October 21st 08, 09:43 PM
BretLudwig wrote:
> ((Brought to our attention by Alex Linder, probably under the fortification
> of the sacrament of Jim Beam...Bret))
That much is probably true. He's a stone drunk. It's well known
Revilo Oliver and Bill Pierce liked to get ****faced occasionally as
well.
> The extension of this behavior obliges us to take serious thought, and we
> ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to the
> problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any
> way responsible before God.
>
> We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment upon the wearing of
> men's dress by women. In fact Our thoughts can only bear upon the moral
> question.2
>
> Firstly, when it comes to 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.
Mary Tyler Moore started wearing trousers that showed off the
cuspiness of her then-magnificent ass and it was soon realized that
the pants suit was the trend of the future. It was the most
significant change in fashion by an entertainment figure in
entertainment history.
>
> Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not only to cover the body
> but also not to cling too closely to the body.3 Now it is true that much
> feminine clothing today clings closer than do some trousers, but trousers
> can be made to cling closer, in fact generally they do, so the tight fit
> of such clothing gives us not less grounds for concern than does exposure
> of the body. So the immodesty of men's trousers on women is an aspect of
> the problem which is not to be left out of an over-all judgment upon them,
> even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated either.
>
> II
>
> However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers
> which seems to us the gravest.
>
> A. MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.
>
> In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men's dress is always
> that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered
> stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly
> that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of
> being "like a man."5 Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing
> a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person's gestures,
> attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing
> comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.
>
> Then let us add that woman wearing man's dress always more or less
> indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when
> in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to
> be seen.6
>
> These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly
> women are made to think by the wearing of men's dress.
Few women wear MEN's pants. They prefer pants that are made for
women, and only an idiot would consider pants that zip up on the side
or back suitable for men, nor pants in feminine colors or styles, nor
pants cut as women's jeans are which emphasize the femaleness of the
woman's upper legs, pelvis and buttocks. That was as true in 1960 as
today. Who comes up with such deranged horse****?
> ((Brought to our attention by Alex Linder, probably under the fortification
> of the sacrament of Jim Beam...Bret))
That much is probably true. He's a stone drunk. It's well known
Revilo Oliver and Bill Pierce liked to get ****faced occasionally as
well.
> The extension of this behavior obliges us to take serious thought, and we
> ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to the
> problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any
> way responsible before God.
>
> We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment upon the wearing of
> men's dress by women. In fact Our thoughts can only bear upon the moral
> question.2
>
> Firstly, when it comes to 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.
Mary Tyler Moore started wearing trousers that showed off the
cuspiness of her then-magnificent ass and it was soon realized that
the pants suit was the trend of the future. It was the most
significant change in fashion by an entertainment figure in
entertainment history.
>
> Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not only to cover the body
> but also not to cling too closely to the body.3 Now it is true that much
> feminine clothing today clings closer than do some trousers, but trousers
> can be made to cling closer, in fact generally they do, so the tight fit
> of such clothing gives us not less grounds for concern than does exposure
> of the body. So the immodesty of men's trousers on women is an aspect of
> the problem which is not to be left out of an over-all judgment upon them,
> even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated either.
>
> II
>
> However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers
> which seems to us the gravest.
>
> A. MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.
>
> In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men's dress is always
> that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered
> stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly
> that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of
> being "like a man."5 Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing
> a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person's gestures,
> attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing
> comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.
>
> Then let us add that woman wearing man's dress always more or less
> indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when
> in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to
> be seen.6
>
> These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly
> women are made to think by the wearing of men's dress.
Few women wear MEN's pants. They prefer pants that are made for
women, and only an idiot would consider pants that zip up on the side
or back suitable for men, nor pants in feminine colors or styles, nor
pants cut as women's jeans are which emphasize the femaleness of the
woman's upper legs, pelvis and buttocks. That was as true in 1960 as
today. Who comes up with such deranged horse****?