Women wearing pants are in sin

[Mickes]

I didn't think this question would start so much contraversy. My wife and I often talk about this situation because I find her and any women before we were maried ( I just felt I better add that ) much more atractive in a dress then slacks so to me the dress would cause the stumbling block!

 

[Ben W]

Pants exist that are designed to be worn only by a woman. It is scriptural for a woman to wear pants designed for a female, It would be unscriptural for a man to wear a pair of these pants.

Women should not be forced into looking like they are involved in Islam. Veils and long dresses are forced upon women in these cultures. Christianity is by choice, Women have the right to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit as to what they should wear.

As I see it pants are o.k. Women should not be discriminated against on the basis of weather they choose pants or skirts.

 

[Johnv]

The producers of Star Trek dressed Seven and the Vulcan (I forget her name) in tight, form-fitting costumes to provide sex-appeal.

You mean T'Pol.

Oh man, now that you've given away the secret, how can I possibly tell everyone I watch the show purely for it's intellectual insight?????

 

[Aaron]

Yes, T'Pol. Thank you.

Star Trek intelligent? Amusing perhaps, but intelligent?

Quite frankly, When Seven joined the Voyager crew ratings soared.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Helen:
Then there are loose pants and tight fitting skirts....

Now repeat your questions, Aaron... using these items of clothing!

I never once considered short or tight skirts as modest. That's why I always qualified it.

I'm used to seeing women in jeans. Never thought about it being immodest until this thread. Women were saying they can't be mistaken for men in jeans. There can only be one reason, it's because it reveals the shapes of their hips from the waist to the tops of the legs.

That is why women are not mistaken for men in jeans.

My question isn't about loose clothes that do not reveal these things.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Aaron said:

Are women really being modest by revealing the shape of their hips? Interesting thought.

Now I'm confused.

Am I supposed to believe Pants Are Evil <tm> because they reveal the wearer's femininity (per HCL's argument)?

Or because pants "pertaineth unto a man" (Deut. 22:5) and therefore obscure her femininity (per Walls' argument on page 1 of this thread)?

A very interesting point which I don't think anyone has really addressed. There are two contradictory views here.

Karen

 

[Ransom]

Headcoveredlady said:

Do you actually know anyone who dresses that way?

I know that if I wish, I can admire the feminine figure of every woman who doesn't, which is my point. If "modesty" is to be defined by the concealment of your shape, as the latest non-argument in favour of skirts claims, then the only solution to "immodesty" is to become shapeless.

 

[Ransom]

Oh man, now that you've given away the secret, how can I possibly tell everyone I watch the show purely for it's intellectual insight?????

Just as an off-topic aside, am I the only person who thinks that Deanna Troi's standard uniform in the last couple years of The Next Generation's run did her appearance greater justice than that catsuit the producers had previously foisted upon her?

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Dear Karen,
I do not think there is a contradiction here. When you see a person in a long loose dress you know IMMEDIATELY THAT THE PERSON IS A WOMAN, right? But when you see a person in a pair of jeans and t-shirt you may or may not be sure. Because the woman may be very thin, as per my example. A man or woman may have to look at the breasts to determine what gender the person is. The person may look at the shape of the lower body first to determine whether male or female and then if the person is too thin may check the breasts. I will open myself to vulnerability here and say that I have had to do this. And I am being honest when I say the first thing from behind a woman in jeans I notice is the rear end. I am not looking for this, IT IS THE FOCAL POINT. IT IS THE PART OF THE CLOTHING THAT BRINGS MOST ATTENTION. Especially when they are tight. I have seen very, very large women in tight jeans that this was the focal point. That is just MY OPINION. That is the part that sticks out.



Also, I have noticed how men look at me since wearing only dresses. Most will look at my face instead of my body. But, I have caught some, youger men, in fact, who will look at the bottom of my legs, as if trying to see just some flesh. They seem surprised to not be able to see the shape so they seem to be looking for anything they can see. That again is my experience.

Also, I keep reading all this talk about freedom to wear what you want. But, it is USUALLY NOT EXTENDED THE OTHER WAY. In my experience, I have received dirty looks from church going women for this.

When I first started going to the church I go to now, I showed up on a weekday to do some work there. One of the leading women there who was in pants gave me a very dirty look as she looked down at my dress. I do not know what was in her heart. But, I did not feel welcome there as I was clothed.

Don't even get me started about how others have treated me since wearing a headcovering. The same people who tout the freedom line treat me as offscouring even when I NEVER BRING IT UP. So, in actuality there is not freedom for those who choose to follow this either. Because they are accused of legalism and gossiped about simply because they choose to wear these article of clothing.

[ November 29, 2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Dear Headcoveredlady~I think it's only going to get worse, don't you? In our small rural town, there are mostly pentecostals/apostolics, so I blend in pretty well; yet I cut my bangs & yes, I still wear my lipstick...

But the ridicule comes from "other" Baptists(who dress immodestly skimpy) and from my own family members! Someone has said hard times are coming and so is Jesus, but it's not soon enough for me!

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Granny,
Yes I do...

 

[Ransom]

Headcoveredlady said:

But when you see a person in a pair of jeans and t-shirt you may or may not be sure. Because the woman may be very thin, as per my example. A man or woman may have to look at the breasts to determine what gender the person is.

