Should Women Wear Pants?

[Salyan]

Good post, Pr. Markle.

 

Before I say anything else, you all should know that I wear skirts almost exclusively (except for skiing and sledding), and I really, really don't like to see ladies in pants. I've got an incredible aversion to pants and don't think the girls in our churches should be wearing them (btw, culottes are pants, too!). I believe them to be immodest. Just putting that out there so no one gets the idea that I'm a feminist who condones pants. :-P

That being said... I really don't think that today, in this culture and time, we can reasonably say that pants are men's garments. That definition is based on a particular time and place in Western history, and doesn't take into account all the myriad others cultures, eras, locations across human history. And no, 50's era American clothing is not somehow more 'godly' because it was American. :-P  Yes, some cultures as they degrade (including ours), start to blend the lines of male vs female clothing, but you can look to multiple cultures - even pagan ones - that clearly delineated dress between the genders. I think when our churches try to hang on (so very desperately) to this argument, we come across to our young people and the world around us as being outdated and oblivious - and all for a extra-Biblical definition. (I really wish it were otherwise - I would love a good chapter and verse to back up not wearing pants!) The only mention in the Bible of bivurcated garments, specifically, has to do with the dress of priests. Yes, priests are men, but not all men are priests. So perhaps Biblically only the pastors should wear pants? But wait... in the New Testament dispensation we are all considered priests, so maybe we can all wear pants.... see how silly it gets? 

We are instructed to a) wear what pertains to our gender and b ) dress modestly. IMO, the modesty argument is the best way to address pants - because a modest skirt will always be more modest than modern pants. Unless, of course, you're skiing or standing on your head.

 

 

On another line of thought... the OP recently commented elsewhere that common sense was a good reason for someone to be excused from something he otherwise felt was a command. If women are not to wear bivurcated garments, ever - well, common sense would have to excuse any of us living where there is snow and freezing temperatures from that anyways. Cause otherwise we'd never be able to stay warm. I am not generally a fan of using pragmatic arguments to prove/disprove the Bible, but thought it was a point worth making (just for the OP).

[heartstrings]

Salyan, I realize other cultures don't traditionally wear "western clothes" which is why I said "in our culture". But I think if you're a desert nomad and both sexes wear ankle- length robes then the men should wear the "man robe" .  If you're an woman eskimo, you aught to wear the woman parka. And Canadians......perfectly understandable.

Edited September 2, 2016 by heartstrings

[wretched]

1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

Salyan, I realize other cultures don't traditionally wear "western clothes" which is why I said "in our culture". But I think if you're a desert nomad and both sexes wear ankle- length robes then the men should wear the "man robe" .  If you're an woman eskimo, you aught to wear the woman parka. And Canadians......perfectly understandable.

You are definitely onto something here. It seems to make sense that the type of decorations on the fabrics or ornamentation determined whether a parka, robe, or burlap sack back in the day was male or female. Based on old sculptures, etc. like the one Mike posted and you just now, it appears decorative fabric and ornamentation was the only real difference and continues to be in most cultures including western culture. Appurtenances also determine male and female then and now. Similar to garments like a man with a necklace or earring(s).

[swathdiver]

Many cultures are heathen cultures and did not, do not follow, nor care for the things of God.

Mowhawks and tattoos are symbols of rebellion (to God) and have been so for thousands of years.  Does the fact that millions of toddlers are running around with those silly mowhawk chickenhead haircuts being watched by their parents who are covered in tattoos and piercings make them ok for God's people today?

 

Nope, still rebellion.

 

Should a Christian woman engage in an activity that would cause her to dress immodestly or as a man?  Will the Lord wink at a Christian woman who puts on a skin tight wetsuit to go diving or wear those short skirts for playing tennis or the leotard for gymnastics?

Why was it unseemly for a lady to straddle a horse but today it is not? 

Food for thought but as for me and my house, such is sin because the bible tells me so.  I was against culottes and riding skirts but caved in.  Today, our girls volley ball team wears them and my youngest has made the team.  I ain't never seen no man wearing culottes or riding skirts or maybe I'm being hypocritical or maybe just want to please my wife and children?  Lord help me!  

