Comfort and opposition

[iain]

It staggered me today to find out that some people STILL insist that women wear skirts and dresses all the time!

http://www.albatrus.org/english/living/ ... _pants.htm

Although I am a man, I have testimonies of women who say that an ankle length dress is far more comfortable than a pair of pants. But the ultimate question that you are going to have to ask yourself is this, "What's more important? Being comfortable? Or obeying the Word of God?" I think we all know the answer to that one.

So, in some circles, women are clearly suffering the same sort of pre-historic nonsense which some of us guys experience from the loony far right. And that's after some 70 years of everyday practice!

The human race does indeed move slowly.. let's not get too frustrated but how about we each (those of us who won't lose our jobs) react sensibly to the predicted heat in the UK this coming friday (80 F) by wearing a skirt or kilt or sarong to work, and posting our experiences here. Plan for it! The combined synergy of even a dozen people acting in concert is going to count for a lot, even if we don't realise it straight away. It will start the season off as we mean to continue and open a lot of people's eyes. Freedom!

[mk3]

i was just on a message board that had many kids on it (video game one) and was in the anti flaming thread so I decided to post a new topic on "gender clothes" and what really surprised me was how open (because they couldn't flame me) people were to the idea. These are teens and pre teens, it just kind of shows me that even though there's not a lot of people wearing the stuff, most kids today might laugh, or point, star or whatever, but at least they'll accept you for it.

[Charlie]

Although I am a man, I have testimonies of women who say that an ankle length dress is far more comfortable than a pair of pants. But the ultimate question that you are going to have to ask yourself is this, "What's more important? Being comfortable? Or obeying the Word of God?" I think we all know the answer to that one.[/quote]

Yes, I know the answer to that one. For me, being comfortable is more important. I don't take kindly to being lumped in with the answer to someone's narrow-minded thinking

Charlie

[iain]

I noticed the same thing on a forum I found a couple of years ago to do with blogs or whatever. The topic was raised by one girl, and the response from other girls was "cool" and the guys were sort of abivalent.

The practical parenting thread somebody pointed out to me was full of support, no doubt about it. Just surprising how in some corners, there are still people afraid of an ancient curse based on cloth wrapped around the body. The logic they use is, without fail, based on the idea that an ancient writer knew better than anyone could ever have learned in the vast amount of time since then. Staggering.

[Sasquatch]

Word of God? I go to church but never heard of Jesus splitting his pants or catching his privates in a zipper! When the last Books of the New Testament were penned men and women were both in unbifurcated clothing.
Sasq

[Raakone]

I read the site. Has a few "holes." For starters, first they claim that they're not about what is "tradition of man", but then later they use the expression "who wears the pants?" The idea of "pants" symbolizing "power" is a newer concept. Part of it stems from the idea of being ready to jump on a horse and ride into battle at a moment's notice. Also, the "linen breeches" mentioned, were specifically FOR PRIESTS ONLY. Why? The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (which is NOT the same as a modern day synagogue) has a raised dais at the front, on top of which the altar was. It was possible that someone at the front could get a "glimpse", especially when they were clearing up the ashes (from burnt offerings on the altar). Go to http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/rel-phi ... iestly.htm and see the explanation. So this is talking about UNDERWEAR, and it was specific to the priests. The laymen probably didn't wear anything under their robes.
Things have to be taken in context. There are even a few Christians out there with a different interpretation, including some men who wear long trenchcoats over their pants because it's the closest they can wear to robes without being mocked.
~Ra'akone

[AMM]

I was really struck by the story about the "ladies' class", in which (fourth-hand account!) supposedly the participants found that if a woman wore trousers, they first looked at her crotch, but if she wore a "modest, feminine skirt", they first looked at her face.

Well, I have to say, I don't think I ever first look at anybody's crotch. If it's a woman I don't know (like in the subway), I'm more likely to look at the lower part of her body if she has a skirt on. Trousers are such a uniform these days, that there's really nothing new to look at. It's if she's wearing the usual unisex garb of jeans and shirt that I'm most likely to look first and last at her face.

