Is It A Sin?

[catholicguy]

mistake

Edited July 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[amarkich]

Just to clarify, this post is from amarkich, not catholicguy. Catholicguy did not log out. Here is the post:

As I said earlier, this is a futile discussion because it turns into Phatmass vs. me (or me and one or two other people) and it is impossible to present an argument. I do not have the time to spend right now on message boards, especially discussing topics like this which are overly exhausting for people who are of the minority (at least as far as modern culture is concerned--we are actually on the overwhelming majority of history and all cultures, at least Western, before the [i]sexual and feminist revolutions[/i]). In any event, I will go through these few questions to illustrate the false pretenses. I will not continue any debate because of the reasons I have already given. Here are my responses to your questions which will illustrate the erroneous pretenses:

[quote]On what basis you you (sic) find pants to be cross-dressing?[/quote]
I find them to be cross dressing on the basis of history, tradition, and the unchanging standards of Catholic (European and all Western cultures in general) culture as it stood unmarred by the errors of feminism and the sexual revolution.

[quote]Where in the bible or anywhere else are women to (sic) forbidden to wear pants? [/quote]
Again, this is a ridiculous question since pants were not worn by anyone at that time. "Where in the Bible or anywhere else are men forbidden to wear bras?"

[quote]Where does it state categorically that pants are mens (sic) clothing? [/quote]
The above answer follows for this question. "Where does it state categorically that bras are women's clothing?"

[quote]If you look at the example I posted from medieval times men were wearing dresses and tights.!!! (sic)[/quote]
The outfit I saw in the above thread from a medieval man's attire is in no way feminine and was not worn by any woman in that time or before that time. The clothing illustrated in your above posts are true examples of masculine attire. Tradition and Catholic culture dictate as much; you are falsely asserting that pants are the [i]only [/i]acceptable men's clothing simply because they are men's clothing. If you look through fashions throughout history, men's and women's clothing never mixed or became subjective or irrelevant. The clothing of men was only worn by men and the clothing of women was only worn by women. As it was stated earlier, a cassock is man's clothing. A Victorian dress is woman's clothing. The fact that both of these outfits are one-piece articles of clothing does not somehow mean that they are women's clothing. This is faulty logic, as I stated.

[quote]In bible times everybody wore LONG FLOWING DRESSY outfits, so when did PANTS get to belong to (sic) men?[/quote]
Again, you are asserting an almost legalistic outlook here. You say that "Unless it is written in the letter of the law, it is not valid." This is no different from the Protestants saying "Unless it is written in the Bible, it is not valid." You completely disregard tradition and prudence of Catholic culture. You also make the false assertion that because something is a one-piece outfit, it is automatically feminine. Your entire argument hinges on this misconception. Pants became men's attire when they were invented. They were worn by men and men alone from the onset of their invention and were not worn by women until the feminist revolution and the sexual revolution. The reason that women began to wear pants was to assert their "equality" with men and their homogenous connection to men, that, essentially, men and women are [i]no different in nature [/i]and that there is no [i]such thing as men's clothing and women's clothing[/i], but only 'clothing'. This position seems to be held by most, if not all, who support pants on women.

Edited July 30, 2004 by amarkich

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Just a thought...
What about the fact that pants for women are different than pants for men?

and...

amarkich and catholicguy,
Are ya'lls borthers?

[catholicguy]

Thedude, yes, we are brothers.

Edited July 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[amarkich]

Thedude, how are they different? The differences either cause women's pants to be immodest or are so small as to only denote a difference in fashion and not in the actual kind of clothing; this is really true of pants altogether, including those which are immodest.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jul 29 2004, 11:17 PM'] Thedude, how are they different? The differences either cause women's pants to be immodest or are so small as to only denote a difference in fashion and not in the actual kind of clothing; this is really true of pants altogether, including those which are immodest. [/quote]
That was a rather ignornat statement....

They are different because of the cut. While some styles of women's jeans, for example the low-riders, are immodestly cut. However, jeans with a normal waistline (or even those which sit slightly below the waist) are cut differently than mens jeans to accomodate the curves women have but men don't. Mens jeans are generally straight cut, i.e. it is a straight line from the waist to the cuff all the way around. Women's jeans are smaller at the waist then get larger to accomodate the hips, etc. Generally they will then narrow.

