Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

The UPCI's official explanation of why women should not wear pants:

"In addition, we should avoid ... slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip." http://www.upci.org/doctrine/modesty.asp

This has always seemed chauvinistic to me, because slacks also reveal the male contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip...and sometimes other contours as well, if you know what I mean. Yet pants are acceptable for men to wear, but not for women.

Think about it.

It's a silly argument because they don't mention the blouse that reveals the two primary feminine contours!!!!!

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

It's a silly argument because they don't mention the blouse that reveals the two primary feminine contours!!!!!

Of which a very good restaurant chain was even named after.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

The UPCI's official explanation of why women should not wear pants:

"In addition, we should avoid ... slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip." http://www.upci.org/doctrine/modesty.asp

This has always seemed chauvinistic to me, because slacks also reveal the male contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip...and sometimes other contours as well, if you know what I mean. Yet pants are acceptable for men to wear, but not for women.

Think about it.

My goodness, I've never heard of that nor read it. That's almost embarrassing. It doesn't make a lick of sense. And like I said, I've seen dresses at camp meeting and general conference that were WAY more revealing than any pair of pants I've EVER seen.

[Mirth1981]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

It's a silly argument because they don't mention the blouse that reveals the two primary feminine contours!!!!!

Agreed.

Hopefully nobody gets this revelation and tries to create another "holiness standard" to make women keep 'em completely unnoticeable.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Of which a very good restaurant chain was even named after.

Shoney's Big Boys?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

Agreed.

Hopefully nobody gets this revelation and tries to create another "holiness standard" to make women keep 'em completely unnoticeable.

I have listened to some men talk and if they could, believe me they would. It is almost sad to listen to them use words like "mammary glands" in an effort to be as clinical as possible.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

Agreed.

Hopefully nobody gets this revelation and tries to create another "holiness standard" to make women keep 'em completely unnoticeable.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:17-19

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by notofworks

My goodness, I've never heard of that nor read it. That's almost embarrassing. It doesn't make a lick of sense. And like I said, I've seen dresses at camp meeting and general conference that were WAY more revealing than any pair of pants I've EVER seen.

That's the truth! Them behind huggin skirts are just as immodest as pants can be.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

Agreed.

Hopefully nobody gets this revelation and tries to create another "holiness standard" to make women keep 'em completely unnoticeable.

They shouldn't be shown off that's for sure!!

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

It's a silly argument because they don't mention the blouse that reveals the two primary feminine contours!!!!!

And our lower legs have no feminine contours either.