What's worse, women wearing pants or women wearing short skirts?

[coffeeandcigarette]

Nowadays skirts reveal quite a lot of her figure. And the femininity makes it even more attractive.

My choice for a women would be pants (if they dont want to dress like a 18th century farm girl)

What?? "Nowadays skirt reveal..." What skirts exactly? Do you realize there are approximately 200 different kinds of skirts available at every large mall in America? Some are very revealing, some not. Some are very very modest. There are current issues of Vogue with women in ankle length wool skirts. You are basing your assertions and a very limited understanding of modern fashion. No one who wants to wear loose, flowing, modest skirts needs to "dress like an 18th century farm girl." She can dress like an attractive, fashionable women from 2019. Pants are immodest about 99% of the time because of the areas of a women's body that they highlight.

[Innocent Smith]

Complaining about women in pants, and thinking they are going to be the end of us, is similar to complaining that cars are no longer available white wall tires. Time to get over it and move on.

Which class is worse? Probably the one that you enjoy most. Keep up this type of thinking and worry up and you're sure to end up a perverted lech.

[Sempronius]

Nowadays skirts reveal quite a lot of her figure. And the femininity makes it even more attractive.

My choice for a women would be pants (if they dont want to dress like a 18th century farm girl)

She can dress like an attractive, fashionable women from 2019.

Yes, but if she wants to be anonymous then its harder to be that with a skirt.

[awkwardcustomer]

What about the immodesty of men who wear tight pants?

[Maximilian]

Women are much more naturally spiritual than men

Absolutely wrong, and the basis for so much of the degradation of modern society. St. Paul taught just exactly the opposite.

Women are not "called to be beautiful."

C.S. Lewis from "That Hideous Strength":

"The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male...to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve."

[Miriam_M]

Maybe the cause is beauty.  God wants men to work.  And God wants women to beautify.

Oh brother...

Ok, so I am going to sit here on the couch looking gorgeous and my husband can do all the work...

No one said that.

Women are much more naturally spiritual than men,

I'm calling you on this.  We most certainly are not "more spiritual" than men in any categorical way.  Just because our nature -- when we conform to our true nature -- tends to make us rather receptive to spirituality does not mean that we in fact receive and practice "more naturally" than men do.

We have different spiritual challenges than men do, having also to do with the disorders that are the fruit of Eve's decision to compromise her original perfection.

Because our natures incline us to beautify self (internally and externally), others, and the environment, we are, for example, inclined toward vanity.

Because it is the order of the universe that women attract men and continue to attract them, that dynamic tempts us to competition with other women, even unconsciously, which in turn often results in the capital sins of Anger and Envy at the attention other women receive. 

And because we enjoy beautiful things so much, we are often tempted to Avarice.

Men are simply tempted by and driven by other factors.  They are not "less naturally spiritual."  They respond to different stimuli and motivations than women do.

[awkwardcustomer]

C.S. Lewis from "That Hideous Strength":

"The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male...to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve."

Some men are beautiful. 

[Maximilian]

C.S. Lewis from "That Hideous Strength":

"The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male...to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve."

Some men are beautiful.

Of course men are beautiful. Michelangelo sculpted "David," not Bathsheba.

But you miss the point when you make it into an argument between men and women. C.S. Lewis is making a point about female beauty. To retort "What about you?" is of course the classic female response to every argument, but it's one that should be resisted in this instance.

[coffeeandcigarette]

Nowadays skirts reveal quite a lot of her figure. And the femininity makes it even more attractive.

My choice for a women would be pants (if they dont want to dress like a 18th century farm girl)

She can dress like an attractive, fashionable women from 2019.

Yes, but if she wants to be anonymous then its harder to be that with a skirt.

I don't think you mean anonymous. What are you trying to say?

[coffeeandcigarette]

Women are much more naturally spiritual than men

Absolutely wrong, and the basis for so much of the degradation of modern society. St. Paul taught just exactly the opposite.

Women are not "called to be beautiful."

C.S. Lewis from "That Hideous Strength":

"The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male...to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve."

First of all, C.S. Lewis is not God, so I'm not sure where you think he is defining God's intentions for our lives here...but anyway...

