A question regarding women wearing pants...

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

If you've destroyed them, why are they still issues?

Because some people would rather cling to illogical arguments for the sake of tradition and because that would mean "daddy" and "grandpa" were mistaken...

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Perhaps the 'pants' issue isn't all about modesty. Perhaps many view pants as distinctively male clothing, and dresses/skirts as distinctively female clothing, and therefore they conclude that women ought not to wear pants, and men ought not to wear dresses/skirts.

As for modesty, whatever a person wears ought to be modest, meaning it ought not to accentuate the form so as to draw undue attention to it, whether pants, skirts, dresses, or whatever.

I think it is so funny nowadays how that young women in the church, and I apologize, look absolutely stunning (some have said it is all the hormones in the milk from the 90's ), they are wearing skirts and have the long hair, but wow. I would like to see how women would accept preaching that their clothing is supposed to straighten out each and every one of their curves so that men cannot see the, well, guitar.

Don't matter wether these gals wear pants or not, wow.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Chewy

I think it is so funny nowadays how that young women in the church, and I apologize, look absolutely stunning (some have said it is all the hormones in the milk from the 90's ), they are wearing skirts and have the long hair, but wow. I would like to see how women would accept preaching that their clothing is supposed to straighten out each and every one of their curves so that men cannot see the, well, guitar.

Don't matter wether these gals wear pants or not, wow.

You are exactly right! Some of those guitars are upside down too.

[RandyWayne]

You are exactly right! Some of those guitars are upside down too.

Listening to discussions like this over the years, I've always wondered if there have been outcry's against women who go the "reduction" route. (You KNOW there would be if they went under the knife to go the other way.)

Originally Posted by rgcraig

You are exactly right! Some of those guitars are upside down too.

To me it speaks of faulty preaching and misguided beliefs. Here these women believe they are holy and modest because they are complying with the rules. Modesty is now based in legalism and not conviction!! People believe that if they follow the rules, they will be separate from the world. Instead they are creating their own little version of the world.

It is all messed up in my opinion.

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Listening to discussions like this over the years, I've always wondered if there have been outcry's against women who go the "reduction" route. (You KNOW there would be if they went under the knife to go the other way.)

um, I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by Chewy

To me it speaks of faulty preaching and misguided beliefs. Here these women believe they are holy and modest because they are complying with the rules. Modesty is now based in legalism and not conviction!! People believe that if they follow the rules, they will be separate from the world. Instead they are creating their own little version of the world.

It is all messed up in my opinion.

Amen!

Carl;187765Pants 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.

And likewise, these things also lead a women eyes to a man's nether regions. Please already, if pants are not for women then go by your self a pair in the women section next time you shop...


Last if you really want separate your self from this world by how you dress stop wearing underwear , bra's, socks, shoes etc..These are things that sinful ungodly people around the world wear... As I said, to make a whole doctoring out of a lie and call it a truth unto heaven or hell in my book is a sin and will lead you straight to hell faster then wearing a pair of pants!

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

So when I destroy the gender distinction issue, it becomes about modesty... but when I destroy the modesty issue, it becomes about gender distinction?

I don't quite remember you 'destroying the gender distinction issue', to be honest.

I have NEVER believed that 'pants on women is immodest'. I have maintained that ALL clothing that is immodest is wrong and unbecoming a Christian, and that pants are men's clothing, not women's clothing.

(And before someone brings up flowery, 'women's pants' I just have to say that making a dress out of denim with a hammer holder and a big patch on the back pocket saying 'Tuff Guy (c)' would not make a dress a man's dress.)

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Because some people would rather cling to illogical arguments for the sake of tradition and because that would mean "daddy" and "grandpa" were mistaken...

As a young engineer, I learned early (and, for the record, the hard way) that sometimes things in the factory that don't make sense to me are that way for good reason.

It's best to try to find out what reason exists before attempting to make a change.

You're pretty quick on the trigger to holler out 'illogical.' Man just breathe. This may come back to bite you someday. We're not all going to exactly fit your template for "dress code adherent = mouth-breathing cross-eyed knock-kneed knuckle-dragging inbred semi-imbicilic reactionary."


Now I do, so you got lucky this one time, but Elder Epley's knees don't touch, and Brother Strange isn't cross-eyed, so see, it doesn't always fit.

Disagreement with reasons isn't the same as illogic, and those of us who defend some of what you associate with your past bad experiences do not, by default, stand for all of it. In my case, I usually don't touch the illogical stuff. It can give you Dutch Elm disease.