S/O question regarding pantsless Christians.

[KidsHappen]

Why are dresses considered more modest than pants? They cover less of your body and leave easier access to places that men might be interested in. I have heard from more than one man that the thought that there is less material between them and these areas can be quite arousing. Also more s*xual activities can be accomplished in a skirt than can in pants. I personally have always felt more vulnerable in a dress than in pants. I can discreetly accomplish many more nons*xual activities in pants than I can in a skirt.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I am not a pantless Christian, but I understand that dresses are considered to be more modest because they do not follow the form of the woman's lower extremities.

[Quad Shot Academy]

I am not a pantless Christian, but I understand that dresses are considered to be more modest because they do not follow the form of the woman's lower extremities.

 

This might be true of heavier women, but not thin ones. I can rarely walk in a skirt w/o it getting sucked between my legs! :001_huh: I am constantly puling at it, worrying about the sun shinning through it and about little kids pulling it off. :lol: I find nothing modest about skirts on me other than the ones that look like they belong on Little House on the Prairie.

[Hannah C.]

I was a pantsless Christian for a while as a child. We could only wear skirts, and they had to be below the knee or longer. I think most pantsless Christians think women and girls should wear longer skirts. A miniskirt would never be considered acceptable. Skirts are supposed to be more modest because they do not follow women's curves.

 

I still love skirts, and think they are more flattering than many pants styles available today. :)

[eaglei]

I am not a pantless Christian, but I understand that dresses are considered to be more modest because they do not follow the form of the woman's lower extremities.

 

I have heard this, too. Seems to me that the cut or style of the slacks would have an affect on how much the form is accentuated . . . The OP makes good points. I do not see where dresses are necessarily more modest.

 

Also, I just know I am going to regret saying this, but - - - did not Jesus wear a robe? This makes me wonder why dresses/skirts versus slacks for women is such an issue??? Seems like modesty should be the concern (for those who are concerned), and not whether to wear dresses or slacks exclusively. (I do not mean this in any way to come against those who wear dresses only - there is, in their decision/stand, that which calls for respect, not criticism, imho).

 

By the way, I am dressed in comfortable jeans and shirt as I type this - DEFINITELY a slacks-wearing Christian!!!:D

[Mom-ninja.]

I had to read the title twice because the first glance made me giggle.

[Nestof3]

From what I've heard, men like an attractive butt. A person with a nice butt would have less of an impact on a man in a loose skirt than in pants. From what I understand, it doesn't really matter as much what you wear if you don't have a nice figure unless it's something extreme like n_pples showing or something.

 

I also think most men would say that a woman in loose fitting khakis with a great figure is much less appealing than one in fitting jeans. I think the same thing would go for a skirt -- short and/tight would draw more attention than long and flowing.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I wonder if there are two other issues other than modesty.

 

1) not dressing like a man. Now, in other countries, this would be done in different ways; but in our country, men don't wear long skirts and it's considered feminine for women to.

 

2) submission or reverence? Honestly, I feel a lot more feminine, quiet spirited, demure, submissive, etc in a skirt/dress.

 

ETA: I wear pants, shorts, capris, etc on a daily basis. When I go worship or do ministry work, I wear skirts or dresses.

[Ester Maria]

Because not only woman's tights, but also the space between them, are considered a private space. Wearing pants, which "break" that space AND outline the body, would therefore be immodest.

 

(That's the Jewish explanation though, I don't know if Christians share in that.)

[fairfarmhand]

this is sort of off topic, but what is wrong with trying to look attractive (not necessarily sexy, but attractive) in whatever we wear? It seems that the "pantsless police " (there are some no pants christians who are rather nasty about it, these are the ones of whom I am referring) constantly worry about women being attractive to avoid the men being titillated. So I suppose they want us to wear bags on our heads????

 

My dh loves that I pay attention to my weight, take care of myself and try to be pretty and attractive. He would be embarassed if I didn't care enough to look nice.

[Mynyel]

Ok so skirts don't show the lower "extremities", especially if they are long. However, even a modest shirt can form to a woman's breasts. Yes I don't see them wearing formless shirts.

Kinda a oxymoron there.....just a thought.

