| Author | |
knowloveserve
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 31 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 2:50pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
I can't remember the user on here who is the big apologist for women not wearing pants (Helen?)... but one of the arguments FOR wearing skirts/dresses just doesn't sit perfect with me:
"Women should wear skirts/dresses because our Blessed Mother was never seen in anything else."
True. But logic demands that the women who use this argument keep their heads covered at all times also, correct?
I cover my head at church in a small, inconspicuous way with bucket hats or nice scarves/bandanas... but don't feel inclined to cover my head all the time. Therefore I don't buy the argument that I should wear skirts simply because Mary always did.
btw: I've recently decided to wear skirts only so I ask this without a chip on my shoulder. If anyone asks my reasons why I keep it simple (depending on if it's a Catholic or non-Catholic asking, my answer ranges from "Wearing skirts is a sign of modesty and femininity... somethings our world is in desperate need of reviving." Or if I'm feeling less bold and more self conscious I say "I feel more comfortable wearing skirts." which is true... but omits the fullness of it.)
__________________
Ellie
The Bleeding Pelican
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 3:44pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ellie, I've discussed the modesty/skirt wearing issue a few times on my blog, and I'm always amazed by the amount of heat these discussions can generate!
I tend to wear skirts myself because I'm a rather chunky petite woman so the pants that fit my waist have to be hemmed (and by hemmed I mean cutting off enough material to make a pair of shorts, if I ever wore shorts!  ). So there's nothing at all holy about my clothing choices in this area; and if weather, activity type etc. made pants a more modest and sensible choice I wouldn't rule them out (assuming I had any that fit).
That said, I think you are pointing out one of the flaws of logic in the "well, but the Blessed Mother only wore skirts/dresses." In point of fact, first century Jewish female attire doesn't fit neatly into the skirt/dress category, since it was more like a robe or tunic over which a long veil/shawl was worn; it has more in common with the habit of traditional nuns than with anything available for lay people to wear. More problematic is that if Catholic women ought to dress like Mary, wouldn't we also want Catholic men to dress like Our Lord and St. Joseph? Men's clothing styles have changed rather dramatically since the first century a.d., yet no one I know of thinks men should abandon slacks and return to robes and sandals in order to imitate the modest and humble clothing styles worn by Our Lord during His earthly life.
So while there can be many admirable reasons to dress in a feminine way, dressing just like Our Lady really isn't one of them, unless you are a nun in a traditional order! 
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 4:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I am not nearly as eloquent as Helen on this (or any other!) topic. But I will give this one a go. I type this with all charity and kindness.
The line that really nailed me to my skirts, so to speak, was "A person should dress according to the dignity of their vocation." I think this rings so true in all eras, including that of Our Lord and Blessed Mother. Surely our Blessed Mother wouldn't wear in her time what I have on today, and I wouldn't wear today what She wore in her time. Same for my husband and St. Joseph.
My vocation is that of a wife and mother, a figure of feminity in my home, family, and our society in 2007. Mary's vocation was the same as mine, in her time. If I am to look to her as an example in all areas, coining the phrase "What would Mary do" so to speak, why wouldn't this carry over into what I choose to wear?
Why wouldn't I wear robe type dresses and cover my head all the time then? That would be more consistant with my "What would Mary do" stance, right?
Well, What would Mary do if she were physically walking the earth right now? The only thing I can figure is that she would do exactly what she did 2000 years ago, dress according to the dignity of her vocation. In her time that was draping robes and head covering, in our time, I feel that would be modest, feminine attire. That brings us to the 'are skirts and dresses more modest and feminine' debate. Personally, yes, I believe they are. Definetly more feminine, because certainly a man cannot get away with wearing either, and more modest, yes, I firmly believe so too. I come to that conclusion each night when I put my jammie pants on, I feel so very exposed.
I think St. Joseph would dress very much like my husband dresses if he were walking the earth now, just like my husband would dress the way St. Joseph dressed if he walked the earth then.
