???

Because women are not, so who else should be the one to wear them? And to have no one wear pants, then it would be disrupting the livelihood of all those pants-seller who already have many pants to sell. And if you will say that they should sell them to the heathens, nonetheless the price of pants in the marketplace will go down and disrupt the livelihood of all those pant-sellers who already have many pants to sell. And if you will say that they should sell the remaining pants but discontinue to produce more, what will be of all those men who come to the marketplace to purchase pants and will not find any?

They're not.

When a man show the split between the legs, it is much more immodest than when a woman does it. Especially if the man is carrying extra pounds and the pants are tight around his waist.

That's why there are those that wear these:
I'm not kidding. When I was in yeshivah I was told that this is a genuine modesty issue.
It didn't suprise me, considering the levels of homosexual activity that was going on there.

Only in Ger ...

Moshi, you and I think alike

The real reason? Because a lot of Jewish culture was formed when we had Christian surroundings. We did it for a while and then it became minhag. Women wore skirts (although Jewish women from certain countries still wear pants underneath long tunic-like garments) and men wore pants. Jackie Kennedy introduced the idea of women wearing pants and the move had immodest, feminist undertones to boot. Thus, women must not wear pants but it's fine for men since that has been done for a few centuries longer. Plus, the (male) rabbis make the rules and they find the outline of a woman's crotch more arousing than a man's.

ditto## ##### #### #### ##### ####### ### ########## ### ## ########are you thinking what I'm thinking... well what did you think would be written here?  

Ignoring the chukat hagoyim issue, one explanation is because of how one is intimate. Women spread their legs when being intimate and therefore the space between her legs imitates being intimate, and therefore, according to the argument, it's forbidden to show that space between her legs in public since it's not modest to do so, something that doesn't apply to men since they don't normally spread their legs in that way when being conjugal so showing the space isn't imitating intimacy for men.

spreading of legs by a woman is much more of a modesty problem when they are wearing skirts, wouldn't you say.

also, men use their testicles which are there on display for the whole world to see all too often underneath the pants.

Not me, but R. Henkin. And indeed he rules that the issue isn't so much pants vs. skirt for a woman, rather it's whether she is spreading her legs or not; a woman spreading her legs in a skirt [and don't forget spreading legs mimics intimacy regardless of what one is wearing] is more problematic in his view than a woman wearing pants who keeps her legs together.

Thank you.

Um....huh?

True, whenever the pants are even a bit tight on the man, or if the man is a bit overweight and there is some pulling of the fabric, it's easy to see the outline of the man's crotch in pants.

Yes, skirts provide easy access. You have to take off pants to have sex. You can keep a skirt on.

I think pants on men are much more immodest since you can check out a guy's crotch. With a woman's crotch, there's not much to see. They're all the same, and you know what's underneath there.

Good question.

Probably because people often change with society and can often get away with it easily.

Isnt it odd that strips clubs make money if women are all the same underneath?

9

It's not the shape of the crotch they're paying to look at. It's the bare skin, the thighs, the @ss, the gyration and the bare breasts. Although I should probably ask guys who go to strip clubs.

The point was that women arent "just all the same underneath" because otherwise the porn industry wouldnt make a cent.

9

In terms of crotch, yes they are. It's everything else that's interesting.

What it comes down to is that rabbis are more concerned about women's modesty because they are (presumably straight) men. They don't find a man's crotch area sexy.

You know this because you have years of experience being a guy?

Thats is true. Straight men don't find men's crotch area sexy.


9

It has to do with modesty,not being sexy. It's not very modest to show your crotch, whether or not it is sexy.

Fair enough. But we're not talking about going around naked. We're talking about wearing pants which covers the crotch. The argument is about showing the approximate shape of the crotch. Women's sexual organs are internal so I don't see why it's a problem. Men's are not.

Wtvr.

9

צ“ל

They presumably don't find a man's crotch area sexy.

ETA: The crotch area of a woman wearing pants looks similar to the armpit area of anyone. Do men also find that sexy?

Isn't it odd that McDonald's makes money if all Big Macs are the same?

Really? I beg to differ.

And I don't know about the crotch area specifically, but I can tell you that many men do find women wearing pants to be quite sexy, especially considering the current styles of pants that are in fashion.

Maybe men should just be assured from wearing spandex.

That's a start.

You mean it isn't already???

So wrong. So, so, wrong.


Bzzz. Wrong again.

There's a difference between 'sexual organs' and 'genatallia'.

mosheshmeal
.

Nobody buys big macs because they find it sexy.

9