[ereks mom]

...pants were not worn by ANYONE when the Bible was originally written, so the writers of the Bible could not have possibly intended to say that women should not wear pants. At that time, men didn't wear pants either; everyone wore robes and such. Pants as we know them didn't come into existence until many centuries later. Check out this article: History of Trousers

 

I found this article here, and the author's opinions on this matter mirror my own:

 

The question about whether Christian women should wear pants or slacks is an issue that is raised about externals when the life of the child of God should rather be about a spiritual relationship based upon our position in Christ as believers. The obedience of a child of God is not measured by what clothing we wear but by our walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16).

 

When looking at “doubtful things," we need to use Scripture in context for the principles that will help us walk as believers, which means considering the dispensation and the whole counsel of God and not taking passages out of context. There is a passage in the Old Testament that speaks about a woman wearing men's clothing: "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this" (Deuteronomy 22:5). The context of this passage is the second giving of the law to the nation of Israel as they were poised to enter the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 22:5 is an admonition not to live as a transvestite. This has to do with more than just clothing; it also speaks of a life that emulates in every way those of the opposite sex. Transvestitism was a practice of the Canaanites, and Israel was to consider it an abomination. We take a principle from this and apply it to our lives as believers, but we must use it in the context in which it is given and do so in relation to the dispensation of grace.

 

The Apostle Paul wrote extensively on the difference between the law and grace in Romans. We are not justified by our adherence to the law, but we are justified by faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-28). The believer in Christ Jesus is "dead" to the constraints of the law. "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:6). Therefore, a believer does not live by legalism, nor by license, but rather by grace.

 

What has that to do with a believing woman wearing pants? There is no biblical law that says what a woman should wear or not wear. Rather, the issue is one of modesty. Paul addresses the modesty of women in his first letter to Timothy. "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (1 Timothy 2:9-10). The Greek word translated "modest" is the Greek word kosmios, which is translated twice in the New Testament, once as "modest" in this passage and once as "of good behavior" in 1 Timothy 3:1. It came to mean "well-arranged, seemly, and modest."

 

The word clothes is the Greek word katastole. The meaning of the word was "to send or to let down or lower." It was primarily a garment that was let down and in that day referred to a stole or a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank. Since we know that Paul was not speaking to people of rank, the context here is simply modest attire, and it does not specify what that entails. Paul addressed this issue here because the women in the church were trying to outdo each other in how they dressed, and the flashier the better. They were losing sight of the things that should adorn a godly woman—humility, sobriety, godliness, and good works. The words "dress modestly" are not used here in the context of specific garments, but rather to being clad in a modest covering. It should not be used to prove a prohibition against wearing pants (also see 1 Peter 3:3-4).

 

So, the issue is that a woman should wear modest clothing. Whether or not that includes a pair of slacks should be a matter for the woman's own conscience before the LORD. If a woman allows her outward appearance to be the measure of her inward relationship with Christ, she is living under the constraints of legalism. Born-again women are free in Christ to wear whatever modest apparel they choose, and the only judgment they should be under is that of their own conscience. "Everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). We are not to allow our consciences to be dictated to by legalism and the consciences of others, but by our own relationship with Christ. "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). God will take care of the outward woman if we walk in obedience in the inward woman.

 

Now, I have known women who chose to wear only dresses or skirts, and they have told me that they are more comfortable that way, and they feel more feminine. I think that's fine. But it's a personal choice, and someone who feels that this way is right for them should never condemn others for not holding the same convictions, since the Bible does not tell us that women should wear dresses or skirts only.

 

Another article on this topic that you might find interesting is this one.

Edited June 27, 2010 by ereks mom

[Mynyel]

this is sort of off topic, but what is wrong with trying to look attractive (not necessarily sexy, but attractive) in whatever we wear? It seems that the "pantsless police " (there are some no pants christians who are rather nasty about it, these are the ones of whom I am referring) constantly worry about women being attractive to avoid the men being titillated. So I suppose they want us to wear bags on our heads????

 

My dh loves that I pay attention to my weight, take care of myself and try to be pretty and attractive. He would be embarassed if I didn't care enough to look nice.

 

There are those that are very dictatorish about it.

 

For instance there was a group here that was going to a public campground (I think it was a campground..was a park or some such thing at any rate) for a BBQ, pool time and so on. The leader of the group said in no uncertain terms (think bold, italic and underlined) that girls could only wear one piece suits.

 

Now I don't consider two piece suits modest and thankfully my daughter doesn't want to wear them (humph I can't wear them...not pretty) however I would never tell someone else what they can or can't wear to a public function. That isn't my place and what kinds of clothes to wear is between the girl and her parents not the girl and a leader of a group. Granted there are extremes. I mean dixie cups and dental floss suits shouldn't be allowed no matter what but...we are talking extremes there.