I hope even just a smidge of this made sense. I have my thoughts on this topic firmly in my heart, but to articulate them on my lips (or fingertips in this case!) can be very difficult for me.
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 4:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet, a very thoughtful and charitable take on this.
One person who commented on my website said something like what you're saying, only MUCH less kindly. Someone else came back and said, in effect, what about an elderly woman who wears slacks because they hold her disposable underwear that she has to wear for her incontinence problem in place, while a skirt allows the underwear to shift and leak? Is she being less feminine for choosing the more practical clothing option?
In all honesty and charity, I think our dear Mother in Heaven has less of a problem with a woman choosing to wear a modest and loose-fitting pair of slacks when circumstances dictate that this is prudent than she might with people creating unnecessary burdens for each other, or judging each other too much based on outward appearances. (I don't think you're trying to do that, Lisbet, but I've seen others who have done so, insisting not only that skirts are definitely more modest than pants, but saying that pants are NEVER modest or allowable for a woman, something our Church doesn't say.)
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 5:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Red Cardigan wrote:
| One person who commented on my website said something like what you're saying, only MUCH less kindly. |
|
|
Kinda blows the whole "Marylike" thing huh?
Red Cardigan wrote:
Someone else came back and said, in effect, what about an elderly woman who wears slacks because they hold her disposable underwear that she has to wear for her incontinence problem in place, while a skirt allows the underwear to shift and leak? Is she being less feminine for choosing the more practical clothing option?
|
|
|
I've thought about these types of situations often myself. The conclusion I have come to has been again, asking myself "What would Mary do?" We all have our unique set of circumstances and our circumstances are often changing. I may never have to ask myself what the Marylike think to do would be in the above situation. I am 9 months pregnant, and I have to ask what the Marylike thing to wear is right now for me, at 9 months pregnant in 90 degree weather. Would Mary wear what I am wearing, here, today, chasing 8 young children at 9 months pregnant on a 90 degree day? Each morning I strive to answer "yes" to this question.
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 5:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet (do you prefer Lisa, btw? I'm still getting used to everyone's "handle" so to speak) your approach is interesting, but how does it "work" exactly?
I mean, you might decide that Mary, in the year 2007 in 90 degree weather in your circumstances might wear a long sleeved blouse and a skirt to her ankles; but someone else might sincerely believe that Mary would wear a skirt that fell two inches below the knee and a short sleeved tee shirt. Who's right? How do we decide?
Or in the elderly woman example, some might say that Mary would wear the clothes most suited to the physical issue/difficulty, so as not to cause others the embarrassment or discomfort of having to deal with leakage, and that therefore Mary would choose the slacks. Would they be wrong? How do we know?
I'm not in any way trying to put you on the spot, here; it's just something I truly wonder about.
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
knowloveserve
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 31 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 5:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm not trying to generate heat on this discussion; it's been done before by many more articulate than me! I just wanted to point out for those of us who DO choose to wear skirts-only, the "Mary only appeared in skirts" point doesn't hold a lot of water... and we'd be wise to choose other arguments to defend our position in an effective manner.
__________________
Ellie
The Bleeding Pelican
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 6:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisa is fine. Lisbet is a nickname of mine and there were already so many variations of the name Lisa taken when I registered.
I often wonder, if pants are easier, why is it that they are more 'modern' attire? Surely women in earlier times had the same physical issues we have today. I wonder what they did? I'm not debating it, I just sincerly wonder. I am begining to wonder how I'm going to handle those first postpartum weeks in the heat in skirts. Leggings/tights underneath just don't seem practical for early September.
Quote:
Or in the elderly woman example, some might say that Mary would wear the clothes most suited to the physical issue/difficulty, so as not to cause others the embarrassment or discomfort of having to deal with leakage, and that therefore Mary would choose the slacks. Would they be wrong? How do we know?
|
|
|
Honestly I think there are very few women that ask themselves what Mary would do in any given situation, let alone when deciding what to wear, so we've got a LONG way to go in the way of Marylike example.
What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that EACH of us need to examine our individual circumstances and discern from there how we should dress.
