Pants Or No Pants

[mcdirector]

I had another post in this thread in reference to Scarlett's post on discretion. I checked the spelling and everything.

I wonder where it went. I hope it isn't on another thread!

 

[mcdirector]

mmm well I can't find it. Maybe I hit something other than submit. I'm doing some serious multitasking here!

I read a quote by Julia Louis-Dreyfuss (who I never thought I'd be quoting) asking where these girls' (the ones Scarlett listed) mamas are? Well, some of them have made it very clear where they are and they aren't teaching them anything.

Since I work with teens, I see some parents just like these. I see more that started out with good intentions, but the minute things got tough, they backed down. In the backing down, we just get more and more Parises and Brittanys and Lindsays.

Since we've got so many showing no discretion, wisdom, etc, - so few seeking God -- and since the pendelum has swung so far toward the any-thing goes/promiscuity edge, it makes me wonder what will happen next -- The swing back is usually pretty drastic.

 

[thebiblicalview1]

The best thing to do for them is to pray. Tell your sisters that what they hold are convictions from the Bible. Their convictions are based upon the verse of men not wearing that which apertaineth to a woman and women wearing that which apertaineth to a man. It sounds like your sisters in Christ are a little out of balane.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me ask the list the following question. Do you believe that immodesty within our society has affected or encouraged criminal activity? Does it encourage sin such as lust?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Let me ask the list the following question. Do you believe that immodesty within our society has affected or encouraged criminal activity? Does it encourage sin such as lust?

Yes and yes.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rufus: Yes and yes.

HP: I am waiting for some of the female members to check in. I wonder what they are thinking.

 

[abcgrad94]

HP: I am waiting for some of the female members to check in. I wonder what they are thinking.

I'm thinking you're asking for it!:laugh: I've been quiet for 5 whole pages but there's only so much we gals can take. lol!

As to your question, of course immodesty encourages criminal activity. I believe it was Ted Bundy who first started out looking at porn, then he went further and commited rape and murder. I think if we had no porn in America, we'd have less crime against women and children.

While I agree that immodesty contributes to lust, I think you should re-word the question to ask if lust has had an effect on modestly. Think about it. Women don't just suddenly decide to dress immodestly for no reason. They do it because they think they will look pretty or desirable.

But if you're saying that pants equal immodesty, sorry, I don't agree and won't discuss it without a rolling pin in my hand.

 

[Amy.G]

ummmm, I think pants are preferable to no pants.

:laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ABCGRAD94: I'm thinking you're asking for it! I've been quiet for 5 whole pages but there's only so much we gals can take. lol!

HP: This is sort of like smoking out bees. It can be dangerous work indeed.

ABC: As to your question, of course immodesty encourages criminal activity. I believe it was Ted Bundy who first started out looking at porn, then he went further and commited rape and murder. I think if we had no porn in America, we'd have less crime against women and children.

HP: Excellent point. Consider the millions of dollars we spend as a society tracking down and incarcerating criminals and investigating crimes and the lives that are abused and destroyed by selfish lust. To think that one might consider such as simply a matter of free speech or individual preference as some do is a total farse.

ABC: While I agree that immodesty contributes to lust, I think you should re-word the question to ask if lust has had an effect on modestly. Think about it. Women don't just suddenly decide to dress immodestly for no reason. They do it because they think they will look pretty or desirable.

HP: I believe other factors are involved as well. WWll brought on the pants onslaught with women. My mother was one of the first 'Rosie riveters' working in a plane factory that required women to wear pants due to the scaffolding they were required to work on with men passing beneath them.

For two thousand years there has been within the church by and large a consensus of practice of dress. Pants on women were simply not permitted or chosen to be worn. I am not at this time equating pants with immodesty, but in my brief lifetime, I have witnessed an attack on almost every well establish principle of modesty, as well as an unprecedented attack upon marital faithfulness. As a child, divorce was almost unheard of. Today it is said that divorce is running about the same percentage in the church as outside of the church. Do you think that the breaking down of well established dress standards have in any way contributed to the breakdown of modesty that we are forced to wade in on a daily basis? Has this breakdown of modesty affected the breakdown of the family?

ABC: But if you're saying that pants equal immodesty, sorry, I don't agree and won't discuss it without a rolling pin in my hand.

HP: Put up the rolling pin.:laugh: This is a civil discussion.

Let me ask you a question. Were pants on women ever considered as immodest? If so why? Are we to assume that society for two thousand years has just had some weird hang up for no reason other than personal preference?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Let me ask the list the following question. Do you believe that immodesty within our society has affected or encouraged criminal activity? Does it encourage sin such as lust?

I think that I could answer this question if we were all on the same page as to what "immodesty" is. But we aren't, so that makes for a very difficult and cohesive discussion about criminal behavior.

The Ted Bundy issue was about pornography. Certainly pornographic material designed and viewed by men shows women and children (and other men) dressed immodestly. I would have to give a BIG yes for pornography contributing to criminal behavior, but I thought we were talking about the average person on the street and their attire.

I would have to say "yes" for the last question. Certainly immodest attire can contribute to lust. But it's not the only factor. A man or a woman can lust over someone who is fully clothed. Or an imaginary person in their mind. The lust mechanism can be ignited over the strangest of things.....even inanimate objects.

 

[abcgrad94]

I don't think the breakdown of modesty has contributed to the breakdown of the family. Instead, I think our dress is a reflection of our attitudes. It is a symptom, not the main disease. When our attitude toward God is wrong, it distorts our attitudes about marriage, modesty, etc. It is the heart that chooses to do right or wrong.

