Catholicism - why was it wrong for women to wear trouser?

sporina

So back in the day it was wrong for females to wear trousers - especially to mass - (from my experience) - why was this?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

sporina wrote:

So back in the day it was wrong for females to wear trousers - especially to mass - (from my experience) - why was this?

It depends on the tightness of the trousers. A woman must not wear clothing which may be a source of sin to the men.

sporina

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

It depends on the tightness of the trousers. A woman must not wear clothing which may be a source of sin to the men.

no from my understanding, women were not allowed to wear trousers - period! It might have lapsed a bit later ie being allowed to wear loose fitting trousers - but I am talking about when they had to wear dresses/skirts.

"a source of sin to men"?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

sporina wrote:

"a source of sin to men"?

Yes. You see many men have a high level of testerone, and sin when they look immorally on a woman. Indeed, some men are unable to control themselves, and this leads to abuse of women, rape, etc.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

A woman wants to be appreciated for herself first, and know that she is loved, before she can rightly give herself to a man. After all, she knows that she is the one who may become pregnant, while the sexual act may mean nothing to a man, bar the satisfaction of his lust.

SusieBlue

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Yes. You see many men have a high level of testerone, and sin when they look immorally on a woman. Indeed, some men are unable to control themselves, and this leads to abuse of women, rape, etc.

This sounds to me that you are blaming women for men behaving "sinfully".

Is it not a mans own responsibility to ensure he doesn't commit any sins? How is the woman at fault?

Can you clarify your position a bit better please?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Only in the sense that tight fitting clothing on a woman draws the base nature of man. A real man would much prefer that the woman he loves dresses demurely, and preserves herself just for him. He doesn't want her to draw the sexual attention of other men. He wants to be her man. She knows that he loves her first, and has sexual relations second, in a loving partnership.

SusieBlue

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Only in the sense that tight fitting clothing on a woman draws the base nature of man. A real man would much prefer that the woman he loves dresses demurely, and preserves herself just for him. She knows that he loves her first, and has sexual relations second, in a loving partnership.

Ah, so you are blaming the woman.
Anyway, I disagree. Its a mans responsibility to keep himself under control.
A woman can dress however she likes and is at no fault if the man behaves inappropriately - dressed "demurely" or not.

bee06

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Yes. You see many men have a high level of testerone, and sin when they look immorally on a woman. Indeed, some men are unable to control themselves, and this leads to abuse of women, rape, etc.

Rape has nothing to do with how tight a woman’s clothes are.

Mrs OBumble

sporina wrote: »

So back in the day it was wrong for females to wear trousers - especially to mass - (from my experience) - why was this?

Links to any source of this?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Where did I blame the woman? I just explained the true situation of humankind.
You are fully entitled to hold that position. However, I am morally obliged to gently point out to you that you are incorrect in your view. But, as I said, you can hold a view which is erroneous.

Nekarsulm

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Yes. You see many men have a high level of testerone, and sin when they look immorally on a woman. Indeed, some men are unable to control themselves, and this leads to abuse of women, rape, etc.

Effects

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Only in the sense that tight fitting clothing on a woman draws the base nature of man.

So what you are saying is that man is basically unbridled sin. And it's a woman's place to try and control this sin. By not unleashing the devil that is inside every man.

But you also think that women should behave like they are the property of their man and bow to his demands.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Effects wrote:

So what you are saying is that man is basically unbridled sin. And it's a woman's place to try and control this sin. By not unleashing the devil that is inside every man.

I didn't say that. Read back where I said SOME men.

SusieBlue

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Where did I blame the woman? I just explained the true situation of humankind.
You are fully entitled to hold that position. However, I am morally obliged to gently point out to you that you are incorrect in your view. But, as I said, you can hold a view which is erroneous.

I am not incorrect. You can't possibly be insisting a woman is at fault if a man sexually assaults her.
You might as well just say "She was asking for it" -- because that's clearly what you mean.

That's a disgusting attitude to have and shows a serious lack of respect for women. Its also disrespectful to men, you are implying they are uncultivated animals unable to control themselves.
That simply isn't true.