We have all seen a woman scantily dressed and though "WHOA, that is totally unappropriate", right? I wonder where we are to draw the line and who gets to draw that line. (Not a job I would want!!!)
I choose to wear skirts because it is what I feel Mary would wear in my situation and circumstances. I want to emmulate Mary, I want to be an example to Mary to others. I feel this is best accomplished in skirts.
Do I think all women in all circumstances should wear skirts? I certainly wish more would. I certainly think it would be more ideal. But, moreso I wish all women would look to Mary as the shining example in all things. We have a long way to go for that. I am encouraged that so many women here, and many I know in "real life" are wearing skirts and dresses more. I do think it how we choose to dress can aid us in our sanctity, esp. if we are doing it because we feel it is what Our Heavenly Mother would do.
Ellie, I think if the average woman off the street asked me why I wear skirts, it would be nearly foolish for me to say "Because Mary did" (or would). Like you, I would say a bolder reply would be something along the lines of the need to return to modesty and feminity. A more simple typical answer is "Because it's what I prefer". But, in some company, such as here, or among Christian women, the Mary aspect certainly should weigh heavy.
(Just an aside, does anyone else find it really funny that WOMEN are put in positions where we need to explain why we are dressed femininly? Ironic I tell ya! )
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
chicken lady
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2315
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 7:05pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
(Just an aside, does anyone else find it really funny that WOMEN are put in positions where we need to explain why we are dressed femininly? Ironic I tell ya! ) |
|
|
Absolutly 
I would have to disagree with the Mary not being a good enough example for CATHOLIC women.
The depend undergarmet example is just silly! For heavens sake I can think of 5 simple solutions.
And why is it so hard for Catholic women to grasp this, the Mormons get it, the Amish, the Moslems and on and on.
As for head coverings, again our seperated brethren have this down! Up until th 40's and 50's all respectable women covered their heads when they left ther homes. Interesting, this was the peak time for MArgaret Sanger, then followed with a complete downward spiral of morality.
OK enough from me, I have caused enough discord on the boards today!!!!!!!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CKwasniewski
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 31 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 601
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 7:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ladies, I am not going to touch this hot topic...
I just want to say to Lisbet--you can always wear some shorts under your skirt. Its just about the only thing that would work.
Women in many cultures have worn pantaloons (of various lengths) under their robes or skirts....
Anyway, as I said, I'm not going to touch this debate!  ...I honestly think that we have more important things to talk about!!!
CK
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Meredith
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 08 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2355
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 9:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
(Just an aside, does anyone else find it really funny that WOMEN are put in positions where we need to explain why we are dressed femininly? |
|
|
Lisbet, I couldn't agree more
Blessings!
__________________
Meredith
Mom of 4 Sweeties
Sweetness and Light
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 10:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisa, I am not a skirts only girl. But I have to say that the way you describe it makes more sense to me and is more convincing than a lot of the arguments I've heard.
Not there yet (and probably never will be), but just wanted to let you know you made me think. Nicely said.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 11:15pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
I often wonder, if pants are easier, why is it that they are more 'modern' attire? Surely women in earlier times had the same physical issues we have today. I wonder what they did? I'm not debating it, I just sincerly wonder. I am begining to wonder how I'm going to handle those first postpartum weeks in the heat in skirts. Leggings/tights underneath just don't seem practical for early September.
|
|
|
Lisa, I don't entirely know the answer to this question; however, it's interesting to note that while women wore quite elaborate undergarments such as corsets and petticoats, pant-like undergarments or drawers weren't generally worn by women until the mid-nineteenth century! It is also interesting to observe that from medieval times (or earlier) until at least the middle of the 18th century, women who had given birth would spend a month after the delivery "lying-in" at home and mostly in bed or resting. (Now there'san ancient custom I'd love to see return!)
So women weren't expected to spend their postpartum time cooking, cleaning, etc., let alone running around in public until relatively recently, from a historical perspective.
