning this discussion - entirely of her own accord (she is not willing to risk loosing her soul over convenience, comfort, style, etc.). I told her that if it directly contributed to her spirituality and feminine comportment, she should abstain from wearing pants, but that I also consider her more spiritually attractive to me as it is an exterior reflection of her conservatism, feminine distinction, elegance, self-respect, prudence, and quest for virtue.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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?

I am not one to judge a person at all, but an action only. Considering I know nothing beyond the little information you have provided, I will reserve all judgment.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

She is a modest person and does not flaunt anything at all.

I do not mean to offend, but to say she is a modest person while wearing trousers when this very practice is the discussion at hand is a futile statement.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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.

Yes, custom may be set-aside for a purpose. I am not disputing this fact. But the compromise of morality is not a good purpose.

Forfeiting custom is only permissible so far as it does not sacrifice modesty. This sacrifice is the discussion at hand.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

The Church does not dictate style, only modesty.

But this is a situation where the style is 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.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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.

I understand that women are tempted to impurity as are men. I have been present for many of the discussions to which you have referenced. Many women are attracted to men, but are much less likely to be stimulated by a moderate display of skin or definition of a male physique then are men likely to be stimulated by a moderate display of skin or definition of a female physique. A female I recently questioned spoke for the majority of women. In her words, men were more visually stimulated than women and thus the occasion for scandal given by women was much higher than for men. She stated that, while the sight of a physically fit male without a shirt attracts many females, they are not tempted to lust in action or in thought as are men; they would have to consciously provoke thoughts that are inherent to a male.

I find it incredible that God has spared you from the indomitable passion of lust that has intoxicated the majority of men, but do not confuse your own neutrality with the obvious temptations of those around you. Note: I employed the term “indomitable” to distinguish between the frequency and intensity of such passions. I do not presume to assert that you are exempt from these temptations; only that it is a much greater problem for the rest of the world.

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'.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

I am just not one to say that trousers on women are de facto immodest.

And I have not asserted the same. However, I believe that in most cases, they are.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

I have not made any other claims. I do not support modern immodest styles of trousers or skirts or blouses.

May God bless you.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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.

Women are many times attracted to physically fit men; however, many find muscles to be repulsive. The exposition of a man’s muscles rarely inspires lust in a female to the degree that the exposition of a woman’s physique inspires lust in a male. It is nature.

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).

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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).

You are once again assuming that women are staring at your buttocks in the same way that men stare at women’s. I’ve watched men walk past women and rarely see a woman’s eyes move to his midriff. However, it is rare that I catch a man’s eyes not move to the midriff of a female passerby, regardless of her physical endowments. The body of a well-figured woman is often largest and curviest at the waist, making it a point of attraction for a male even if beneath a pair of comfortably fitting pants. It is for this reason that I am also opposed to full-length skirts that hug the outside of the legs all the way down to the ankles for it also accentuations and advertises the wider areas of the woman’s body. The body of a well-figured male is often largest at the chest. But this discussion is about pants, so I won’t deviate from the topic. See below.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

Women by nature as sexually driven, they are just not as vocal about it to men.

This is not true. I have spoken to many Traditional Catholic females about this subject. It has been confirmed by these women that men are more visually stimulated by objects than are women. While there are many women who have sold themselves to impurity, it is not common of their nature to do so. You are taking into account the perverted female worldlings with whom you are familiar. I am taking into account the temptations of good, Catholic laity. You will more often find Catholic man staring at a Catholic girl in pants in a lustful manner than you will a Catholic girl staring at a Catholic man in pants of the same relative modesty.

Let me explain further. Consider the design of God. In order that the human race might continue, God has provided mankind with the power of procreation, the most enabling of all His bodily gifts. It is, therefore, necessary that man and woman possess certain qualities necessary for the perpetuation of the human race. Woman has been endowed with the physical capability of childbearing, childbirth, and, in order that the child might be nurtured, a special attachment to her children and desire for motherhood. This mother-child relationship is often the primary incentive for women to marry. Men, however, assume a great responsibility, become restricted to a family, are required to provide for the family, and are not gifted with the physical blueprint for childbearing. Therefore, man has been instilled with a greater sexual appetite and therefore an more human incentive such that he might fulfill his role in the continuity of humanity. Women need not be as a sexually driven.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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.