 

I reckon that I look funny to those rock-n-roll Christians and wonder if the Christian of the Victorian era for example, would think of me as I think of those rock-n-roll Christians?

Edited September 3, 2016 by swathdiver

[Genevanpreacher]

22 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In order to answer the issue of the question in the opening post, Biblical, doctrinal integrity compels us to answer the following three questions:

1.  Is it a spiritual abomination for a woman to wear that which is inherently man's wear?  The answer to this question is Biblically easy, since Deuteronomy 22:5 directly declares, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

(Note: Both sides of this declaration should be honestly considered.  Since God's Word indicated that it is equally a spiritual abomination for a woman to "wear that which pertaineth unto a man" and for a man to "put on a woman's garment," then this matter should not be a one sided consideration.  Thus we are moved also to ask -- What is inherently "a woman's garment," such that a man should never put it on?)

2.  Is pants-wear inherently man's wear?

(Note: If one answers to the affirmative, what Biblical evidence might be provided in order to support this answer?  Indeed, wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak negatively concerning a woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?  On the other hand, in those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?)

3.  What exactly is the definition for "pants-wear"?

(Note: A basic English dictionary definition for "pants-wear" would be "an outer garment extending from the waist to the knees or ankles and divided into separate coverings for the legs."  Within this definition culottes, although commonly accepted among Fundamental Baptists for women to wear, are indeed "pants-wear."  In fact, an English dictionary definition for "culottes" would be "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the legs to resemble a skirt."  Furthermore, wearing any form of "pants-wear" under the skirt or for bed clothes would still be wearing "pants-wear."  So then, how absolute and consistent do we believe the declaration of God's Word in Deuteronomy 22:5 actually is?)

I like this.

Also, a question... the "garment" in verse 25... was it a 'specific' garment... like 'personal' type of garment? 

Like 'under clothes'?

Just wondering if it is, and if that changes the normal 'view' there.

[Genevanpreacher]

On 9/1/2016 at 10:54 PM, heartstrings said:

If a man puts on a dress, we look at him like he's a fruitcake. But if a woman wears bluejeans, most consider that normal and socially acceptable. Like I've said before;  it's no wonder there are so many effeminate men and masculinewomen. Our society is OK with women police officers, bosses, construction workers, big game hunters and infantry soldiers: women have taken over all the men's roles including wearing our pants. I'm serious. No wonder we have so many pathetic folks who can't use their own bathroom. And our stupid president makes facilitating such the law of our land. Short answer is "No". A woman should wear womens clothes, and act like a feminine lady. Let men wear men's clothes and be men....and use the men's bathroom. Speaking of bathrooms, isn't the universal symbol for "men's room" a stick-dude wearing pants? And look what the "womens" symbol has on...If the WORLD still recognizes the "dress" symbolized on a bathroom door, then THAT is what "pertaineth to a woman" in our culture; know what I'm saying?

I agree. Mostly.

But when you look at womans clothing in the store, the difference is clear, in the so-called 'style' of the clothing too.

So it's not just whether it's labeled women's clothing that matters. Women's pants are quite different from men's. And as immodest as they can be, not all are.

Immodest pants are form fitting and alluring to the eyes of a man, who btw has his mind NOT under control of biblical restraint, and those pants do not 'glorify' the proper station of a woman. (*NOT THAT THE WOMAN BEARS NO BLAME*)

The same goes for 'skirts'. A Scottish man wearing a kilt is not alluring at all, yet he is wearing a skirt. And a kilt is much different on a man than a woman's skirt would be on a man.

Take your bathroom emblem above - widen the shoulders on the woman and add a 'cap' and what do you have?

A men's bathroom emblem in Scotland?

It's mostly about our perception.

I have worked with women who are gay. They will sometimes wear men's jeans. And you can see that they are men's jeans.

Men's jeans/pants are obviously differently made in pattern and style.

So the women who are wearing women's pants are not wearing that which pertains to a man.

On 9/2/2016 at 1:15 AM, swathdiver said:

You've addressed the subject of modesty and ignored the admonition for a woman not to wear men's clothing.