Ask one of the women here how different it feels to wear men's jeans rather than women's. There is a significant difference.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would also like to comment on this line of debate, because I think it is very relevant and speaks to the heart of the issue:

Before I get into it, however, Mr. Markich, it's good to see you again, welcome back!

Now, I will absolutely agree with you that the Church's position is unchanging and that crossdressing is, and has always been, condemned, regardless of the age one is in.

However, the Church has never come out with a defined list of what types of clothes are/are not acceptable. This is because (I think) that in her wisdom, the Church recognises that fashion - even modest fashion- changes with the times. Thus, a modestly dressed person of 2004 will look different from a modestly dressed person of 1850, who will in turn look different from a modestly dressed person of 1200 or even 500.

Also, Mr. Markich, I agree with you that the outfit from the middle ages is distinctly masculine, people of our age simply have a hard time recognising the fact because we are not used to it.

So, how then, without a positive rule of what is defined as men's vs. women's can we determine what constitutes crossdressing?

It seems to me that, as some people have hinted already, the truth lies in how the clothes are made.

My first instinct is to say that women's clothes are defined as those clothes that can be worn by women. However, I immediately discarded this definition be virtue of the fact that we are having this discussion. If crossdressing is defined as a man wearing women's clothing, then women's clothing must at least be [i]capable[/i] of being worn by a man.

So a better definition is this: Women's clothing can be defined as all clothes which are cut and made in such a way as to be worn by a women - that is, women's clothing is cut to fit the female figure.

Going any further that this would be to commit the logical fallicy of complexity (making things more complicated than they have to be) so we will stick with this for the remainder of my argument (if you wish to switch definitions, I will be glad to talk about it, though I think it more prudent for you to argue my next point).

Now, with regards to pants. Even the most cursory glance at a pair of women's pants side by side with men's pants shows that the two are not nearly identical, and each is made with an individual figure in mind. Women's pants tend to flare out at the hips and get smaller at the waist, while men's pants are widest at the waist and do not change at all in the hips. I would have a hard time fitting into a pair of women's pants, and a girl would most certainly not be comfortable in a pair of men's pants (what with having to constantly pull them up and all).

Thus the only logical conclusion is that, seeing as women's pants are made specifically to fit the female frame, they constitute as women's clothing, which, having been given, necessitates that it is not crossdressing.

Also, just to comment on the following quote:

[quote]The reason that women began to wear pants was to assert their "equality" with men and their homogenous connection to men, that, essentially, men and women are no different in nature and that there is no such thing as men's clothing and women's clothing, but only 'clothing'. This position seems to be held by most, if not all, who support pants on women.[/quote]

1.) you have not given any data substantiating this claim, nor is it the logical extension of any presuppositions we have made, and, as such, is invalid and should not be used in this discussion.

2.) even if the entirety of your claim were agreed to (which it is most certainly not) it would not change a single one of the objective facts/conclusions in my above proposition, and so, would not change the objective reality that, whatever the motive, women's pants are still just that, [i]women's pants[/i] and thus, [i]women's clothing[/i].

Hey, Mr. Markich, I just want you to know that I know you feel ganged up on, and that we are closed minded and stuff, but I really do enjoy having these conversations with you, because you're always intellectual in the manner in which they proceed. I respect your willingness to stand up for what you think is right, and so I would beseech you not to let the discussion die, but please respond, I think the dialogue could be a good one.

- Your Friend, and Brother In Christ, Jeff

[carrdero]

mmmerf writes-Your philosophy of 'preference' means that the only reason I shouldn't take a hammer to your head is because you'd prefer I didn't. Don't you think we need more reason than that?