I couldn't help wondering, though (assuming the story isn't a misrepresentation or even entirely made up), whether the participants in the "ladies' class" were "conservative" Christians, like the person who put together the web page. I've noticed that conservative Christians tend to be much more obsessed with sex than us less moral folk. They condemn most forms of sexual activity and thought, while also acting in ways that suggest they think about it all the time. By forbidding it, they make it seem much more desirable.

But the thing that seems most relevant to SkirtCafe is this: if a woman wearing trousers makes other women look first at her crotch, what about a man wearing trousers? (Yes, I'm told, women do look!) Shouldn't men wear skirts, robes, dresses, etc., so that they don't lead women[*] into impure thoughts with those highly visible bulges?

Men, take off those indecent trousers! Put on nice, modest skirts!

-- AMM


[*] And gay men!

[ChrisM]

I have found that with certain trousers (on women) my gaze centers naturally on their crotch...and I don't like this!

With certain cut of trousers there will be lines which radiate centrally from the crotch. These lines consist of various creases along the thigh/pelvis intersection, as well of course of the 'natural' line created bythe inseam and zip (if present). The result of these creases et al is to create a bicycle-spoke pattern of radial lines emanating from the apex of the inseam. This seems to be a sort of "look here" magnet.

A flat surface, whether a skirt or a better cut of trouser, does not possess this magnetic feature and the eyes seek out another focus, whether face, shoes, chest, or whatever.

Now, I never thought of this as a reason for women to wear skirts, rather I have mentioned this to my wife as a selection criterion for trousers: Avoid the ones that crease in this manner!

But I just thought I'd mention that I HAVE observed this phenomenon of "pants attract the gaze."

Chris

[trainman]

Got to say the first thing I do ios look someone up and down. Especiaslly at work as I have to be alert for anyone trying to shoplift. Hence I look for suspicious bulges under their clothes (same goes for potential holdups, you look for suspicious activities and anything that could be a potential weapon)...

On the street though... I just have a habit of presuming the worst...

[davereporter]

ChrisM,

What you are referring to is what is called a "camel toe". Basically when the pants are too tight the pants tend to go up let's say the first available crease. :yuck:

And yes it is possible (and extremely painful) to have a camel toe on men.

The problem is basically poor fit - good fitting pants on either sex don't tend to have this problem. Unfortunately the KMart, Target and other $20 pants do. The other problem is that people have been so dumbed down by discount department stores that they no longer recognise when something fits or doesn't.

Dave

[Skirt Chaser]

Shouldn't men wear skirts, robes, dresses, etc., so that they don't lead women[*] into impure thoughts with those highly visible bulges?

Men, take off those indecent trousers! Put on nice, modest skirts!

Yes, seeing Quiet Man in a skirt leads only to 'pure' thoughts on my part- pure pleasure.

Quiet Mouse

[skirttron]

Ascribing to God one's own prejudices is an underhand way of getting those prejudices accepted more widely. In Politics, this sneaky bundling-in of unwanted policies is called "hitch-hiking".

[AMM]

Just to show how culture-centric people can be:

Conservative Christian (and Jewish) groups insist that trousers are immodest (on women -- men can be as "immodest" as they like without social harm or divine retribution.)

But Muslim groups insist that the only modest clothing for women are long trousers!

My ex-wife was leading a visit from our Sunday school to the local muslim cultural center, and she was asked to make sure that the women and girls all wore long trousers. Skirts were not OK, because all skirt styles show at least some ankle or leg, which makes them immodest. (Not even dragging-on-the-ground styles work -- to walk without tripping, you have to lift them up, which shows some leg.)

The trousers also have to be reasonably loose -- the ones I've seen are about as loose as the pants that go with my suits.


There is, however, one idea that they seem to agree on, one that goes back to the ancient Greeks: that men's baser impulses are women's responsibility, and it's up to the women to act, dress, etc., in ways that don't get men thinking (and thus acting) inappropriately.

Hey, I like that principle: if I rob a bank, it's not my fault, it's the bank's fault for having all that money around and thereby arousing my larcenous urges!

-- AMM

[Since1982]

I, unfortunately, was born with a "small" member. So I sometimes look at crotches and suffer BIG D*** envy. I respect and support all you BIG D*** owners that never feel the need to see what the other guy has but you have to think of us poorly endowed fellows too..