In our western society men wear pants and ladies wear dresses and skirts.  That split legged thing when I heard it thirty years ago was derogatory.

Watching old movies from the '20s and thirties, Hollywood's most prideful women appeared in movies with the tailored suits.  Bible believing women wore dresses and skirts even while working the fields on farms in all weather for hundreds of years.

Since those fraudulent Egyptian bibles came out and have become widespread, bible doctrine after bible doctrine has been questioned, redefined and discarded so the Burger King Christian can feel good about having Christ "Their Way" and not the Lord's Way.

Wayne, AMEN AMEN AMEN Brother!

See my above post.

[swathdiver]

I did and found it wanting.  Thanks for clarifying your position though.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother "Swathdiver,"

I present this posting with all due respect and regard for you as a fellow brother in Christ.  I pray that it will be received with the grace in which I intend it.

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 6:59 AM, swathdiver said:

Many cultures are heathen cultures and did not, do not follow, nor care for the things of God.

Mowhawks and tattoos are symbols of rebellion (to God) and have been so for thousands of years.  Does the fact that millions of toddlers are running around with those silly mowhawk chickenhead haircuts being watched by their parents who are covered in tattoos and piercings make them ok for God's people today?

Nope, still rebellion.

Should a Christian woman engage in an activity that would cause her to dress immodestly or as a man?  Will the Lord wink at a Christian woman who puts on a skin tight wetsuit to go diving or wear those short skirts for playing tennis or the leotard for gymnastics?

I fully agree with the principle of this part in your posting above.

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 6:59 AM, swathdiver said:

Why was it unseemly for a lady to straddle a horse but today it is not? 

Food for thought but as for me and my house, such is sin because the bible tells me so.  I was against culottes and riding skirts but caved in.  Today, our girls volley ball team wears them and my youngest has made the team.  I ain't never seen no man wearing culottes or riding skirts or maybe I'm being hypocritical or maybe just want to please my wife and children?  Lord help me!  

I am burdened concerning this part in your posting above.  First, by definition culottes are indeed "pants-wear."  Yet by definition they are also "pants-wear" made specifically for females.  Therefore, we could engage in a discussion concerning whether some "pants-wear" is specifically woman's wear, and not men's wear at all (as per your statement, "I ain't never seen no man wearing culottes or riding skirts."). 

However, such is not the part in your posting that burdens me.  Rather, it is the following statement in your posting that burdens me -- "I was against culottes and riding skirts but caved in."  That statement appears to indicate that your conscience is "against culottes and riding skirts."  Yet it also appears to indicate that you compromised and sinned against your conscience by "caving in" (for whatever reason).  If indeed your conscience has not changed in relation to the subject of culottes and riding skirts, then you are sinning against the Lord your God by sinning against your conscience through "caving in;" "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (See Romans 14:23)  Indeed, Romans 14:23 teaches us that if a believer engages in an activity against which his or her conscience carries doubt, then that believer is "damned" in so engaging; for he or she is engaging in that activity "not of faith."  (Note: As for myself, my conscience does not hold the same position as your conscience appears to hold concerning culottes and riding skirts.)

Brother, I am quite burdened for your spiritual condition before the Lord in this matter and for the spiritual damage that you might be causing against your own conscience.  Oh, how I pray that you might receive this warning with the grace in which it is intended.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling

[HappyChristian]

I thought this bit of history would be apropos to the discussion. I am quoting the article in full. To give credit, the link is at the end, but just be warned that the article on the link contains a photo that is risque, so I don't recommend opening it. Emphasis by bolding was  part of the article.

"Culottes have made a definitive comeback in the past few seasons, this year in particular. Opinions on them are definitely polarizing- some say the bold look is incredibly chic, others claim it is “aggressively unsexy.” However you feel, it’s safe to say that these pants are comfy, and versatile- definitely the perfect summer staple to combat these past few sweaty months.

This is hardly the pant’s first time in the fashion limelight however. Culottes have a long, tumultuous history, and have gone through a number of changes throughout the years.

So what are culottes?