I admire your techniques for aquiring further knowledge but just keep in mind this is a charitable debate not a wishful one. In response to the hammer in the head thing I would hope that you didn't prefer to put a hammer to my head in the first place and if you did prefer to put a hammer to my head I would hope that you would have enough respect to ask me if I wanted (preferred) a hammer to my head. Though if you did prefer to put a hammer to my head it would probably be unreasonable (if not unrealistic) to try to talk you out of it. As for more reason why homosexuals would want to be homosexual I feel you are entitled. Actually there are many reasons why somebody would prefer to be homosexual.

These are excerpts taken from a book I once read:
"It could BE simple loneliness. It could BE confusion on the part of individuals to express themselves sexually. One man may feel it is convenient and comfortable to share his feelings and sexual intimacy exclusively with other men. It can BE the fact that, in one or many previous lives as a woman, someone may come back as a man but still retain the preference of sharing with another man. The damaging or disappointing effects of a heterosexual relationship can bring on homosexuality in this lifetime. These are not MY reasons; they are just some of the reasons I have observed throughout your history."

Though I think the best source for why somebody would choose (prefer) to be homosexual is to ask or research the reasons why homosexuals feel to live that particular lifestyle.

Edited July 30, 2004 by carrdero

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Another thought...
What about professional uniform pants?

[God Conquers]

[quote]It can BE the fact that, in one or many previous lives as a woman, someone may come back as a man but still retain the preference of sharing with another man.[/quote]

I gotta tell you.... this statement REALLY hurts your argument.

[mmmerf]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Jul 30 2004, 08:34 AM'] mmmerf writes-Your philosophy of 'preference' means that the only reason I shouldn't take a hammer to your head is because you'd prefer I didn't. Don't you think we need more reason than that?

I admire your techniques for aquiring further knowledge but just keep in mind this is a charitable debate not a wishful one. In response to the hammer in the head thing I would hope that you didn't prefer to put a hammer to my head in the first place and if you did prefer to put a hammer to my head I would hope that you would have enough respect to ask me if I wanted (preferred) a hammer to my head. Though if you did prefer to put a hammer to my head it would probably be unreasonable (if not unrealistic) to try to talk you out of it. As for more reason why homosexuals would want to be homosexual I feel you are entitled. Actually there are many reasons why somebody would prefer to be homosexual.
[/quote]
First, let me ease your worries. I have no desire to hit you in the head with a hammer. I mean, I've got nothing against hammers.

However, you miss my point. According to your philosophy of preference, there's absolutely nothing wrong with my desire to hit you in the head with a hammer.

You'd just [b]prefer[/b] I didn't, in the same way you might prefer coagulated milk on your hamburger, or to wear a tie one day and not the next. There would be nothing [b]objectively wrong[/b] with my hitting you in the head with a hammer. It all comes down to preference.

And then, what if [b]I preferred[/b] to hit you in the head with a hammer? Your preference versus mine! Whose preference should take precedence? I say mine, you say yours! If 'Natural Law does not judge', then natural law has nothing to say in the matter.

I have a feeling such a situation, if it ever came to pass, would leave quite an impression on you.

But if natural law speaks to this issue, then it speaks to [b]every[/b] issue. If there is an absolute morality, then [b]every[/b] act is a moral one.

And if there isn't an absolute morality, then you've got nothing to say when one day you go out and get hammered.

[mmmerf]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Jul 30 2004, 08:34 AM'] These are excerpts taken from a book I once read:
[/quote]
...and for next time, 'A book I once read' means nothing in a debate. I mean, many people could say 'Mein Kampf' is a book they once read, or the Communist Manifesto, or for that matter 'Slaughtering Orphans for Fun and Profit' or what have you. Doesn't mean a quote from it is gonna amount to a hill of beans. Lots of idiots get published. This is why we have biographies about Cher.

[Aloysius]

actually, according to many psychologist homosexuality is quite explainable. there are common threads that go through all people who have homosexual tendencies. there's always developemental problems, they don't befriend boys at a young age right, and then are attracted to boys because they never developed right at the point of polarization (where boys and girls kinda seperate and develope sepereate, because of this seperate developement they later become attracted to each other because of the differences). This attraction turns sexual when they reach puberty and all that. other common threads include some or all of the following: bad fatherly relationships, overbearing motherly relationships, sexual abuse, or bad body image.
FYI: the person who actually made the decision to take homosexuality off of the list of psychological disorders recently REVERSED his decision after actually looking into the process by which people are cured. 1/3 of people who seek treatment are able to reverse their attractions and have normal heterosexual attractions, 1/3 are able to come to peace with a chaste lifestyle despite homosexual attractions staying with them, and 1/3 end up without any sexual attractions to either sex and thus come to peace with a chaste lifestyle as well.