 

Some may not agree with me but I am just too much of a rebel to have others dictate like that. (This same person would fuss at me because my thick strapped nursing bras would show under my tank top straps:glare:) I can't stand it when they do. Which is why we aren't part of the group anymore :)

[Mynyel]

...pants were not worn by ANYONE when the Bible was originally written, so the writers of the Bible could not have possibly intended to say that women should not wear pants. At that time, men didn't wear pants either; everyone wore robes and such. Pants as we know them didn't come into existence until many centuries later. Check out this article: History of Trousers

 

I found this article here, and the author's opinions on this matter mirror my own:

 

The question about whether Christian women should wear pants or slacks is an issue that is raised about externals when the life of the child of God should rather be about a spiritual relationship based upon our position in Christ as believers. The obedience of a child of God is not measured by what clothing we wear but by our walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16).

 

When looking at “doubtful things," we need to use Scripture in context for the principles that will help us walk as believers, which means considering the dispensation and the whole counsel of God and not taking passages out of context. There is a passage in the Old Testament that speaks about a woman wearing men's clothing: "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this" (Deuteronomy 22:5). The context of this passage is the second giving of the law to the nation of Israel as they were poised to enter the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 22:5 is an admonition not to live as a transvestite. This has to do with more than just clothing; it also speaks of a life that emulates in every way those of the opposite sex. Transvestitism was a practice of the Canaanites, and Israel was to consider it an abomination. We take a principle from this and apply it to our lives as believers, but we must use it in the context in which it is given and do so in relation to the dispensation of grace.

 

The Apostle Paul wrote extensively on the difference between the law and grace in Romans. We are not justified by our adherence to the law, but we are justified by faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-28). The believer in Christ Jesus is "dead" to the constraints of the law. "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:6). Therefore, a believer does not live by legalism, nor by license, but rather by grace.

 

What has that to do with a believing woman wearing pants? There is no biblical law that says what a woman should wear or not wear. Rather, the issue is one of modesty. Paul addresses the modesty of women in his first letter to Timothy. "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (1 Timothy 2:9-10). The Greek word translated "modest" is the Greek word kosmios, which is translated twice in the New Testament, once as "modest" in this passage and once as "of good behavior" in 1 Timothy 3:1. It came to mean "well-arranged, seemly, and modest."

 

The word clothes is the Greek word katastole. The meaning of the word was "to send or to let down or lower." It was primarily a garment that was let down and in that day referred to a stole or a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank. Since we know that Paul was not speaking to people of rank, the context here is simply modest attire, and it does not specify what that entails. Paul addressed this issue here because the women in the church were trying to outdo each other in how they dressed, and the flashier the better. They were losing sight of the things that should adorn a godly woman—humility, sobriety, godliness, and good works. The words "dress modestly" are not used here in the context of specific garments, but rather to being clad in a modest covering. It should not be used to prove a prohibition against wearing pants (also see 1 Peter 3:3-4).

 

So, the issue is that a woman should wear modest clothing. Whether or not that includes a pair of slacks should be a matter for the woman's own conscience before the LORD. If a woman allows her outward appearance to be the measure of her inward relationship with Christ, she is living under the constraints of legalism. Born-again women are free in Christ to wear whatever modest apparel they choose, and the only judgment they should be under is that of their own conscience. "Everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). We are not to allow our consciences to be dictated to by legalism and the consciences of others, but by our own relationship with Christ. "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). God will take care of the outward woman if we walk in obedience in the inward woman.

 

Now, I have known women who chose to wear only dresses or skirts, and they have told me that they are more comfortable that way, and they feel more feminine. I think that's fine. But it's a personal choice, and someone who feels that this way is right for them should never condemn others for not holding the same convictions, since the Bible does not tell us that women should wear dresses or skirts only.

 

Another article on this topic that you might find interesting is this one.

 

 

Excellent post!

 

I may sound largumentive in my posts about it and I am not trying really. If women was to wear a nun's habit (no offense to anyone! Nuns habits are just known for covering everything!) all the time so be it. However it shouldn't be the end all and please don't think I am a heathen because I wear cotton stretch pants (at home) or jeans!