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2007 at 11:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
One interesting thing I found out while quickly checking my facts on the above:
During the 15th century a garment described as a tunic of the Blessed Virgin Mary was reportedly discovered; apparently, it was supposed to have been worn during her pregnancy. So, according to a site I visited, women suddenly started wanting to "imitate the Blessed Virgin" by appearing to be pregnant, whether or not they were! They wore pillows under their bust line, and walked around sticking their stomachs out, according to fashion historians.
I mention this only to point out that while we should indeed all strive to imitate the Blessed Mother (and her Divine Son, of course!) the exact form of this imitation is best left up to the conscience of each individual woman. It isn't charitable to demand more from each other than our Holy Mother Church demands from us (and women in pants will be allowed inside the Vatican, after all; women in knee-length skirts will not!).
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Barbara C.
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 882
|
| Posted: Aug 05 2007 at 12:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think the point that Ellie was making is that it is not the most logical argument to say that women should never wear pants because Mary never did, which is an argument that is commonly put out there. Logically, it must lead to men not wearing pants because Jesus never did. Now, this is not the same as saying that wearing skirts allows women to imitate the femininity and modesty that Mary exhibited.
I agree with Lisa that it is ironic that a woman should have to explain herself for only wearing skirts. However, she wondered if pants are so much more convenient why are they a modern convention when women had the same physical issues. I feel I should note that many women were physically injured by their more feminine attire. Long skirts would catch on fire. And the corsets put pressure on the lungs and even physically altered the structure of women's rib cages. And women, if they were allowed to ride horses at all, were expected to ride side saddle, which I understand is harder and more dangerous. And I bet Laura Ingalls would have been more comfortable wearing one layer of pants than four layers of long, heavy skirts while helping Pa on the farm. And the attire at times in the past may have been more feminine than that of today, but not necessarily more modest if you think of the various fashions that emphasized the bust.
And someone else noted that they wish that the custom of "lying-in" would return, but I have a feeling that it was only customary among the wealthy. I doubt the poor peasant woman was allowed to lay in bed for a month post-partum, as nice as it would undoubtably be.
Personally, I have no problem with anyone who chooses to wear skirts all of the time. However, IMO, I don't think that they are always the most modest option for everyone. I actually feel more exposed and limited in a skirt. For one thing, I have always been skinny with long legs, so finding skirts and dresses that fit me modestly in both length and waist is hard. And I think that wearing skirts for 12 years in Catholic school (and 2 years at a job with a skirt/dress and hose dress code for women) put me off of them as I froze in winter and had to watch myself while digging in my locker (or many filing cabinets), working on many projects spread on the floor, and during major cleaning times. And in my job I had to often dash (literally) from one end of a large doctor's office to another and my skirts were not always conducive for this.
Like I said, I have no problem with anyone who chooses to or feels they have been called to wear skirts all of the time. I think that some of us just get defensive when we feel that we are being judged as unfeminine or substandard Catholics or women for not doing so.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Aug 05 2007 at 1:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Again, I find it really hard to disregard the Marian example of wearing skirts/dresses. As Catholic women, we SHOULD look to Mary as an example in EVERYTHING. Why not dress? I don't think anyone here would argue that modest feminine attire is bare minimum for a Catholic woman, I think where we all vary is on just what exactly is modest and feminine. I,(notice I used the word "I" here), feel unfeminine and substandard in pants.
Quote:
| I feel I should note that many women were physically injured by their more feminine attire |
|
|
Not to pick on anyone, seriously, but I would like to share what first came to mind when I read this statement. How many women today are spiritually injured by their less feminine attire? We all see the ramifications of the feminist movement. We all see how 'liberating' women has actually bound them in a slavery in too many ways to list. Fr. Walter Shu wrote about the 'melding' of genders in Splendor of Love and it made me realize just how important it is to reclaim feminity, inside and out.
