Women and Trousers: The Final Word

[TerrorDæmonum]

This question can't be answered with an absolute yes or no.

Nobody asked anyone to do so. That is why the poll has options.

It depends on the circumstances: the culture the woman is from, the occasion, the context, etc.

21 year old female, martial arts class, USA.

Where do you stand?

[Goldfinch]

21 year old female, martial arts class, USA.

Where do you stand?

It's a pointless hypothetical.

It's likely said woman is affected by the errors of our age but that doesn't directly speak to her character. It would depend on how she behaved.

[TerrorDæmonum]

It's a pointless hypothetical.

Yes. This is a very self-aware thread, as this old post explains to someone (who was new to the forum and subject at the time):

... since you are a fairly new member here, you might not realize this topic tends to be controversial and divisive when it arises. It is a recurring topic and, as you can see, there is a forum joke about the tendency of the subject to keep arising.

This is part of the joke.

The tangent about martial arts was the major discussion on it (as if it really mattered).

[Vox Clara]

This question can't be answered with an absolute yes or no.

It depends on the circumstances: the culture the woman is from, the occasion, the context, etc.

21 year old female, martial arts class, USA.

Where do you stand?

It's a pointless hypothetical.

It's likely said woman is affected by the errors of our age but that doesn't directly speak to her character. It would depend on how she behaved.

Goldfinch, your sense of chivalry, usually a virtue, in this case is misguided. You appeal to nuance and relativism and end up compromising with evil, instead of calling the cross-dressing woman the Jezebel that she is.

[Jayne]

Goldfinch, your sense of chivalry, usually a virtue, in this case is misguided. You appeal to nuance and relativism and end up compromising with evil, instead of calling the cross-dressing woman the Jezebel that she is.

Vox Clara, you are new enough to the forum that people don't know if you are saying this seriously or tongue in cheek.  Please don't tell us yet.  Everyone needs a chance to guess first. 

[Christina_S]

*snip*
But that would greatly simplify everybody's clothing: assemble and outfit that is fit for the task, and buy as much as needed to suit your lifestyle and state in life. The variety and ill-advised options don't matter if one can find what one does need and get more than one and get them reliably.

I do have specialty clothing for specific purposes, mostly, very cold weather, but that goes on top of the rest.

With this in mind, assuming there is a female who has the same basic needs, all you need is to assemble a base outfit, find a supplier or source for it, and get as much as you need (and more) and then not think about it anymore.

Yep. A capsule wardrobe is a trendy but handy thing. Minimize the number of clothes down to mix-and-match functional outfits, and you're set for life! It's something I've been working on this year: I got rid of half my clothes before our move in August, but my style is split between 50s housewife and backwoods hippy lol. Add on the trickiness of a changing body that goes between pregnancy/nursing/the rare interim before another pregnancy: the struggle, man... 

Fashion is almost universally a moral hazard, and the extreme moral degradation of modern fashion shouldn't move the bar. Fashion was always a moral concern, even when people couldn't buy things in stores.

A lay person who is expected to maintain an appearance (married, public person, professional environment, etc) obviously does not need to forsake their state in life, but they can avoid using it as an excuse to engage in what easily becomes the vice of immodesty.

Most of the works concerning this focus on men's eyes, but the real issue is in women's hearts. It is not that other people can be lustful (for men or women), but that this is a significant thing to consider when examining one's own interior motives for action.

Good points. It drives me nuts when people say, "True modesty comes from within" and then use it to justify skimpy summer attire at Mass, but you're right. It springs from that interior motive. If we just tell women "No skirts above the knee, no bare shoulders, and no neckline more that 3 fingers below the collarbone," they may follow it, but is it for the right reasons and do they get why those are the objectives set in such-and-such a time and place?

One can dress "modestly" and still sin if one adorns oneself with the intentions that are frivolous or other vanities, not specifically to incite lust.

It is therefore advisable to start with bare necessities (the functionality required and modesty without any attention to appearance otherwise) and plainness and then add adornment as necessary for a good and rational reason.

It is easy to create a baseline appearance in our minds that is not founded on reason, but on culture and fashion, and that usually leads to difficulty in exercising virtue.

Naturally, this doesn't address what women (or men) should actually wear, but how one can go about choosing what to wear and my practical advice on avoiding excessive variety and finding something that is more or less universally suitable and freeing oneself from the burden of having to think excessively about what one wears.

So this leads me to another curious question. Assuming that young unmarried women start from the baseline that you mention (simple attire suited for their state in life, modest, classic), what are reasonable additions if she is going out on a date? She likes the guy and wants to look her best without coming off as something that she's not. Would a pair of heels or earrings be immodest? A small amount of blush and lipstick? Or is this another issue where the motives determine whether or not it is sinful?

[TerrorDæmonum]

Add on the trickiness of a changing body that goes between pregnancy/nursing/the rare interim before another pregnancy: the struggle, man... 

That sounds more like the struggle, woman.

I didn't consider this. My advice is probably best understood for the unmarried, and the married life is whatever is needed for it, both practically and for marital harmony. I know men change a lot when they get married, so I assume women would as well.