 

:001_smile:

[AHASRADA]

These have been interesting threads. Personally, I wear long, loose-fitting dresses, WITH pants (leggings, stretch pants, loose rayon slacks, etc.) underneath.

 

The dress masks the contours of my body that would be outlined by my trousers, and the pants take care of the "access" issues mentioned by a PP. I agree that dresses can be less modest if they unintentionally expose skin through movement, wind blowing, manner of sitting, etc., hence my underneath pants.

 

All bases covered! :lol:

 

Oh, and my dh also appreciates me dressing in an attractive manner, at home, for him. On the street for everyone to "appreciate", no way.

[fairfarmhand]

(This same person would fuss at me because my thick strapped nursing bras would show under my tank top straps:glare:) I can't stand it when they do. Which is why we aren't part of the group anymore :)

 

oh those frumpy nursing bra straps are so sexy!

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Veritaserum]

If all I did was stand, maybe a long skirt would be more modest. Because I do move around, I prefer pants. They stay down even if I bend over, the wind blows, I sit, etc. Dh thinks pants are more modest for this reason as well. I live in shorts in the summer (knee-length) and jeans in the winter. I pretty much ony wear dresses or skirts on Sunday for church. Dresses/skirts are just impractical for me. I would feel smothered to have to wear leggings or shorts underneath my skirt to keep me covered.

 

I appreciated that article on the history of pants. :)

[IsabelC]

Because historically, in the Western culture, pants meant power, and women aren't allowed to be powerful. Hence skirts, corsets, bound feet etc are all items developed to render women more delicate, ornamental, helpless and dependent on men. In cultures where men wore/wear robes, there are/were other uncomfortable or restrictive things to differentiate women.

[74Heaven]

this is sort of off topic, but what is wrong with trying to look attractive (not necessarily sexy, but attractive) in whatever we wear? It seems that the "pantsless police " (there are some no pants christians who are rather nasty about it, these are the ones of whom I am referring) constantly worry about women being attractive to avoid the men being titillated. So I suppose they want us to wear bags on our heads????

 

My dh loves that I pay attention to my weight, take care of myself and try to be pretty and attractive. He would be embarassed if I didn't care enough to look nice.

 

That's the normal term, fyi. Dresses only. And the thinking is to do with a Bible verse in the Old Testament that says women should not dress in men's clothing. The other thought is femininity. And obviously there's more to that than just slapping a skirt on but the general idea is skirts are more feminine than pants.

 

A third reason is definitely modesty which is also a biblical principle.

 

And keeping oneself attractive to our own husbands is encouraged by my dresses only friends. But likewise, not to draw attention thru flirtatious or immodest dress is the flipside.

 

Oh and I wanted to add, my dresses only friends are never even remotely pious or nasty about it. Never ever.

 

Lisaj, who doesn't really want to even consider giving up my blue jeans...

Edited June 28, 2010 by 74Heaven

[asta]

this is sort of off topic, but what is wrong with trying to look attractive (not necessarily sexy, but attractive) in whatever we wear? It seems that the "pantsless police " (there are some no pants christians who are rather nasty about it, these are the ones of whom I am referring) constantly worry about women being attractive to avoid the men being titillated. So I suppose they want us to wear bags on our heads????

 

 

this... sounds... so... familiar... to existing outfit... must... refrain... from... getting... thread... locked...

 

 

a

[....]

I don't want to get in trouble on here, either...but I just can't resist.

 

If women are forced to wear skirts/dresses for religious reasons, why aren't men forced to follow the appearance requirements for Orthodox Jews? You can't pick and choose what part of the Old Testament you want to adhere too, right? Why not just follow it all?

 

Why not completely cover women from head to toe, so men have absolutely, positively NO opportunity to become aroused by the form of women.

 

And why are men and women sitting together in the pews during our service? Don't they know something could happen?

 

There's nothing in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount that says women can only wear calf-length denim skirts from Wal-Mart.

 

I apologize. If you need to ban me, go ahead. I understand.

[mommaduck]

This might be true of heavier women, but not thin ones. I can rarely walk in a skirt w/o it getting sucked between my legs! :001_huh: I am constantly puling at it, worrying about the sun shinning through it and about little kids pulling it off. :lol: I find nothing modest about skirts on me other than the ones that look like they belong on Little House on the Prairie.

A slip cures both of those problems (they keep the skirt flowy and not grabby, and they keep the sun from shining through. I really wish slips were "in" again.

