A question regarding women wearing pants...

[COOPER]

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?

Good one Daddy-o !!!!!! I have been thinking of the same thing for the last week.

Holiness Standards Doctrines and reasons are like an old rusty bucket that was used for shot gun practice.

If pants are immodest for women; then they are for men too.

Men have a body, butt, thighs not to mention :sshhh *you know* women look at mens butts and *you know* censored .

[Trouvere]

Originally Posted by COOPER

Good one Daddy-o !!!!!! I have been thinking of the same thing for the last week.

Holiness Standards Doctrines and reasons are like an old rusty bucket that was used for shot gun practice.

If pants are immodest for women; then they are for men too.

Men have a body, butt, thighs not to mention :sshhh *you know* women look at mens butts and *you know* censored .

Guess what Coop.Not all women do that.I don't.I could care less what your
parts look like so keep it modest and keep it to yourself.Sorry but I disagree that
holiness doctrines and teachings are outdated.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by COOPER

Good one Daddy-o !!!!!! I have been thinking of the same thing for the last week.

Holiness Standards Doctrines and reasons are like an old rusty bucket that was used for shot gun practice.

If pants are immodest for women; then they are for men too.

Men have a body, butt, thighs not to mention :sshhh *you know* women look at mens butts and *you know* censored .

I have never done that in my life!!!!!!! Mind your own business.

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by Trouvere

Guess what Coop.Not all women do that.I don't.I could care less what your
parts look like so keep it modest and keep it to yourself.Sorry but I disagree that
holiness doctrines and teachings are outdated.

If you have never looked.......then... never mind.

Holiness doctrines are like Darwin's theory. They do not hold up to truth.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by COOPER

If you have never looked.......then... never mind.

Holiness doctrines are like Darwin's theory. They do not hold up to truth.

I think actually, the element of modesty, isn't a bad thing.

My husband said that he doesn't like a woman in pants and he likes women with long hair. He considers anything mid-back or longer to be long.

A good question would be - or perhaps a poll - Do men prefer a dress on a woman? Aside from the issue of "standards" per se. It would be interesting to know.

[Trouvere]

Originally Posted by COOPER

If you have never looked.......then... never mind.

Holiness doctrines are like Darwin's theory. They do not hold up to truth.

I have to say it this morning.You are wrong.I disagree totally.BTW some of the sisters are trying to live for Jesus.Maybe they keep their eyes and their minds on
better thoughts and don't want to fall into sin.Maybe its just the way your mind works.

[OP_Carl]

Pants for women have been designed from the very start to draw men's eyes to a woman's nether regions. They accentuate the thighs, buttocks, and even the groin, when compared to robes and skirts.

In Isaiah 47 the "virgin daughter of Babylon" is rebuked and demoted from royal position. She is told to make bare the leg, uncover the thigh. (3) Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.

In a very plain sense here the revealing of legs and thighs is considered debasement of women and cause for shame.

You all would do well to unearth the true motives behind (no pun intended) those who first promoted pants for women, and the other "new" fads that propelled the English-speaking peoples out of the Victorian era, before you decide that "women's pants" are compatible with Christian living. They pertain to women, all right. But specifically for the viewing pleasure of men, some of whom would prefer to be spared such frequent opportunities to be tempted to lust. Women and girls aren't being taught to consider this aspect of their wardrobe selection these days.

Tight skirts and form-fitting blouses, as can be observed on some "holiness" women, are scarcely any better.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Pants for women have been designed from the very start to draw men's eyes to a woman's nether regions. They accentuate the thighs, buttocks, and even the groin, when compared to robes and skirts.

In Isaiah 47 the "virgin daughter of Babylon" is rebuked and demoted from royal position. She is told to make bare the leg, uncover the thigh. (3) Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.

In a very plain sense here the revealing of legs and thighs is considered debasement of women and cause for shame.

You all would do well to unearth the true motives behind (no pun intended) those who first promoted pants for women, and the other "new" fads that propelled the English-speaking peoples out of the Victorian era, before you decide that "women's pants" are compatible with Christian living. They pertain to women, all right. But specifically for the viewing pleasure of men, some of whom would prefer to be spared such frequent opportunities to be tempted to lust. Women and girls aren't being taught to consider this aspect of their wardrobe selection these days.

Tight skirts and form-fitting blouses, as can be observed on some "holiness" women, are scarcely any better.

UUURRRRRGGGGG - wrong answer.

Men have A LOT more to show in pants than women will ever be able to. A man sitting on the platform in pants many times leaves nothing to the imagination. Talk about accentuating the groin.....be real.

Why don't we state it more acurately.....men are just more visual than women. A man seeing the back side of a woman whether in a dress snuggly fitting or pants is appealing to a man.

As far as the other bold statement....."the revealing of leg and thigh" I would take as meaning actually seeing the skin of the leg and thigh, not the form of the leg in pants. You are more likely to see skin in a dress than you will in pants.

[Jesuswins]

I do follow the Apostolic Standard and dress only in skirts when in public. However, I have a 5 year old daughter who I do not enforce this standard on. I do not believe that wearing pants will send you to hell and we embrace ladies who attend our services wearing pants. We do not force feed them when talking about Standards, certain standards are expected of those who hold a position in our church. We lead by example and let the Holy Ghost do the rest.
If I did not hold a position in my church I could not say that I too would occasionally wear pants. But I do not want anything I do to hinder another, or to cause any evil talk.
All of this is a dilemma for me because I want to teach my daughter the right path but I don't want her growing up thinking that a garment will send her into eternal damnation! It's not the clothes, it's the spirit behind wearing the clothes, what are your intentions when putting on a pair of pants? Are you trying to attract the oposite sex and fit in to society? Do you even give a thought to it? Are you wearing them for comfort when a skirt would be uncomfortable? Are you wearing them because wearing pants would be more modest when on that ladder, or riding a go cart etc...
Why do we feel it is our place to judge others by what they wear? Why do I have that shock factor when I see someone I know to be Apostolic in pants or shorts?

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

UUURRRRRGGGGG - wrong answer.

Men have A LOT more to show in pants than women will ever be able to. A man sitting on the platform in pants many times leaves nothing to the imagination. Talk about accentuating the groin.....be real.

Why don't we state it more acurately.....men are just more visual than women. A man seeing the back side of a woman whether in a dress snuggly fitting or pants is appealing to a man.

As far as the other bold statement....."the revealing of leg and thigh" I would take as meaning actually seeing the skin of the leg and thigh, not the form of the leg in pants. You are more likely to see skin in a dress than you will in pants.

There was a man preaching in a our church a while back and oh my my my. It was hard not to look .... I mean see ..... I mean ..... notice.