A question regarding women wearing pants...

Originally Posted by Subdued

Good question(s). But I'm mosting posting to say that I like your av... I have two Shelties:

Cute shelties! Ours are like our kids.

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Cute shelties! Ours are like our kids.

Thanks...

Ours ACT like kids and are quite spoiled by my kids!! How many do you have? Male or female? Ours are both female - one is 6 yrs old, the other 5 yrs old - they are from the same parents/different litters. One of my sisters has a 5 yr old male from the same litter as my 5 yr old.

We have two females... 6 yrs old and 3 yrs old, completely different parents/litters. And completely different personalities too!

Has anyone noticed that no one can answer my question in the original post? I don't think they can answer this one...

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

I posted this within another thread and didn't get a response, and I would honestly like to know the answer so I am posting it again here.

Why is it that the "cut" of a robe was enough to separate gender in biblical times, but the "cut" of trousers is not enough to separate gender in modern times... and if we go down the modesty path here, then neither men nor women should wear pants. Should not men and women be equally modest?

Because some need to make a huge issue of this.....I have given up....I wear what makes me feel modest, comfortable, and attractive...sometimes its a skirt, sometimes it ladies pants...I wear shorts, but only around the house, because at my age NO ONE wants to see my legs....

A skirt can be more modest if it's long full and fits properly...if its short and too tight it can be very revealing much more than pants....its not the garment that makes a person modest...its what is in their heart(that can be a man or a woman)!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

I posted this within another thread and didn't get a response, and I would honestly like to know the answer so I am posting it again here.

Why is it that the "cut" of a robe was enough to separate gender in biblical times, but the "cut" of trousers is not enough to separate gender in modern times... and if we go down the modesty path here, then neither men nor women should wear pants. Should not men and women be equally modest?

This is a non-sequitor.

Please explain how going down the modety path means neither should wear pants. Or explain how men wearing pants is not modest

[Trouvere]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

I posted this within another thread and didn't get a response, and I would honestly like to know the answer so I am posting it again here.

Why is it that the "cut" of a robe was enough to separate gender in biblical times, but the "cut" of trousers is not enough to separate gender in modern times... and if we go down the modesty path here, then neither men nor women should wear pants. Should not men and women be equally modest?

The robe no way are cut the way the crotch of pants are.We don't need to be able to define body parts by
clothing.Men as well don't need to wear tight clothing or sit in an immodest way.BTW since you brought the pants issue up I am tired of watching men sit in an immodest way.Brothers need to learn to be modest as well.

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is a non-sequitor.

Please explain how going down the modety path means neither should wear pants. Or explain how men wearing pants is not modest

I think you would first need an explanation as to WHY they are not modest for women.

THEN apply that to men. Only double.

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

I posted this within another thread and didn't get a response, and I would honestly like to know the answer so I am posting it again here.

Why is it that the "cut" of a robe was enough to separate gender in biblical times, but the "cut" of trousers is not enough to separate gender in modern times... and if we go down the modesty path here, then neither men nor women should wear pants. Should not men and women be equally modest?

Sheltiedad ~ I've come to the conclusion along time ago that a majority of people are spineless, mindless and can't find their way out of a box, even if you supplied them with a knife and a map. Sadly there are people who need others to think for them because they are too lazy to do the foot work for themselves, or they want to hold others accountable for their stupidity.

This whole dress issue by far is the devils best, if that is who you want to blame this mess and false teachings of man on. To think, you can get people to believe in such foolishness as this!

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is a non-sequitor.

Please explain how going down the modesty path means neither should wear pants. Or explain how men wearing pants is not modest

Modesty is important for both men and women right? And trousers were not common apparel for either men or women in Biblical times, right? Well, men have more visible pieces/parts below the waist... why is it modest for them to wear something MORE form-fitting. Even the baggiest trousers are more form-fitting than a robe. If baggy trousers are modest for men, then why aren't they modest for women? Is it because you can see daylight between their legs? If so, why isn't the same immodest for men?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

I think you would first need an explanation as to WHY they are not modest for women.

THEN apply that to men. Only double.