Secondly, this is still discussing "beauty" in general, not physical attractiveness only or at all. The original comment I was replying to was arguing for modesty based on woman's "job" being to be attractive. This is a different thing.

[coffeeandcigarette]

Maybe the cause is beauty.  God wants men to work.  And God wants women to beautify.

Oh brother...

Ok, so I am going to sit here on the couch looking gorgeous and my husband can do all the work...

No one said that.

Women are much more naturally spiritual than men,

I'm calling you on this.  We most certainly are not "more spiritual" than men in any categorical way.  Just because our nature -- when we conform to our true nature -- tends to make us rather receptive to spirituality does not mean that we in fact receive and practice "more naturally" than men do.

Well this is really just a semantics game...being more receptive to spirituality is beautiful and can certainly be said to be part of "feminine beauty." That is the general female quality I meant. I don't really know why you are "calling me out." Really?? It is true I did not define my terms and lay out meanings for "naturally" before preceding, but this is a chat forum not a formal debate.

[Geremia]

from Cdl. Siri's letter on modesty (reprinted in Appendix 3 of Dressing with Dignity):

when it comes to the covering of the female body, the wearing of men's trousers by women cannot be said to constitute, as such, a grave offense against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of woman's body than do modern women's skirts. [...] However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers which seems to us the gravest.⁴

4. Trousers on women are worse than mini-skirts, said Bishop de Castro Mayer, because while mini-skirts attack the senses, women's trousers attack man's highest spiritual faculty, the mind. Cardinal Siri explains why, in depth.

[awkwardcustomer]

C.S. Lewis from "That Hideous Strength":

"The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male...to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve."

Some men are beautiful.

Of course men are beautiful. Michelangelo sculpted "David," not Bathsheba.

But you miss the point when you make it into an argument between men and women. C.S. Lewis is making a point about female beauty. To retort "What about you?" is of course the classic female response to every argument, but it's one that should be resisted in this instance.

Why should it be resisted?  If C.S Lewis can make a point about female beauty, I can make a point about male beauty. 

Of course C.S Lewis would never say - The beauty of the male is the root of joy to the male as well as to the female...to desire the enjoying of his own beauty is the obedience of Adam?

The trouble with all comments about beauty, male or female, is that so few men and women actually are beautiful.  Beauty is rare. 

[Miriam_M]

Maybe the cause is beauty.  God wants men to work.  And God wants women to beautify.

Oh brother...

Ok, so I am going to sit here on the couch looking gorgeous and my husband can do all the work...

No one said that.

Women are much more naturally spiritual than men,

I'm calling you on this.  We most certainly are not "more spiritual" than men in any categorical way.  Just because our nature -- when we conform to our true nature -- tends to make us rather receptive to spirituality does not mean that we in fact receive and practice "more naturally" than men do.

Well this is really just a semantics game...being more receptive to spirituality is beautiful and can certainly be said to be part of "feminine beauty." That is the general female quality I meant. I don't really know why you are "calling me out." Really??

No.  Not really.  You seem to have a reading problem.  I said "call you on it."  Not call you "out."  To "call" someone on a statement means to challenge a statement the other person makes.  I simply challenged you on the facts, and I don't need your permission to do that.  It's not a "semantics" problem; it's a different concept entirely to claim that women are "more spiritual" rather than simply "more receptive."  One may lead to the other, but not inevitably.  That's my only point.  You made a sweeping generalization.  I get to object to your sweeping generalization.

It is true I did not define my terms and lay out meanings for "naturally" before preceding, but this is a chat forum not a formal debate.

It is neither.  It's a discussion forum, and I get to discuss just as much and often as you do.  It is neither informal chat nor formal debate, but ideas are generally debated here.  I didn't claim anything about any supposedly formal protocol for debate.  I disagree with your terminology, and it helps -- as you admit you did not -- to define terms.

[Miriam_M]

The original comment I was replying to was arguing for modesty based on woman's "job" being to be attractive. This is a different thing.

But some others would not have interpreted such a statement about woman's nature (beauty in the context of modesty)  to mean that "looking beautiful" is the same as passivity (not doing work).  Yet you did assume that when you jumped from "looking beautiful" to sitting on the couch not performing the duties of one's state in life. The second concept does not follow from the first.  No one said that because God intended women to be bearers of beauty, He also wanted them to be statues.