 

As to the "easier access", that assumes that one is not wearing undergarments. Not every skirt wearing woman wears just a flimsy panty either. I do know women, and have been the woman, wearing bloomers (yes, as in Little House on the Prairie type garment), stretch pants, long underwear, long underwear-shorts, and support garments (that would be more difficult to get past than pants).

 

I get a lot less cat calls since I went to skirts. Doors are opened for me, I've been treated like a lady, not just some woman on the street, etc.

 

A lot of this also may be cultural from place to place. I had a friend that lived in Mexico City and she could not leave the house in a skirt....due to men's assumptions (rape was a real threat and the saying was that "even the priest is not safe in his robes").

 

 

(btw, I've been in skirts for so long, that it's natural for me. I wear pj bottoms around the house at times. My daughters wear pants and skirts now, we teach modesty as a principal and help guide in various applications and what is appropriate for which situation...this includes choosing one style of pants or skirt over another style of pants or skirts)

Edited June 28, 2010 by mommaduck

[lionfamily1999]

Ah summer... From the screaming cicadas to the modesty threads, summer is here.

[mommaduck]

Ah summer... From the screaming cicadas to the modesty threads, summer is here.

:iagree: think people are bored? Should we next debate holy days, who's a Christian, or what books are just not "clean enough" or "whitewashed"? :lol:

[kmacnchs]

2) submission or reverence? Honestly, I feel a lot more feminine, quiet spirited, demure, submissive, etc in a skirt/dress.

 

I hear what you are saying but when I wear pants, I do not feel less submissive. The only time I've worn skirts since I've been married were at weddings (ours and a friend's). Those times were at the beginning of our marriage and I am WAY more submissive now than I was then - because of what God has taught me, NOT b/c of what I wear.

 

Personally, I feel a lot more INSECURE in a skirt/dress. I wouldn't even wear a dress at our wedding - I didn't want to attract too much attention. I also walked/ran down the aisle during a prayer so everyone didn't look at me...I'm weird, I know...

[....]

:iagree: think people are bored? Should we next debate holy days, who's a Christian, or what books are just not "clean enough" or "whitewashed"? :lol:

 

LOL! That's a good one, Mommaduck. :lol:

 

I'll start the thread about the holy days, you cover the "who's a Christian" thread. :tongue_smilie:

 

(In a booming voice) Starrbuck vows to avoid any threads about religion, women, cicadas, starrbuck's perceived injustices towards women, crockpots and new curricula that starrbuck should buy. :D

[lionfamily1999]

:iagree: think people are bored? Should we next debate holy days, who's a Christian, or what books are just not "clean enough" or "whitewashed"? :lol:

What about swim suits? I haven't seen a thread on those yet. They've been mentioned, but don't they deserve their own thread? It's practically tradition!

 

Oh, and fat people trying to swim... I haven't read anything about fat people in swim suits or (eeeek!) attempting to leave the house dressed for the heat.

 

I almost wish I had a bot, so I could load answers and take part in all the threads, while I'm outside enjoying the summer :lol:

[mommaduck]

What about swim suits? I haven't seen a thread on those yet. They've been mentioned, but don't they deserve their own thread? It's practically tradition!

 

Oh, and fat people trying to swim... I haven't read anything about fat people in swim suits or (eeeek!) attempting to leave the house dressed for the heat.

 

I almost wish I had a bot, so I could load answers and take part in all the threads, while I'm outside enjoying the summer :lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

 

You can tell who has been here awhile by the fact that we've seen all these topics in rotation over, and over, and over....oh my, for years! I'm tired, ya'll! And views change...

 

 

I've become a live and let live person. There are hills that I won't die on. I'll never be conservative enough for some people nor liberal enough for others.

[Mynyel]

What about swim suits? I haven't seen a thread on those yet. They've been mentioned, but don't they deserve their own thread? It's practically tradition!

 

Oh, and fat people trying to swim... I haven't read anything about fat people in swim suits or (eeeek!) attempting to leave the house dressed for the heat.

 

I almost wish I had a bot, so I could load answers and take part in all the threads, while I'm outside enjoying the summer

 

 

Fat people swim?!;) Darn it no one told me! Now I will have to refrain myself when we go to the river.

 

Does this include tubing down a river?

 

Women (and girls) can wear swim suits. As long as a T-shirt is over it (so it can stick to the body like a swim suit:glare:). :D I only mention this because I have had an experience where a mom did this to her daughter. :-) I just :001_huh: and :001_rolleyes:.