Homosexuality is a psychological disorder and it is a disservice to homosexuals that it was taken off the books, cause it makes it harder for them to get treatment for their problems.

homosexuality is unhealthy psychologically and physically.

[Sojourner]

On the whole women's vs. men's clothing issue ... JeffCR07, you've got some great points. I think the question is one of definition here, and it strikes me as being a good definition to say that women's clothing is that which is cut to fit women, while men's clothing is that which is cut to fit men.

This would rule out the whole question of men being forbidden to wear bras ... bras are not cut to fit a man's body. (Although I've seen some men that could use one, but that's beside the point).

Women's clothing is cut and fitted differently than men's clothing, and while some of it is admittedly immodest, I don't believe that women wearing pants would fall into that category. I'm wearing a pair of jeans today embroidered with butterflies and flowers ... I know of no straight man who'd be comfortable wearing them, even aside from the fact that the fit would be all wrong.

[p0lar_bear]

Also, for those arguing that women wearing pants is crossdressing...


What about cultures wherein women have worn pants as long or longer than men?

If an Inuit woman wears pants, is it crossdressing even though historically women have worn pants longer than men have in western culture? What if an Inuit woman lived next door to a woman who had moved to Alaska from, say, Nebraska...would the woman from Nebraska be cross-dressing by wearing pants while the Inuit woman isn't?

In China, women wore pants long before men did. Is it, then, crossdressing for a Chinese man to wear pants?

Or is Western/European culture the only important culture and all other cultures are to be measured by how they conform to it?

[amarkich]

Thank you for the warm welcome back, Jeff. By the way, I do not think you are closed-minded (I am speaking to you, not to Phatmass in general; in any event, I prefer the terms "objective" and "subjective" or at least "biased" rather than "opened-minded" and "closed-minded"). Thank you for the scholarly reply. I will do my best to reply effectively.

First of all, thedude, professional uniform pants seem to be more masculine than any other. This is one example of a style of pants which can be worn by both men and women and is not designed for either. It would seem that those who support pants as women's clothing would, by definition of men's clothing and women's clothing, object to this kind of generic clothing which is not cut for either of the two sexes specifically (correct me if I am wrong). Further, if women were required to wear pants for a job (and if wearing pants were deemed to be cross dressing), then the woman who wants the job would have to ask for a skirt option or simply not take the job. It is important to notice that uniform pants for women were non-existent until the feminist movement.


Does anyone believe that women wearing pants originated from anything other than the feminist movement and the sexual revolution? This should be enough to give one a reason not to support its cause. I will attempt to address the specific issues that Jeff proposes anyway.

As Jeff wishes, I will address his second point (not the definition) first. I will discuss the definition later in this post, though. As far as your point about women's and men's pants being designed for a different purpose and the difficulty with a man and a woman wearing the other sex's style of pants, I agree that all that you say is true (and, if your definition of women's clothing is accepted, that you have proven your side of the argument). It is true that women would be uncomfortable wearing men's pants and men would be uncomfortable wearing women's pants, but to what extent do you apply this? Does a woman who wears a generic style of pants commit the sin of cross dressing (which usually means, simply, masculine pants since they have no distinguishing features, which was essentially the definition of man's pants earlier)? Does a woman who wears a pants suit constitute as cross dressing? Does even Madonna commit the sin of cross dressing when she wears a man's suit and tie and a hat? How far do you consider the "Argument from Design" (I am sure you know the allusion) to extend concerning what women can wear without committing the sin of cross dressing?