You are contradicting yourself. You are trying to say that it is confusing whether someone wearing jeans and a T-shirt is male or female, but you can't get around the brute fact of an obvious, visible biological distinction between men and women. A T-shirt won't do it. In most women, only a tightly wound tensor bandage can obscure that distinction.

You have proven the point I made before: the anti-pants crusaders cannot make up their mind whether to accuse trousers-wearing women of hiding or flaunting their sex. You just affirmed both within the space of three sentences.

[ November 29, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Dear ransom,
Perhaps another teerm besides crusader would be nicer. Anyway, the point remains, when I see someone in a long loose dress, even if the woman has a crew-cut, I immediately know that she is a woman. Not because of her breasts, but because she is a long loose dress. In pants the two problems I see are that one must many times LOOK AT THE BREASTS to determine the gender. And the other point is that the focal point of women in jeans IS NOT THE FACE. Maybe it is for you, but I have not found that in my experience. The focal point is not the face when looking at a woman in jeans.

So, should one HAVE TO look at the breasts to determine the gender? Why not just look at the person in the loose flowing garment to determine the gender. What I am saying is that in jeans the eyes are drawn to other parts of the body than the face.



And I ask you this: Isn't it nice to have clothing that is just for men?

HCL

[ November 29, 2002, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Aaron:

Seven-of-Nine on Star Trek, and the new Vulcan commander on Enterprise wear full-body suits, but they are tight and form-fitting. Is this modest?

No, and neither were the *dresses* that female crew members wore in the first series.

Both pants and dresses can be modest or immodest. I simply don't understand why this thread is 15 pages long.

 

[Ransom]

So, should one HAVE TO look at the breasts to determine the gender?

Have to? No, but as I said, they're rather a dead giveaway.

Women have breasts. It's an inescapable fact of life. Nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact - and, since it is one significant way of telling girls from boys, making use of the fact.

Out of curiosity, after going on for some time about the necessity to hide the shape of women's hips from view, how come you have not started advocating shapeless dresses that hide the bust?

(You know, if you go back and read many of HCL's posts, there's a definite phobia concerning the shape of the human body as though its form is something to be hidden and ashamed of. Gnosticism is still with us.)

[ November 29, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[GrannyGumbo]

I simply don't understand why this thread is 15 pages long[BrianT]

"Because it is important to some folks here, dear, just as your drinking threads were to you...and all those others trying to refute the King James Bible, oh~and let's not forget the infamous thong thread!

One can always go talk about the weather or make caveman sounds.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:

"Because it is important to some folks here, dear, just as your drinking threads were to you...and all those others trying to refute the King James Bible, oh~and let's not forget the infamous thong thread!

Ah. Because some jus don' geddit, even when the principle is simple.

One can always go talk about the weather or make caveman sounds.

Snow. Gronk.

 

[donnA]

And the other point is that the focal point of women in jeans IS NOT THE FACE. Maybe it is for you, but I have not found that in my experience. The focal point is not the face when looking at a woman in jeans.

Well, since your not a man, and you only look so you can put down, why don't take a mans word for it. And if your busy looking at what people are wearing, then the person themself must be second to you, nothing about them matters but their clothing.
I do not wear jeans, I wear womens pants, in fabrics men do not wear as pants, in styles men would not wear, if you saw these pants there is no way they can be mistaken for men's pants. Not only that I do not wear tight clothing. So you are accusing all women who wear pants of wearing too tight jeans and showing off their curves. That is a lie, yet it seems to be your only argument.
I particularly have a problem with a christian woman who looks at another womans hips, and curves(her body), just to see if they can be seen. If you have a probelm with focusing on a woman body instead of her face, your the one with the problem.
And then have the nerve to judge them!
Everyone does not hvae this fixation, you assume they do.

 

[Headcoveredlady]

[/QUOTE]Well, since your not a man, and you only look so you can put down, why don't take a mans word for it. And if your busy looking at what people are wearing, then the person themself must be second to you, nothing about them matters but their clothing.
I do not wear jeans, I wear womens pants, in fabrics men do not wear as pants, in styles men would not wear, if you saw these pants there is no way they can be mistaken for men's pants. Not only that I do not wear tight clothing. So you are accusing all women who wear pants of wearing too tight jeans and showing off their curves. That is a lie, yet it seems to be your only argument.
I particularly have a problem with a christian woman who looks at another womans hips, and curves(her body), just to see if they can be seen. If you have a probelm with focusing on a woman body instead of her face, your the one with the problem.
And then have the nerve to judge them!
Everyone does not hvae this fixation, you assume they do.[/QB][/QUOTE]

So, according to you I only look at people to put them down. Is that right? And how do you know that? So, you are in my heart now?

And where have I ever said that who the person is is secondary? Please quote that as well.

First of all, I address this topic for the same reason I did the Biblical submission. There is a problem in the Church in this area. It is not being taught nor is it being modeled.

Now, as per your comments about me only looking at the outside of a person. I recognize that there are those who dress to bring themselves attention. And each person knows what is in their own hearts and so does the Lord.

However, the point I have been trying to make over and over is that born again Christian women ought to dress in a way that pleases the Lord. Why not wear clothing that is THE MOST FEMININE, THE MOST COVERING? The clothing that brings the most glory to the Lord.

 

[Ransom]

Isn't it odd that the only New Testament verses that cover the subject of modesty actually say that true modest does not consist in the right clothes, but the right attitudes?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. (1 Tim. 2:9-10)

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. (1 Pet. 3:1-6)