 

And hey! :P I haven't been around on the boards long enough to see this more than once! I'll join the ranks next year with only a :001_rolleyes:instead of a :willy_nilly:.

 

:)

[Wheres Toto]

I find the dress/skirt versus pants discussion interesting but I'm a little confused.

 

Dresses are worn for modesty but also because they are more attractive and feminine to appeal to a husband.

 

Isn't the attractive and feminine part also appealing to other men besides the husband? And isn't that to be avoided?

[....]

Hey! :D These threads are like that scene in Coming to America, where those old men were sitting in the barber shop arguing about all those different topics. LOL! :lol:

[lionfamily1999]

Fat people swim?!;) Darn it no one told me! Now I will have to refrain myself when we go to the river.

 

Does this include tubing down a river?

 

Women (and girls) can wear swim suits. As long as a T-shirt is over it (so it can stick to the body like a swim suit:glare:). :D I only mention this because I have had an experience where a mom did this to her daughter. :-) I just :001_huh: and :001_rolleyes:.

 

And hey! :P I haven't been around on the boards long enough to see this more than once! I'll join the ranks next year with only a :001_rolleyes:instead of a :willy_nilly:.

 

:)

Let the great clothing debate BEGIN!

 

(My dd used to wear t-shirts, it was more for sun protection than anything else. Now she wears tank tops and shorts by her own choice, while her big fat momma lays out in a two piece tankini).

[Wheres Toto]

I wear two piece suits - a long tank-style top and a skirted bottom. This is WAY more modest on me than a one piece. Any one piece that fit my bottom half would be seriously loose on my top half and be constantly in danger of falling down.:tongue_smilie:

[....]

:lol::lol::lol:

 

There are hills that I won't die on. .

 

I'm half Scot-Irish and I've NEVER met a hill I couldn't die on! :rofl:

[lionfamily1999]

I live on (and swim in) the Potomac. I don't worry about suits too much (the river will ruin any prettiness they have). The tankini is because it's the only one I could find with any semblance of "support" up top. Dd wears tank tops so she can wear her own every day "support."

 

We're women in need of support :lol:

[fairfarmhand]

I wear two piece suits - a long tank-style top and a skirted bottom. This is WAY more modest on me than a one piece. Any one piece that fit my bottom half would be seriously loose on my top half and be constantly in danger of falling down.:tongue_smilie:

 

 

ME TOO!!!!

 

Wonder why they don't make suits for women shaped like bowling pins???

[Laurie4b]

this is sort of off topic, but what is wrong with trying to look attractive (not necessarily sexy, but attractive) in whatever we wear? It seems that the "pantsless police " (there are some no pants christians who are rather nasty about it, these are the ones of whom I am referring) constantly worry about women being attractive to avoid the men being titillated. So I suppose they want us to wear bags on our heads????

 

My dh loves that I pay attention to my weight, take care of myself and try to be pretty and attractive. He would be embarassed if I didn't care enough to look nice.

 

To me, there is a distinction between looking attractive and directing visual attention to breasts, buttocks, thighs by the clothing chosen.

[lionfamily1999]

To me, there is a distinction between looking attractive and directing visual attention to breasts, buttocks, thighs by the clothing chosen.

Many men find that to be trashy, not so attractive.

 

It's possibly to be pretty without displaying your wares.

[Violet Crown]

The bag-over-the-head comment makes me think how long it's been since I got to be part of one of the "Why Real Catholic Women Wear Mantillas To Mass" threads on Certain Other Forums. (I actually wear a veil, despite the best efforts of some to make me tear it from my head in rage at their misogyny.)

[Faithseed]

I don't want to get in trouble on here, either...but I just can't resist.

 

If women are forced to wear skirts/dresses for religious reasons, why aren't men forced to follow the appearance requirements for Orthodox Jews? You can't pick and choose what part of the Old Testament you want to adhere too, right? Why not just follow it all?

 

Why not completely cover women from head to toe, so men have absolutely, positively NO opportunity to become aroused by the form of women.

 

And why are men and women sitting together in the pews during our service? Don't they know something could happen?

 

There's nothing in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount that says women can only wear calf-length denim skirts from Wal-Mart.

 

I apologize. If you need to ban me, go ahead. I understand.

 

 

I mean this post in all sincerity, really. I'm not at all being snarky.

