Having it all three ways:
1. Trousers are men's apparel.
2. Men are aroused at the sight of women wearing trousers (men's apparel!)
3. Men find women in skirts more attractive than women in trousers (which (though less attractive, arouses them more....
!!!).
Go figure!
Clare.
Except that, by your own admission number two is false, and I can tell you that, generally three is false, as well.
Men are aroused by immodesty in dress and action by a woman, in general, not necessarily by pants, and as we've established here, some pants, such as split skirts, could not really be considered immodest.
I think you will find, most men will say women are more attractive in a modest dress or skirt, but that the man is attracted in a much more ordered manner driven mostly by the intellect opposed to an attraction driven by the lower passions.
There are three separate arguments throughout this thread. All need to be treated separately. Unfortunately, you're mixing all three, and it's not getting us anywhere.
- Trousers are men's wear, and the Bible prohibits women from wearing men's clothing
- All pants on women are immodest.
- Pants are improper not simply because of modesty, but bad effects.
Clearly, Cardinal Siri's letter suggests the third argument, and debunks the second. Since this is the most tenable position, it is the one I prefer to discuss here.
A few people discussed the first argument. I think it has merit, but it's somewhat inconsequential, if three is valid, and it gets overly legalistic.