Good points. It drives me nuts when people say, "True modesty comes from within" and then use it to justify skimpy summer attire at Mass, but you're right. It springs from that interior motive. If we just tell women "No skirts above the knee, no bare shoulders, and no neckline more that 3 fingers below the collarbone," they may follow it, but is it for the right reasons and do they get why those are the objectives set in such-and-such a time and place?

Using a spiritual excuse for physical wrong doing is a very bad thing. Modesty comes from within: and it affects every external. Not just clothing, but actions, words, and all external appearances.

If modesty is not evident externally, it is not there at all, because modesty regulates appearances.

Modesty is a matter of Temperance, of controlling oneself. It comes from within, and affects the without. One cannot be chaste internally while being lustful externally. One cannot be sober internally, while being intoxicated intentionally.

One cannot, in short, moderate moderation. That is actually a common mistake. People say "moderation in all things" and use it as an excuse for vice, not realizing what moderation actually is. That is another topic though.

So this leads me to another curious question. Assuming that young unmarried women start from the baseline that you mention (simple attire suited for their state in life, modest, classic), what are reasonable additions if she is going out on a date?

I have no idea. I have long known my vocation.

This is where we get into fashion specifics and I am very weak on that.

She likes the guy and wants to look her best without coming off as something that she's not. Would a pair of heels or earrings be immodest? A small amount of blush and lipstick? Or is this another issue where the motives determine whether or not it is sinful?

Thinking about this some more, and without expressing any extreme views which would naturally come to me based on my position here, I would say that a good measure is that anything that gets in the way of function or is impractical is probably a bad idea, because it is only worn for appearance while impairing function. A necklace or a ring, for example, may create safety issues (ring injuries are nasty...I would never wear a ring), but they don't get in the way of normal function. Excessive heel drop that impairs locomotion on the other hand seems to be a sign one has gone too far.

A girl who wants to look her best, but then wears paint, is not looking her best: she is looking like something else. I don't know much about makeup otherwise, except that it is not needed.

But the motives, interior motives that might not be apparent to an individual explicitly, are what are important.

[Maximilian]

Assuming that young unmarried women start from the baseline that you mention (simple attire suited for their state in life, modest, classic), what are reasonable additions if she is going out on a date? She likes the guy and wants to look her best without coming off as something that she's not. Would a pair of heels or earrings be immodest? A small amount of blush and lipstick? Or is this another issue where the motives determine whether or not it is sinful?

Female dress should be both modest and feminine. When going on a date, one would emphasize the "feminine" part. You wouldn't want to cease being modest, but you would place more emphasis on the feminine aspect. The items you mention are not incompatible with modesty, and they would emphasize one's feminine nature.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Female dress should be both modest and feminine. When going on a date, one would emphasize the "feminine" part.

I think I understand what you probably meant, but to be clear, nothing should be emphasized over virtue.

Virtue first:

Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: the woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

[Elizabeth.2]

Assuming that young unmarried women start from the baseline that you mention (simple attire suited for their state in life, modest, classic), what are reasonable additions if she is going out on a date? She likes the guy and wants to look her best without coming off as something that she's not. Would a pair of heels or earrings be immodest? A small amount of blush and lipstick? Or is this another issue where the motives determine whether or not it is sinful?

Female dress should be both modest and feminine. When going on a date, one would emphasize the "feminine" part. You wouldn't want to cease being modest, but you would place more emphasis on the feminine aspect. The items you mention are not incompatible with modesty, and they would emphasize one's feminine nature.

I'd rather not even go walk the dog w/o lipstick.   

[TerrorDæmonum]

It sounds like you walk a dog which wears lipstick.

Habits can be strong. When I started wearing a hat again, it felt strange at first, but very quickly, it became a habit and now I feel wrong outside without it.

I have worn a hat or not worn a hat a few times in my life.

[Maximilian]

Assuming that young unmarried women start from the baseline that you mention (simple attire suited for their state in life, modest, classic), what are reasonable additions if she is going out on a date? She likes the guy and wants to look her best without coming off as something that she's not. Would a pair of heels or earrings be immodest? A small amount of blush and lipstick? Or is this another issue where the motives determine whether or not it is sinful?

Female dress should be both modest and feminine. When going on a date, one would emphasize the "feminine" part. You wouldn't want to cease being modest, but you would place more emphasis on the feminine aspect. The items you mention are not incompatible with modesty, and they would emphasize one's feminine nature.

I'd rather not even go walk the dog w/o lipstick.   

That's what they recommend in that bestseller "The Rules" from about 20 years ago. They said, "Don't even go out to your mailbox without being properly prepared. You never know when you might bump into 'Mr. Right'."

[Elizabeth.2]

Well, I am on the fence about the pants, Max.

The numerous Incidents.  The Metro, airplanes, some crazy falls.  (I'm still mad about my perfect j.jill gorgeous skirt getting ripped up in somebody's branches, the ones I didn't see, fast walking down hill. So comfy and elegant.)

The controversy rages.  I never wavered on lipstick.

[TerrorDæmonum]

If one is going to straddle the fence, one must choose trousers.

[queen.saints]

If someone finds wearing pants more convenient than wearing a skirt, just burn all your pants and it will instantly become more convenient to wear a skirt.