 

And when I say "you", I mean you as in "starrbuck", as well as anyone else to who it may pertain.

 

I honestly hope that when you see a lady, or a family who has chosen to wear only skirts/dresses that you don't assume anything at all about them. I hope you don't assume that they are being hypocrits because the husband wears longer shorts.

 

I hope you don't assume that they are religious nut cases, who blindly follow a stiff set of rules. Or that the men in their family/congregation/friends, etc have issues with being aroused at the slightest thing. Or that they think they know more about Biblical issues than you do. Or that they are following extra Biblical rules, or that they follow said rules for any given reason.

 

I really hope that you make no assumptions about them at all.

 

I also really hope that those in the dresses make no assumptions about you and what you are wearing. I hope that they have come to their own "family standards" based on what they feel is right for them, and that they understand that it is a personal choice for each person/family to make.

 

I hope that each family (on either side of the issue) has taken the time to seriously look at all of the issues. Having honest discussions about what is "sexy" vs. what is "attractive". Being willing to make sacrifices if needed, or being willing to let go of preconcived ideas. To look at things with an eye for not what is "normal" for our time, but what is right for your family.

 

And finally- that whatever side of the issue you are on, you know and behave in a way that lets others know you are not better than they are. You are neither more religious, nor more informed or free.

 

Peace :)

[Violet Crown]

I mean this post in all sincerity, really. I'm not at all being snarky.

 

And when I say "you", I mean you as in "starrbuck", as well as anyone else to who it may pertain.

 

I honestly hope that when you see a lady, or a family who has chosen to wear only skirts/dresses that you don't assume anything at all about them. I hope you don't assume that they are being hypocrits because the husband wears longer shorts.

 

I hope you don't assume that they are religious nut cases, who blindly follow a stiff set of rules. Or that the men in their family/congregation/friends, etc have issues with being aroused at the slightest thing. Or that they think they know more about Biblical issues than you do. Or that they are following extra Biblical rules, or that they follow said rules for any given reason.

 

I really hope that you make no assumptions about them at all.

 

I also really hope that those in the dresses make no assumptions about you and what you are wearing. I hope that they have come to their own "family standards" based on what they feel is right for them, and that they understand that it is a personal choice for each person/family to make.

 

I hope that each family (on either side of the issue) has taken the time to seriously look at all of the issues. Having honest discussions about what is "sexy" vs. what is "attractive". Being willing to make sacrifices if needed, or being willing to let go of preconcived ideas. To look at things with an eye for not what is "normal" for our time, but what is right for your family.

 

And finally- that whatever side of the issue you are on, you know and behave in a way that lets others know you are not better than they are. You are neither more religious, nor more informed or free.

 

Peace :)

:iagree:

Beautiful. May I quote you on the next mantilla thread I see?

[gpsings]

I find the dress/skirt versus pants discussion interesting but I'm a little confused.

 

Dresses are worn for modesty but also because they are more attractive and feminine to appeal to a husband.

 

Isn't the attractive and feminine part also appealing to other men besides the husband? And isn't that to be avoided?

 

 

(My husband HATES me in skirts. Just for the record. I don't feel comfortable in them, (unless it's a skort) and I know they make my husband feel under-dressed when I'm out with him. We are strictly jeans/ short people.)

 

I went to a 'holiness' pentecostal church for a time when I was preg. out of wedlock with my oldest daughter. Her father was pentecostal and I hoped that by my going to church, he might start going again. I was not yet saved, and never did fall over speaking in tongues. Being raised Catholic, I was actually pretty surprised by that one!

I didn't know all the rules, and my hair doesn't grow very fast, and then there was the unmarried/ pregnant factor...most of the vicious gossip came directly from the pastor's wife. I was shunned by most of them, and rumors came back to me that were so horrible and untrue.

But at least they were dressed modestly. :rolleyes:

I never did feel welcome there, and when I stopped going, friends I had made there were told not to speak to me or they'd be 'out' too.

 

Honestly, I don't feel a spiritual conviction to wear skirts, but I do feel convicted to cover things up. I think people might just perceive those things differently, but when it all comes down to it...nobody is better than anyone else. We're all sinners but for Christ.

[gpsings]

I mean this post in all sincerity, really. I'm not at all being snarky.

 

And when I say "you", I mean you as in "starrbuck", as well as anyone else to who it may pertain.