Sleeper12

sporina wrote:

So back in the day it was wrong for females to wear trousers - especially to mass - (from my experience) - why was this?

She also had to keep her head covered with a scarf. Actually not too unlike Muslim women today

Sleeper12

bee06 wrote:

Rape has nothing to do with how tight a woman’s clothes are.

The tighter the pants, the harder to remove

Rory28

This is being unfair. You asked this question knowing full well the response you'd get. The bible is old. You cannot hold people of the past to the standards of today.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

WhiteRoses wrote:

I am not incorrect. You can't possibly be insisting a woman is at fault if a man sexually assaults her. You might as well just say "She was asking for it" -- because that's clearly what you mean. That's a disgusting attitude to have and shows a serious lack of respect for women.

It all depends on the situation. Do you honestly believe, as a full blooded male, that you are not more sexually attracted to a female who openly displays herself? Of course it's a contributing factor to abuse of the female.

SusieBlue

Rory28 wrote: »

This is being unfair. You asked this question knowing full well the response you'd get. The bible is old. You cannot hold people of the past to the standards of today.

Some people clearly still hold those standards, if some replies on this thread are anything to go by.

Effects

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

It all depends on the situation. Do you honestly believe, as a full blooded male, that you are not more sexually attracted to a female who openly displays herself? Of course it's a contributing factor to abuse of the female.

Maybe men should start wearing blinkers, it seems they are the problem, not the women.

Rory28

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Some people clearly still hold those standards, if some replies on this thread are anything to go by.

The question was answered in the context of the bible.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Effects wrote:

Maybe men should start wearing blinkers, it seems they are the problem, not the women.

What planet do you live on?

Nick Park

Rory28 wrote: »

This is being unfair. You asked this question knowing full well the response you'd get. The bible is old. You cannot hold people of the past to the standards of today.

And where does the Bible refer to women wearing trousers?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Nick Park wrote:

And where does the Bible refer to women wearing trousers?

Probably nowhere. But we're talking about common sense.

beveragelady

Rory28 wrote: »

This is being unfair. You asked this question knowing full well the response you'd get. The bible is old. You cannot hold people of the past to the standards of today.

All the church has it its long tradition. Its moral authority is rooted in its two thousand years of history.

If people want to disregard the rules that oppressed women, they must be prepared to disregard everything that led up to those rules too.

As for the archaic notions being spouted here about men's unbridled lust... Boards needs a poop emoji.

SusieBlue

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Probably nowhere. But we're talking about common sense.

Can you please elaborate on that? How is it "common sense"?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

beveragelady wrote:

As for the archaic notions being spouted here about men's unbridled lust... Boards needs a poop emoji.

I didn't say that. Most men are principled and disciplined, and wouldn't dream of harming, a woman, no matter how she dressed. They probably have daughters. I said many or some men sinfully fail to control their urges, for whatever reason.

Triceratops Ballet

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

It all depends on the situation. Do you honestly believe, as a full blooded male, that you are not more sexually attracted to a female who openly displays herself? Of course it's a contributing factor to abuse of the female.

physical abuse and rape are not crimes rooted in attraction, they are rooted in power and control.
Women in cultures where the are covered up also are attacked in this way, nuns and older women are also raped, attractiveness and clothing often don't come into it.

It's ridiculous to suggest that men can't help but sin at the sight of an attractive woman

SusieBlue

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

I didn't say that. Most men are principled and disciplined, and wouldn't dream of harming, a woman, no matter how she dressed. They probably have daughters. I said many or some men sinfully fail to control their urges, for whatever reason.

I totally agree with you. A very small minority of men do sinfully fail to control their urges.
However, the woman he hurts is at absolutely zero fault and her attire is irrelevant.
The reason is because he is a monster, not because the woman was wearing a pair of tight trousers. It isn't her fault if a man assaults her.