It’s a bit of a trick question- the answer depends on what point in time you are referring. While today the term refers to women’s wear, its first iteration was as a men’s pant. The word was used as far back as the Renaissance- men of upper class would wear breeches, which in France was translated from English into French as “culottes.”  This early version was nothing like the ones worn today. These pants were fitted, often cut from fine silk, and ended just below the knee with a fastener such as a buckle or button.

At first glance, culottes are simply pants and nothing more. However, the garment has been caught up in scandal since it’s early days. By the late 1700’s the French Revolution culottes, which were frequently worn by the wealthy, became a symbol of the upper class and oppression. So much so, revolutionaries were referred to as “sans culottes” or “without culottes,” referring to their station and opposition to aristocratic ideas. These sans culottes wore trousers instead, creating a stark visual divide between classes and values.

But the French Revolution certainly wasn’t the end of it. The drama surrounding culottes only intensified as they made the transition from a symbol of male wealth into a freeing, feminist garment for women. This version, a skirt split into pants, is much more in line with what we know culottes as today.

Women’s culottes came about in the Victorian era, as women of the time started to become much more active than they had in previous generations. They were participating in activities such as horseback riding, tennis, and especially bicycling. However, the cumbersome skirts of the period were definitely not conducive to sports, or really anything other than sitting while looking pretty.

The bifurcated skirts of the Victorian era were originally created as garments that would give the illusion of wearing a long skirt while enabling women to straddle a horse instead of riding sidesaddle. Ruffles or panels helped to conceal the divide, allowing the wearer to ride horses and bikes properly. The French word “culottes” was borrowed and used to refer to these new women’s pants. Women enjoyed a newfound freedom in the Victorian version of culottes, and fortunately, did not need to endure much social backlash as a result of their sartorial choices. This garments looked enough like a skirt that few made too much of a fuss.

This would eventually change however, because the further the design of culottes moved from that of a traditional skirt, the more contentious the garment became. French designers began experimenting with the idea of divided skirts as they became more of a staple in women’s wardrobes.

However, it was Elsa Schiaparelli who would make the bold move of creating culottes that made no attempt to hide what they really were: pants for women.

In 1931, Schiaparelli caused a scandal during a trip to London to go fabric shopping. The designer wore culottes that were “undisguised by panels or a wraparound skirt.” The Bristish press tore Schiaparelli’s design apart, calling them “manly, with hints of lesbianism.” Though this is a ridiculous insult by today’s standards (in fact, now it could even be considered a compliment) the jabs got worse, even downright hostile. For example, Lili de Alvarez, a professional tennis player, wore a Schiaparelli design at Wimbledon. This outraged reporters at the Daily Mail, who declared that she should be “soundly beaten.” In fact, for a time, there was a French law that expressly forbade women wearing pants unless she was “holding a bicycle handlebar or the reigns of a horse.” Women were arrested in Paris for wearing culottes in public.

Fortunately, this outrage was short-lived, and pants for women became socially acceptable as attitudes and gender roles evolved in the subsequent decades. The wide-legged culottes fell out of fashion in favor of other styles, but, as we know, have recently made a comeback.

While public opinion on modern culottes is not nearly as “passionate” as it was in the 1930’s, its “aggressive” unsexiness is still a point of contention, even today. But looking back through its history, culottes were never meant to be sexy. And perhaps that’s a good thing."

https://startupfashion.com/fashion-archives-history-of-culottes/

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Sister DePriest,

What would the information of your above posting mean for so many Fundamental Baptists who preach so strongly against "pants-wear" on women as an abomination to the Lord, yet who readily allow for women and girls to wear culottes?

[HappyChristian]

25 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister DePriest,

What would the information of your above posting mean for so many Fundamental Baptists who preach so strongly against "pants-wear" on women as an abomination to the Lord, yet who readily allow for women and girls to wear culottes?

I think they would need to admit that, indeed, they have allowed culture to influence their standards. I have never been in favor of culottes precisely because they are pant-like (or pants-wear). I have seen too many women - both young and old(er) - who sit like men while wearing the culottes, wrongly assuming that nothing can be seen. IMO, wearing the culottes puts the female in the same mind set as wearing full-blown pants does. 

