I still say pants are necessary for any crawling activity...

LOL!!!

Please name all the 'crawling activites' that you can.  Then, narrow it down to those that are actually necessary in the average way of life!

It does seem (as I believe you are indicating) to boil down to the desire to be 'free' versus the desire to please God, and help the weakest of your neighbors, in all things.

Which came first the sin or the vulgar dress? The sin, remember when Adam and Eve ate of the apple then they saw their nudity and were ashamed,

But was Adam thereafter clothed in trousers, and Eve in a dress?

No. As I say, the only claim men have over trousers, is that they realised they were more practical first!

Clare.

Not for me it doesn't.

I realize that you are not looking to be 'free', but many are, and I think we simply had a small miscommunicado here.

The crawling activity I have most in mind is weeding the garden.  However, scrubbing floors can be on the list, too, especially if they are large floors.

I would simply ask a lady to look at the various religious orders that have - for hundreds of years - been houses of prayer and labor, all done in a rather lengthy habit.  I am not saying that there might not be some activities where pants are truly necessary.  However, I also think those reigious women would have a counter-argument (or some simple tips) for you on these two points at least.

Another good thing about pants is that they protect your knees somewhat, too.  Even a very, very small pebble squished between your knee and a hard wood floor hurts like the dickens.

I know, as I have had many an object between my knees and the floor.  I have also worn a cassock for rather extended periods, and understand some of the real differences better than the average man.

One thing I do not understand is why most women who argue in favor of pants for say, cold weather, do not just wear the pants (or some solid stockings) under the skirt [I realize many, or even most, do so].  I wore pants under the cassock every time I put it on, and this seems like an agreeable solution to some of the concerns I have heard expressed.

I would simply ask a lady to look at the various religious orders that have - for hundreds of years - been houses of prayer and labor, all done in a rather lengthy habit.  I am not saying that there might not be some activities where pants are truly necessary.  However, I also think those reigious women would have a counter-argument (or some simple tips) for you on these two points at least.

Laymen don't have to wear casocks like priests. Laywomen don't have to wear habits like nuns!

Men coped well for centuries before they realise trousers would be more practical!

And dozy women took longer to twig! By which time it was decided that trousers were men's because they wore them first!

Some cultures seem to think trousers are immodest on men, hence the long shirts or tunics the menfolk wear over them too!

I know men and women are different. But the anti-trousers on women position is just illogical.

Fashions change. I don't see how "bifurcated garments" are immodest, unless they're tight! Or short.

But I've even read that cullottes are unacceptable!

It's just daft! Not every new fad or fashion has to be reacted to! Each must be judged according to its modesty.

Clare.

It's just daft! Not every new fad or fashion has to be reacted to! Each must be judged according to its modesty.

Nor does each statement need to be "reacted to" as if it were argumentative (although I realize this medium is hard to assess accurately at times).  Yes, modesty is THE key.  Btw, exclamation points at the end of practically every bloomin' sentence render them rather pointless and ineffective.

As for your particular "points", I will - if it strikes me as profitable to the exchange - deal with them in another post.  In this hard to guage medium, I am (perhaps incorrectly) receiving the impression that you are presently too emotionally charged where this topic is concerned to discuss this matter with any real profit.  God speed.

Okay, since when does our outward appearence have anythign to do with what our heart of hearts screams to our Father?

Welcome to the site.  

A man's external appearance is a rather accurate reflection of his inner dispositions.  Even a man who is poorer than poor will dress himself with order and dignity, and comport himself accordingly, if his heart is in order.  Does the present, ultra-slovenly era really dress as it does without reason?  No, it is a reflection of the grave disorder in the hearts of men.

Eve AND Adam were naked and God did not strike them down for being immodest.

As the original sin had not yet been committed, it is no wonder that God was not angry with their non-existent immodesty.  Immodesty only came into play with the three-fold consupiscence.

Quote

Eve AND Adam were naked and God did not strike them down for being immodest.

As the original sin had not yet been committed, it is no wonder that God was not angry with their non-existent immodesty.  Immodesty only came into play with the three-fold consupiscence.

But did he clothe Adam in trousers and Eve in a skirt, after the Fall?

Clare.