Also on the physical aspect of skirt wearing. It's still hard for me to wrap my brain around why, if it is so much safer and more convient to wear pants, women before us didn't do it. It would have been unheard of for a women to wear pants, around the fire, in the kitchen, on horseback or anywhere else. Women didn't wear pants because it was not modest or feminine. Why is it now? Those are just some questions I have on this subject rolling around my head
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Barbara C.
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 882
|
| Posted: Aug 05 2007 at 4:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisa, the reason most women didn't do this before is because they would have been socially ostracized by their families and community. My understanding is that the taboo against women wearing pants significantly diminished during WWII when many worked in factories. Long dresses and skirts would be dangerous in such situations. And it probably started slightly before in the '20's. I mean what are pants compared to bare-all flapper dresses?
What I inferred, please correct me if I am misunderstanding, about your note of women being spiritually-injured by unfeminine attire and the "melding" of genders is that perhaps avoiding unfeminine attire would help women avoid unfeminine behavior. This could be true to an extent.
However, in the history of this country, women (especially out on the frontier) often had to often still do masculine things; they were just expected to do it wearing skirts and dresses, even if it would have sometimes been less dangerous or easier doing it in pants.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
KC in TX
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 05 2005
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2621
|
| Posted: Aug 05 2007 at 5:16pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
lapazfarm wrote:
Lisa, I am not a skirts only girl. But I have to say that the way you describe it makes more sense to me and is more convincing than a lot of the arguments I've heard.
Not there yet (and probably never will be), but just wanted to let you know you made me think. Nicely said. |
|
|
I second that completely, Theresa.
__________________
KC,
wife to Ben (10/94),
Mama to LB ('98)
Michaela ('01)
Emma ('03)
Jordan ('05)
And, my 2 angels, Rose ('08) and Mark ('09)
The Cabbage Patch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 05 2007 at 11:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisa, I don't think anyone who wears pants is saying that they think we shouldn't imitate Mary. They are simply saying that given the massive changes in both men's and women's clothing over the last 2,007 or so years, it is not necessarily the case that choosing to wear slacks is turning your back on the Blessed Mother's example of modesty.
Let's see if I can say this another way.
One woman says that Mary always wore the equivalent of skirts/dresses so she will only wear a skirt or a dress. Another woman says, no, skirts are a modern invention and Mary would never have worn one-- only dresses are sufficiently like Mary. A third woman says, true, but the dress must have long sleeves, a high neck, and be down to the ankles. A fourth agrees but then says in order to be really like Mary we must cover our heads at all times when in public. A fifth thinks that's a good idea, but then points out that the only acceptably Marian shoes are simple sandals, and that any woman who wears socks, stockings, hose, closed shoes, or especially high heels is giving in to modern ideas about dress which are spiritually damaging (especially since everyone knows the only purpose of high heels is to make the legs look more attractive). And a sixth agrees with all of that, but also insists that modern tailored winter coats are terribly wrong from a femininity/modesty/imitation of Mary perspective, and should be instantly abandoned in favor of some sort of cloak, a garment with which Our Lady would have been quite familiar.
As I see it, choosing from among clothing available today and deciding that imitating Mary requires selecting only skirts or dresses is extremely arbitrary. I've seen modest, even feminine pants suits, and the last time I was seriously shocked at something someone was wearing in public, the woman was wearing an extremely abbreviated dress! Surely it's more important that we recognize the difficulty each Catholic woman faces when shopping for and selecting modest and decent clothing, and see the imitation of Mary as the sincere and good faith effort to do exactly that.
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Essy
Forum Pro
Joined: Oct 12 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 167
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 10:25am | IP Logged
|
|
|
This is an interesting topic and you all have brought up questions that I've often wondered about. Now one question I have is how differently did Mary dress from the other women of her day? Did she stand out in any way...as some women wearing dresses to some ocassions might? By this question I'm not implying that we should simply go along with ALL styles of our day, we definitely know that some are plain sinful. But if something is not outright sinful...
__________________
Wife to Roy since Sept 1985
Mom to Sarah(May 2002)and Christian (August 2003)
Praying In the Moment
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Tea and Conversation
Topic: Regarding a skirts-only argument