For full disclaimer, I will say that I do not wear pants, nor do I wear culottes. However, I do have a swimming outfit that was made at my request from a pair of culottes that have elastic in the bottom hem. So they look, effectively, like bloomers. I chose that because pinned skirts just don't work for modesty sake, and I will not  wear a bathing suit (totally immodest, IMO). I believe that my stance on pants is scriptural, and I don't believe that my swimming apparel pertains to a man. Neither, more importantly, does my hubby. (add to that the fact that they are only worn when in the pool, where there are no men, and no manly man would be found dead in them...;) )

I have made this suggestion before and I will repeat it just because I like the book so much. An excellent read is The Fall and Rise of Christian Standards. The author delves into a number of standards, but pants is addressed. And it is laid out very well, with scriptural explanation and application. It's a worthy addition to any bookshelf. 

[HappyChristian]

By the way, one thing that the Lord showed me when reading Deut. 22:5 one day:  it is not the wearing of the apparel that is abomination. It is the wearer. "all who DO SO"...female or male. 

In this country, the history of clothing has been typically that women wore dresses, men wore pants. But as time has progressed, and feminism/gay rights has taken hold more and more strongly, things are being flipped on their heads. And women are donning more and more masculine apparel while men feminize theirs. All in the name of freedom - the banner cry for the feminist of yore who wanted to wear pants and the men of today who want to wear dresses/skirts. (it truly is a movement - just google "men who want to wear skirts" and you'll find out a lot...)

Unisex/Gender-neutral. Not pleasing to God...

When one looks at the standards God set from the time He clothed Adam and Eve (the term coat used means, in the Hebrew, a long, flowing garment...they were both fully covered), to Deut. 22:5, to Romans 1 (the natural outcome of abandoning the distinction between male and female) to the NT commands on modesty, one has to realize that God wants us distinct. Distinct from the world, and distinct from each other (gender-wise).  That is one of the biggie reasons I don't wear pants.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Sister DePriest,

1.  Do you believe that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear (as in -- "doth not nature itself teach you" through the very creation as God created it)?

2.  Do you believe that "pants-wear" was the primary issue of Deuteronomy 22:5 when it was first communicated?

I do not at all desire to move you from your convictions; I simply desire to understand them.  Indeed, I very much respect the consistency of your convictions.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
mistake in Biblie reference corrected

[HappyChristian]

Brother Markle - to be 100% honest, I cannot say definitively that "pants-wear" is specifically taught by nature (but, then, that quote is specifically related to a man's hair...). However, I do believe that God intends for the genders to be distinct. As distinct as possible in whatever culture in which one lives. Because, admittedly, each culture has acceptable and unacceptable garb. But as I mentioned before, I notice a marked difference in the way women comport themselves in different clothing. Many (I will not say most because I do not know most) women who don "pants-wear," whether in the form of culottes, pants, shorts, or whatever style - lose a bit of their femininity while wearing them. (Now, I do know women who have donned culottes both without and under skirts and do not manifest masculinity, so, here again, is why I have to say many and not most.)

Where "pants-wear" becomes pertinent to men is in, well, a society's culture.  Yes, there I said it. The US has a culture that was founded on scriptural principles - and one of those principles is gender identity. And in this country, that identity was manifested by men in breeches and women in dresses. 

And so we come to the fact that society/culture here in America has changed. So that means pants-wear no longer pertains to men, correct? Well, why? And where has that change in American society/culture brought us? To a better, higher plane? I don't think anyone would say that, right? Do I think the poor societal change is linked to clothing? Honestly? I think it is strongly related, because of the gender neutral/unisex issue. It was only when that began being pushed that homosexuality began to be accepted and which now is not only accepted by protected. As are many other forms of sexual deviancy, many related to clothing styles (transvestites, cross-dressers, etc).  When we cross lines God never intended us to cross, chaos follows.  (heh - I just re-read my last post...seems a bit of repeating, eh?)