Now, the more central dispute can be made. The definition seems to be the only issue here. I have defined men's clothing and women's clothing as the clothing which is acceptable and judged to be prudent by "history, tradition, and the unchanging standards of Catholic culture as it stood unmarred by the errors of feminism and the sexual revolution." I will do my best to present my issues with your definition. It would seem that clothing which is "cut and made in such a way as to be worn by a women" could be a definition of women's clothing, but it is incomplete at best. In Roman times, a toga praetexta (the purple-colored toga worn by senators and boys before the age of manhood) could certainly fit the female figure with comfortableness and ease. Just as certainly, the woman's stola and chiton could easily and comfortably be worn by a man with ease. The main distinguishing marks of masculinity and femininity came in other articles of clothing like jewelry, but still women would never wear a toga praetexta or a toga virilis (the toga of manhood), and a man would never wear a stola or a chiton. The reason for these facts is not that the articles of clothing could not fit the form of either sex but that prudence and moral judgment provided that these not be worn by one another. Any of the four above-mentioned garments had something of a generic design, a design which in no way favored one sex's body form over the other's. This seems to negate the principle that men's clothing and women's clothing is based solely, or even chiefly, on its purpose and design.

Polar Bear, European culture is not the standard; Catholic culture is. I was simply illustrating that European culture is usually the best reflection of Catholic culture. Notice that you mention a pagan culture and an atheistic culture. European culture is rich with theological, moral, and religious truths while the other cultures you mention have few or none of these truths.

I would like to conclude with a challenge (if I can call it that without sounding to Life Teen-ish) to those who do not believe that pants constitute as cross dressing for women. Remember that I completely would have agreed with you less than a year ago. I have actually changed my mind about this issue after studying it objectively without bias. This is something that is almost never seen within mainstream Catholicism today, especially when a belief is contrary to the world and to society. The fact is that most 'faithful' Catholics hold beliefs completely compatible with the average American (at least the average conservative American). This is quite interesting in a time of secularism, feminism, and Modernism. I would understand the connection completely in the 1950s or before, but with all kinds of liberalism contaminating American culture today, it baffles me that so many people fall right in line with typical modern American values. With that being said, I simply give the challenge that you all be objectively minded in your inquiry of this matter rather than simply trying to defend something you already believe. Seek truth rather than a defense for your current practice. Thank you. God bless.

P.S., Jeff, since you are one of the few people on this website that I feel comfortable talking to and since I use your first name anyway, I would be glad if you would refer to me simply as Adam (contrary to my previous desire for the average person and for the forum in general)

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 30 2004, 02:20 PM'] Also, for those arguing that women wearing pants is crossdressing...


What about cultures wherein women have worn pants as long or longer than men?

If an Inuit woman wears pants, is it crossdressing even though historically women have worn pants longer than men have in western culture? What if an Inuit woman lived next door to a woman who had moved to Alaska from, say, Nebraska...would the woman from Nebraska be cross-dressing by wearing pants while the Inuit woman isn't?

In China, women wore pants long before men did. Is it, then, crossdressing for a Chinese man to wear pants?

Or is Western/European culture the only important culture and all other cultures are to be measured by how they conform to it? [/quote]
Before this one arguement is repeated again and again, I'd just like to say that culture dictates what women and men wear. Catholicguy and Mr.Markich have clearly stated that. I don't think there is any point in saying, how about those places where women have worn pants longer than men. Anyone who reads what has been said by both saids will just ignore the rest of your post on the reasoning that you are repeating something that's been noted and responded to.

Jeffcr07, good definition, and it works out nicely. My only qualm with it is, if men's bras began to be manufactured, would it be right to wear them? Using your definition they would, but we know that a bra is a woman's article of clothing, but if it was cut for a man, would it be right? Just putting that out on the table.

God Bless,

Michael

[Sojourner]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Jul 30 2004, 02:15 PM'] Using your definition they would, but we know that a bra is a woman's article of clothing, but if it was cut for a man, would it be right? Just putting that out on the table. [/quote]
For some men, it would be very, very right ...

[mmmerf]

But it would be called the 'Manzier'... or possibly the 'Bro'.

Dave

[Sojourner]

I think that was a "Seinfeld" episode, wasn't it?