May I ask why it is that you say this? Certainly not from the women. This contradicts the attestations of all the woman who, having participated in and bourn witness to these sexual discussions, say that this is not so. They make sexual jokes and look at men in a perverse (not employed as a sexual application) way, but the sole ‘passing-by’ of a well-built male rarely incites them to such dangerous lustful thoughts.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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.

I often wonder if I might one day consider growing out my facial hair. However, considering I am pursuing a career in law enforcement, a beard is not an option for quite some time.


Regardless of what physique they possess, most of them just wear pants anyway without a valid, moral excuse.

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

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).

I think you might have an argument for gender distinction as it pertains to men shaving and women wearing pants (ideally, men would not shave and women would not wear pants), but this discussion is about modesty. A man shaving is not immodest, but what you might call a blurring of the genders.

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?

Quote:Originally posted by O'Neill

My statement was about the concept of "trousers on women" in general, not the most common styles which are grossly improper.

And I am referring to the immodesty of even non-“grossly improper” styles. I am referring to a woman wearing clothing that outlines, even if not specifically, portions of her body that draws sexual attention from males by nature. Women have “curves”. Men are, by fallen human nature, attracted to these “curves”. God forbids men to lust after women. The devil, through temptation, in order to contravene God’s law, perverts attraction and inspires lust. Men are then tempted to lust. Therefore, the negligent exposition or reckless implication of these curves makes it easier for the devil to inspire lust through visual aids. Woman, on the other hand, are not as often visually stimulated by men’s curves. They are often physically stimulated by contact, but not as often in sight. Women are attracted to the appearance of muscle, not so much because of lust, but because of the mental and physical discipline that is implied, a characteristic most woman find attractive. This data has been collected from the attestations of 95% of secular, worldly women who have described their attraction to muscles. When asked by men why they were attracted to muscle, the answer was almost unanimously that it was indicative of self-discipline – women are often attracted to men who take care of themselves; if he doesn’t like to take care of himself, women doubt whether he is likely to take care of her.
Unfortunately, most ignorant Americans employ the term “sexy” when defining their attractions. When questioned further, however, a distinction is almost always made.

Sir, I appreciate your cognitive and respectful responses. I have presented what I have found, through personal experience, to be true. However, as Quis stated quite some time ago:

Quote:Originally posted by QuisUtDeus

Unfortunately now we're on page 7 of the 8000th "Pants on Women" thread. As you mention above, it won't go away. And the reason it won't go away is that no one's mind is changing and everything is being rehashed again with the same people taking the same sides.

Keeping this in mind, I am going to heed the advice of one who has witnessed the futility of this particular topic on this forum. I have presented my opinion because I hoped I could offer insight not already presented. Considering I have done so already, I am going to temporarily refrain from further involvement in this discussion. You may respond and have the last word, but there isn’t much more I can say without getting explicit, something I will not do. Such specifics should only be undertaken by a priest and so I shall refrain from this in PM also.

Again, though, I thank you for your cordiality and I shall look forward to your response.

In Nomine Patris, Et Filii, Et Spiritus Sancti,
Why is it 'immodest' for woman to wear pants, but not men?
INPEFESS Wrote:And I am referring to the immodesty of even non-“grossly improper” styles. I am referring to a woman wearing clothing that outlines, even if not specifically, portions of her body that draws sexual attention from males by nature. Women have “curves”. Men are, by fallen human nature, attracted to these “curves”.

If it is immodest to show any curves at all, then a long skirt is not even going to be appropriate.  Women would have to wear long straight robes like the strictest kinds of Muslim women.  Is this what you are advocating?
Tsk, tsk. Look at St. Elizabeth of Hungary and her 'cruves.' Skank.

[Image: StElizabethHungary.jpg]

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)