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?). No. I don't think any honest person could say that it is specifically about pants since only the priests (that we know of, biblically) wore breeches (although the outer girdle on a man's robe was designed so that the man could tuck his robe into it [kind of like a belt] so that he could run unhindered). Nor do I think it is simply cross-dressing, as so many have tried to make it simply be (although it does include that idea).

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing. Setting up the principle of gender distinction. There's more, but it's late and my mind is beginning to fray (it's been a long three first days of school).   

But, and here's the cruncher that shows some ambivalence, I'm sure...do I think that women who wear pants are an abomination? I cannot go that far, because pants were not the subject of Deut. 22:5. 

Never fear, I don't think you are trying to move me from my convictions.  Here's how I have explained it in the past:

A conviction is something for which one is willing to die. A preference is something upon which someone will stand, but not for which one is willing to die. 

It is my conviction that I am to be modest. And that I am to be distinctly feminine - in action as well as apparel. It is my PREFERENCE to show my convictions by not wearing pants (but to be properly shown, it has to be accompanied by action and attitude as well...and I do strive for that as well) or masculine-style clothing.

As I said, it's late here, and my mind is a bit of mush, so I hope this post isn't completely confusing or seems contradictory...

[DaveW]

19 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Brother Markle - to be 100% honest, I cannot say definitively that "pants-wear" is specifically taught by nature (but, then, that quote is specifically related to a man's hair...). However, I do believe that God intends for the genders to be distinct. As distinct as possible in whatever culture in which one lives. Because, admittedly, each culture has acceptable and unacceptable garb. But as I mentioned before, I notice a marked difference in the way women comport themselves in different clothing. Many (I will not say most because I do not know most) women who don "pants-wear," whether in the form of culottes, pants, shorts, or whatever style - lose a bit of their femininity while wearing them. (Now, I do know women who have donned culottes both without and under skirts and do not manifest masculinity, so, here again, is why I have to say many and not most.)

Where "pants-wear" becomes pertinent to men is in, well, a society's culture.  Yes, there I said it. The US has a culture that was founded on scriptural principles - and one of those principles is gender identity. And in this country, that identity was manifested by men in breeches and women in dresses. 

And so we come to the fact that society/culture here in America has changed. So that means pants-wear no longer pertains to men, correct? Well, why? And where has that change in American society/culture brought us? To a better, higher plane? I don't think anyone would say that, right? Do I think the poor societal change is linked to clothing? Honestly? I think it is strongly related, because of the gender neutral/unisex issue. It was only when that began being pushed that homosexuality began to be accepted and which now is not only accepted by protected. As are many other forms of sexual deviancy, many related to clothing styles (transvestites, cross-dressers, etc).  When we cross lines God never intended us to cross, chaos follows.  (heh - I just re-read my last post...seems a bit of repeating, eh?)

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?). No. I don't think any honest person could say that it is specifically about pants since only the priests (that we know of, biblically) wore breeches (although the outer girdle on a man's robe was designed so that the man could tuck his robe into it [kind of like a belt] so that he could run unhindered). Nor do I think it is simply cross-dressing, as so many have tried to make it simply be (although it does include that idea).

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing. Setting up the principle of gender distinction. There's more, but it's late and my mind is beginning to fray (it's been a long three first days of school).   

But, and here's the cruncher that shows some ambivalence, I'm sure...do I think that women who wear pants are an abomination? I cannot go that far, because pants were not the subject of Deut. 22:5. 

Never fear, I don't think you are trying to move me from my convictions.  Here's how I have explained it in the past:

A conviction is something for which one is willing to die. A preference is something upon which someone will stand, but not for which one is willing to die. 

It is my conviction that I am to be modest. And that I am to be distinctly feminine - in action as well as apparel. It is my PREFERENCE to show my convictions by not wearing pants (but to be properly shown, it has to be accompanied by action and attitude as well...and I do strive for that as well) or masculine-style clothing.

As I said, it's late here, and my mind is a bit of mush, so I hope this post isn't completely confusing or seems contradictory...

To me, this seems like an even and considered post, and to finish with the difference between a conviction and a preference put into this context is a mature way to end the post.

Well done Ma'am.