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

.......

This post has been deleted.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Thank you, Mod.

Triceratops Ballet

do you think the church were wrong then to relax the rules around what women are permitted to wear?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Triceratops Ballet wrote:

do you think the church were wrong then to relax the rules around what women are permitted to wear?

No, such rules were very excessive, and did not allow women to express their beauty. You will note I did not say sexuality.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

To the poster who defined baloney, did you ever hear of Irony?

o1s1n

This argument is also working on a base assumption that women are more sexually attractive in pants. :pac:

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

o1s1n wrote:

This argument is also working on a base assumption that women are more sexually attractive in pants.

If you are a male, you know that a woman is more alluring in a short dress or tight pants. If you don't, I'd question your sexuality.

dubrov

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.

Baloney I thought you were being facetious but now I can see you are serious. Your views are a real throw back to the old days and thankfully things have moved on.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

dubrov wrote:

Baloney I thought you were being facetious but now I can see you are serious. Your views are a real throw back to the old days and thankfully things have moved on.

So you believe. I don't think you are reading my posts with attention.

o1s1n

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

If you are a male, you know that a woman is more alluring in a short dress or tight pants. If you don't, I'd question your sexuality.

There is far more to the allure of a woman than simply how much flesh she is showing.

mloc123

Owney... Would you be interested in doing an AMA thread?

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

Baloney I thought you were being facetious but now I can see you are serious. Your views are a real throw back to the old days and thankfully things have moved on.

Is he though? Really?
I have seen some of these threads with Owens way to live in them, i was under the impression that he was a troll? A very consistent one!
Oweny are you for real?
& if you are, you never blame the victim, never!

dense

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

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

Only some women though, right?

A certain age and shape.

A 90 year old bag of bones in tight fitting clothing is unlikely to "draw the base nature of men".

eviltwin

How does Owen explain male rape or rape of children?

What about rape of elderly women or those who aren't wearing tight clothing?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

o1s1n wrote:

There is far more to the allure of a woman than simply how much flesh she is showing.

Of course there is. Indeed, every woman has allure, and doesn't need to show too much flesh, as you say.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

bubblypop wrote:

Is he though? Really? I have seen some of these threads with Owens way to live in them, i was under the impression that he was a troll? A very consistent one! Oweny are you for real? & if you are, you never blame the victim, never!

Never blame the victim? If I leave my front door opened, and am burgled, am I not some way responsible?

eviltwin

Rape is not about sex it's about power. Hence rapists tend to choose the easiest and most vulnerable victim rather than the one they find most sexually attractive.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

How does Owen explain male rape or rape of children?

eviltwin wrote:

What about rape of elderly women or those who aren't wearing tight clothing?

Of course this is appalling. But we are talking about women who wear tight clothing.

eviltwin

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Of course this is appalling. But we are talking about women who wear tight clothing.

You were asked a question, please answer it so we can all be enlightened

sporina

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.

so are you saying that it was because trousers on a woman would look attractive on a woman and so there fore turn a man on and if that were to happen then it would be a sin on behalf of the woman?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

sporina wrote:

so are you saying that it was because trousers on a woman would look attractive on a woman and so there fore turn a man on and if that were to happen then it would be a sin on behalf of the woman?

It is a sin on both parties.

eviltwin

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

It is a sin on both parties.

So a woman bears some of the responsibility for her own rape?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

You were asked a question, please answer it so we can all be enlightened

Listen, I don't have knowledge of why elderly women are raped. It is some form of perversion. I am talking about younger women and men, and proper interaction between the two.

mloc123

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Listen, I don't have knowledge of why elderly women are raped. It is some form of perversion. I am talking about younger women and men, and proper interaction between the two.

So young good looking women are raped because they wear tight trousers... But all the others are because of perversion?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

So a woman bears some of the responsibility for her own rape?

I have given the example of the householder and the burgler. Would you not agree with me about this?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

mloc123 wrote:

So young good looking women are raped because they wear tight trousers... But all the others are because of perversion?

I didn't say that.

eviltwin

So rape of men is a perversion and rape of women is.....normal?

You have a horrible opinion of men don't you.

bee06

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Listen, I don't have knowledge of why elderly women are raped. It is some form of perversion. I am talking about younger women and men, and proper interaction between the two.

That’s the problem Owen. You clearly don’t understand the motivation behind any rape. It is not about how the woman is dressed at all. As many other people have already pointed out rape is about power over the victim.

eviltwin

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

I have given the example of the householder and the burgler. Would you not agree with me about this?

No I wouldn't because I don't see a person's body as an object to be taken.

mloc123

eviltwin wrote: »

So rape of men is a perversion and rape of women is.....normal?

You have a horrible opinion of men don't you.

I think that should be directed at Owney and not me.

aubm8wf2q6epox

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Never blame the victim? If I leave my front door opened, and am burgled, am I not some way responsible?

No, you are in no way responsible. You are definitely not taking your security seriously, but you are not responsible.
The responsible person is the burglar who enters your home.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

bee06 wrote:

That’s the problem Owen. You clearly don’t understand the motivation behind any rape. It is not about how the woman is dressed at all. As many other people have already pointed out rape is about power over the victim.