You asked if pants on women were ever considered immodest. Ironically, you also mentioned that they were used by women for modesty at work during WWII. I think that Hollywood women first started wearing slacks and society was shocked and scandalized by their boldness and rebellion against established tradition. These gals were considered brazen, bossy, and feminists. They had little regard for morals, and people identified them by their slacks and cigarettes and daring bathing suits. Their clothes did not make them rebellious, but rather, their attitudes controlled their modesty standards.

Now take a Christian young woman on a farm who wears slacks to milk the cows and muck out the barn. It's easier and more convenient to wear slacks so she starts wearing them to the store and around town. Then some pious skirt-wearing believers start snubbing her for being "rebellious" like the Hollywood crowd. They judge her clothing, not her attitude. They start putting more emphasis on their good work (wearing skirts) instead of the heart and consider themselves better Christians. And so it continues until the younger generation just can't understand what all the fuss is about.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ABC: Then some pious skirt-wearing believers start snubbing her for being "rebellious" like the Hollywood crowd. They judge her clothing, not her attitude.

HP: This is an interesting comment. Are you absolutely certain that your judgment concerning those ‘pious skirt wearing believers’ is according to their actual heart as God sees it? Lets say for instance that one sees a shift towards immodesty in the church, and holds a different belief that you, believing that immodesty leads to immorality and the breakdown of the family. Could it ‘possibly’ be her love for the Lord and what has been for two thousand years the standard of the church she sees being disregarded, and feels indignation, not for the individual, but for the evil she honestly believes it genders within and without the church?

ABC: They start putting more emphasis on their good work (wearing skirts)

HP: If skirt wearing is good works, should not every female believer desire to follow the pious example? “ ….that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” .......................or do you really feel that to wear a skirt is simply done to be more 'holy than thou?'

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SO: I think that I could answer this question if we were all on the same page as to what "immodesty" is. But we aren't, so that makes for a very difficult and cohesive discussion about criminal behavior.

HP: I agree. “My people perish for a lack of knowledge”

SO: The Ted Bundy issue was about pornography. Certainly pornographic material designed and viewed by men shows women and children (and other men) dressed immodestly. I would have to give a BIG yes for pornography contributing to criminal behavior, but I thought we were talking about the average person on the street and their attire.

HP: I as well am trying to address the issue of the average person on the street. Sad but true, I often see little difference between the church and the world when it comes to dress. Certainly Sunday morning at most churches prove to be a little less revealing that Monday through Saturday. I suppose that is one seventh of a good thing.

SO: I would have to say "yes" for the last question. Certainly immodest attire can contribute to lust. But it's not the only factor. A man or a woman can lust over someone who is fully clothed. Or an imaginary person in their mind. The lust mechanism can be ignited over the strangest of things.....even inanimate objects.

HP: I cannot help but think that if the Church was not all but asleep at the wheel over the modesty issue, we might have some hope of making a greater impact on the rest of the world. Thank God for the many still of that ‘pious’ nature that set a proper example of modesty…….whatever that means to you or myself.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I am just wondering what some might think of those 'pious skirt wearing believers.' Do you consider them your weaker sisters? If not, why not, and if you do, what should your obligation to them be?

 

[Scarlett O.]

I am just wondering what some might think of those 'pious skirt wearing believers.' Do you consider them your weaker sisters? If not, why not, and if you do, what should your obligation to them be?

It isn't what they wear vs. what I wear. It's the being pious about it.

And just for good measure, women who wear pants can be pious as well as people in general who wear blue jeans.

Even the preacher in the suit and tie standing behind the pulpit can be pious.

 

[rbell]

Even the preacher in the suit and tie standing behind the pulpit can be pious.

Say it ain't so, Scarlett O!

gee, that rhymed...

 

[Scarlett O.]

Say it ain't so, Scarlett O!

gee, that rhymed...

Well, let's just slap one of those frilly white things around your neck and call you Shakespeare!

:laugh: :laugh: ........ .....Oops! I was laughing so hard that I fell off of my computer chair!!

 

[tinytim]

When did pants on men become the norm.. if we are looking at biblical standards, the robe was...

Just curious, was there a "scandal" when the first few men put on pants instead of robes...

And what is the difference?
If Jeans on a woman is immodest, why would jeans on a man be modest?

I have heard the reasoning that you can see the outline of a woman's body when they are wearing jeans..... OK, you can see the outline of a man's body when wearing jeans too...

What makes men wearing jeans OK, but women wearing them wrong?

I know women that lust after men wearing jeans.

Does that mean that we all should dress in biblical garments?

Now where did I put my toga?

 

[Scarlett O.]

When did pants on men become the norm.. if we are looking at biblical standards, the robe was...

Just curious, was there a "scandal" when the first few men put on pants instead of robes...

And what is the difference?
If Jeans on a woman is immodest, why would jeans on a man be modest?

I have heard the reasoning that you can see the outline of a woman's body when they are wearing jeans..... OK, you can see the outline of a man's body when wearing jeans too...

What makes men wearing jeans OK, but women wearing them wrong?

I know women that lust after men wearing jeans.

Does that mean that we all should dress in biblical garments?

Now where did I put my toga?

Stop! Stop! The BB can't handle this much of an overload of common sense and reason. Our brains will burst!

Good post. :thumbs:

 

[abcgrad94]

It isn't what they wear vs. what I wear. It's the being pious about it.=

This is my point exactly. With the exception of BapMom, I have never, ever met anyone who believed in "skirts only" who didn't have a better-than-thou attitude about it. We are to glory in the cross, not ourselves for the way we dress.

I wonder, as TT said, if people were horrified when men stopped wearing robes and donned pants instead.

In Iraq, women are required to cover themselves head to toe. Does that make me immodest because I disagree with their definition of modesty? Of course not.