Effects

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

I didn't say that. Most men are principled and disciplined, and wouldn't dream of harming, a woman, no matter how she dressed. They probably have daughters. I said many or some men sinfully fail to control their urges, for whatever reason.

But you think it's up to the woman to do something about it when the blame belongs to men.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Tell me this, if you are a man, and have daughters, do you like to see them dressed immodestly?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

If you say you don't care, you are not a proper parent.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Delirium

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

It depends on the tightness of the trousers. A woman must not wear clothing which may be a source of sin to the men.

Is it wrong for women to own a car?

"it depends on the type of car. A woman must not own a car which may be a source of sin to a car thief."

bee06

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Tell me this, if you are a man, and have daughters, do you like to see them dressed immodestly?

Can you define “dressed immodestly” because earlier you referred to tight trousers which the majority of women wear and most people would not consider immodest.

byhookorbycrook

Not just in Catholicism. it was considered vulgar for women to ride astride on a horse in past times.Hence they rode side-saddle.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Delirium wrote:

Is it wrong for women to own a car?

Delirium wrote:

"it depends on the type of car. A woman must now own a car which may be a source of sin to a car thief."

What kind of nonsense is this? Another blind, alley, to which you expect me to respond. Well you fooled me there, because I did respond, sadly.

Triceratops Ballet

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Tell me this, if you are a man, and have daughters, do you like to see them dressed immodestly?

So men with daughters have different thoughts about women and modesty to men who have only sons?

Nekarsulm

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

It all depends on the situation. Do you honestly believe, as a full blooded male, that you are not more sexually attracted to a female who openly displays herself? Of course it's a contributing factor to abuse of the female.

Hardly worth bring rapists to Trial at all now.
Their Solicitor will point out that the victim had "tight trousers" and the charges will be dropped.
And of course, the accused will be entitled to sue the woman for defamation of character.

SusieBlue

bee06 wrote: »

Can you define “dressed immodestly” because earlier you referred to tight trousers which the majority of women wear and most people would not consider immodest.

I'd also like to hear an answer on this.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Nekarsulm wrote:

Hardly worth bring rapists to Trial at all now. Their Solicitor will point out that the victim had "tight trousers" and the charges will be dropped. And of course, the accused will be entitled to sue the woman for defamation of character.

Again more rubbish. Why don't you address the issue, and stop introducing red herrings.

Delirium

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

What kind of nonsense is this? Another blind, alley, to which you expect me to respond. Well you fooled me there, because I did respond, sadly.

It's a parallel to what you posted, i.e. the woman must avoid putting temptation into the criminals/guys mind.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zaph

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Only in the sense that tight fitting clothing on a woman draws the base nature of man. A real man would much prefer that the woman he loves dresses demurely, and preserves herself just for him. He doesn't want her to draw the sexual attention of other men. He wants to be her man. She knows that he loves her first, and has sexual relations second, in a loving partnership.

No, a real man would much prefer that the woman he loves dresses whatever way she likes because it's 2018, not 1818. That's not going to change the fact that he's her man or make him love her any less. :rolleyes:

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You can wear what you like. I don't care. I am not addressing you. I am talking to people who want to know the right way to live.

wexie

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

You can wear what you like. I don't care. I am not addressing you. I am talking to people who want to know the right way to live.

You mean the 'right way to live, in my personal and hopelessly outdated opinion'.

Just so we're clear on that

o1s1n

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

You can wear what you like. I don't care. I am not addressing you. I am talking to people who want to know the right way to live.

You mean the 'aubm8wf2q6epox' way to live.

Sounds like a borefest riddled with shame, self doubt and self flagellation to be honest.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

o1s1n wrote:

Sounds like a borefest riddled with shame, self doubt and self flagellation to be honest.

o1s1n wrote:

You mean the 'owenybaloney' way to live.

Ah, goodnight.

wexie

Oh...and folks, for those who hadn't already made the connection....


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/baloney?s=t

baloney or boloney
[buh-loh-nee]

noun
1.Slang. foolishness; nonsense.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Can we please keep to the topic rather than engaging in personal comments?

Thanks for your attention.