What about the lad who has too many pints, and meets a girl in a short dress, equally pissed, and he forces himself on her, wouldn't you call that satisfaction of lust, rather than "power over the victim"?

sporina

Ok TIME OUT folks,

I was looking for genuine facts on the topic and thought that I might get some here - how naive of me.. I was not looking for opinions or thoughts or providing a base for people to argue pitifully..

I have since educated myself on the issue else where..

Moderators please feel free to close this thread

Thanks.

eviltwin

mloc123 wrote: »

I think that should be directed at Owney and not me.

Apologies, it was meant to be aimed at Owen

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

So rape of men is a perversion and rape of women is.....normal?

eviltwin wrote:

You have a horrible opinion of men don't you.

Why are you introducing sidelines in order to insult me?

eviltwin

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Why are you introducing sidelines in order to insult me?

I'm just looking for a straight answer instead of the usual guff

Anyway I'm out. You are either a messer with too much time on his hands or a sick puppy with a terrible opinion of sex crimes. Either way I'm done.

dense

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

Never blame the victim? If I leave my front door opened, and am burgled, am I not some way responsible?

I do have to agree with you on that.
That is why insurance companies offer discounts for extra locks and alarms.

Victims sometimes do need to be blamed in order to teach others to have a bit of cop on and not become another victim.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

Anyway I'm out. You are either a messer with too much time on his hands or a sick puppy with a terrible opinion of sex crimes. Either way I'm done.

Goodbye, it's a pity you don't read my posts carefully.

pitifulgod

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

I didn't say that.

You've said that a woman bears responsibility for being raped because of how she dresses. Thing is, women get raped regardless of what they wear. The entire responsibility lies with the perpetrators and frankly, holding such unhealthy views on how women should be is in itself pretty warped.

mloc123

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

What about the lad who has too many pints, and meets a girl in a short dress, equally pissed, and he forces himself on her, wouldn't you call that satisfaction of lust, rather than "power over the victim"?

So in that scenario the dress is the reason? The same man in the same scenario would make a different choice if all women wore 'dowdy' clothes?

Owen, you are a funny man. It is fun to laugh at you and your outragous views on life. I am sure people actually exist with the same outlook on life, luckily I do not cross paths with them.

dense

dense wrote: »

I do have to agree with you on that.
That is why insurance companies offer discounts for extra locks and alarms.

Victims sometimes do need to be blamed in order to teach others to have a bit of cop on and not become another victim.

Oh seriously! Victims do not need to be blamed. The victim was not done anything wrong, therefore no blame should be put on them.
They may be stupid in some cases, not to aware of their security. However, they are not responsible.
I can't understand how anyone could think a victim, a victim, could be responsible for a crime against them.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I'm afraid they have, if they dress in a way which draws a man with ill intent.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

pitifulgod wrote:

You've said that a woman bears responsibility for being raped because of how she dresses. Thing is, women get raped regardless of what they wear. The entire responsibility lies with the perpetrators and frankly, holding such unhealthy views on how women should be is in itself pretty warped.

I said SOME responsibility.

dense

bubblypop wrote: »

Oh seriously! Victims do not need to be blamed. The victim was not done anything wrong, therefore no blame should be put on them.
They may be stupid in some cases, not to aware of their security. However, they are not responsible.
I can't understand how anyone could think a victim, a victim, could be responsible for a crime against them.

Why not?

Doing "stupid things" and making stupid decisions is what causes people to become victims.

If they hadn't been so stupid they wouldn't have become a victim.

And telling people that they can play chicken with the world and make as many stupid decisions as they like with the assurance that they won't in any way be responsible for whatever might happen to them is irresponsible.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I'm sorry I can't continue with this conversation as my battery is running out. Thanks for all the contributions, those who agree and disagree with me.

beveragelady

I read things like this with the intention of having a smug little giggle at the backward zealots and their antiquated worldview. Then I get depressed because there are such backward zealots with such antiquated worldviews.
Then I get worried because 'The Handmaid's Tale' doesn't always seem all that far-fetched.

pitifulgod

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

I said SOME responsibility.

Nope, absolutely none since that was apparently unclear in previous post.

dense

dense wrote: »

Why not?

Doing "stupid things" and making stupid decisions is what causes people to become victims.

If they hadn't been so stupid they wouldn't have become a victim.

And telling people that they can play chicken with the world and make as many stupid decisions as they like with the assurance that they won't in any way be responsible for whatever might happen to them is irresponsible.

The only person that makes a victim a victim is the offender.
Stupidity does not make you a victim.

secondrowgal

aubm8wf2q6epox wrote: »

I'm afraid they have, if they dress in a way which draws a man with ill intent.

Take a look at this so:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/powerful-art-exhibit-powerfully-answers-the-question-what-were-you-wearing_us_59baddd2e4b02da0e1405d2a

dense

bubblypop wrote: »

The only person that makes a victim a victim is the offender.
Stupidity does not make you a victim.

No, stupid people regularly making stupid decisions can reasonably be expected to become victims of their own stupidity.

Why on earth do you acknowledge and bring their "stupidity" into it otherwise?

You are essentially admitting they are a "stupid" victim by doing so.

Not all victims are stupid; however, the more stupid behaviour one indulges in, the more likelihood there is that one will become a victim.

For "stupid" there, we can substitute risky, dangerous, reckless, etc.