 

I honestly hope that when you see a lady, or a family who has chosen to wear only skirts/dresses that you don't assume anything at all about them. I hope you don't assume that they are being hypocrits because the husband wears longer shorts.

 

I hope you don't assume that they are religious nut cases, who blindly follow a stiff set of rules. Or that the men in their family/congregation/friends, etc have issues with being aroused at the slightest thing. Or that they think they know more about Biblical issues than you do. Or that they are following extra Biblical rules, or that they follow said rules for any given reason.

 

I really hope that you make no assumptions about them at all.

 

I also really hope that those in the dresses make no assumptions about you and what you are wearing. I hope that they have come to their own "family standards" based on what they feel is right for them, and that they understand that it is a personal choice for each person/family to make.

 

I hope that each family (on either side of the issue) has taken the time to seriously look at all of the issues. Having honest discussions about what is "sexy" vs. what is "attractive". Being willing to make sacrifices if needed, or being willing to let go of preconcived ideas. To look at things with an eye for not what is "normal" for our time, but what is right for your family.

 

And finally- that whatever side of the issue you are on, you know and behave in a way that lets others know you are not better than they are. You are neither more religious, nor more informed or free.

 

Peace :)

 

Thank you. :grouphug:

[Jean in Newcastle]

I mean this post in all sincerity, really. I'm not at all being snarky.

 

And when I say "you", I mean you as in "starrbuck", as well as anyone else to who it may pertain.

 

I honestly hope that when you see a lady, or a family who has chosen to wear only skirts/dresses that you don't assume anything at all about them. I hope you don't assume that they are being hypocrits because the husband wears longer shorts.

 

I hope you don't assume that they are religious nut cases, who blindly follow a stiff set of rules. Or that the men in their family/congregation/friends, etc have issues with being aroused at the slightest thing. Or that they think they know more about Biblical issues than you do. Or that they are following extra Biblical rules, or that they follow said rules for any given reason.

 

I really hope that you make no assumptions about them at all.

 

I also really hope that those in the dresses make no assumptions about you and what you are wearing. I hope that they have come to their own "family standards" based on what they feel is right for them, and that they understand that it is a personal choice for each person/family to make.

 

I hope that each family (on either side of the issue) has taken the time to seriously look at all of the issues. Having honest discussions about what is "sexy" vs. what is "attractive". Being willing to make sacrifices if needed, or being willing to let go of preconcived ideas. To look at things with an eye for not what is "normal" for our time, but what is right for your family.

 

And finally- that whatever side of the issue you are on, you know and behave in a way that lets others know you are not better than they are. You are neither more religious, nor more informed or free.

 

Peace :)

 

Hear, hear.

[mommaduck]

I'm half Scot-Irish and I've NEVER met a hill I couldn't die on! :rofl:

Oh, I'm part Scot-Irish also...ask any friend of mine; it's taken a long road, a lot of friends filtering for me and holding me back to learn that I really do need to walk away from certain hills. Doesn't mean I don't go find another hill to attack ;)

[spradlin02]

My son and I went commando the other day, I felt so unconstrained. Is that OK?

 

The only time I object to women wearing pants is the camel toe issue. I can't believe they don't see it. It's just gross. :thumbdown:

 

Otherwise, an attractive woman is an attractive woman. A man will find it so no matter what she's wearing.

[Faithseed]

I just spewed water everywhere.

[fairfarmhand]

My son and I went commando the other day, I felt so unconstrained. Is that OK?

 

The only time I object to women wearing pants is the camel toe issue. I can't believe they don't see it. It's just gross. :thumbdown:

 

Otherwise, an attractive woman is an attractive woman. A man will find it so no matter what she's wearing.

 

I just spewed water everywhere.

 

 

OH. MY. WORD! :lol::lol::lol:

[LG Gone Wild]

I am not a pantless Christian, but I understand that dresses are considered to be more modest because they do not follow the form of the woman's lower extremities.

 

Basically. The pants draw the eyes to the apex of the legs. But that's not an excuse to wear minis! Neither are modest.

 

I am a pantless Christian :lol: but I don't do it out of piety and modesty. Most women look bad in pants, including me.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Basically. The pants draw the eyes to the apex of the legs. But that's not an excuse to wear minis! Neither are modest.

 

I am a pantless Christian :lol: but I don't do it out of piety and modesty. Most women look bad in pants, including me.

 

I agree that I look much better in dresses or skirts.