Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 13:09:51 GMT
coloradotimesrecorder.com/2019/08/ultra-conservative-pastor-running-for-co-house-seat-thinks-women-shouldnt-wear-pants/16950/"Longmont pastor Corey Seulean, who recently announced he’s running to replace term-limited Colorado Rep. Lori Saine (R-Firestone), tells women in his congregation at Hopewell Baptist Church that it’s immodest to wear pants, and that they should instead wear either skirts or “modest culottes,” a woman who attended his church said on Facebook.... Benjamin Seulean told the Colorado Times Recorder that while the church doesn’t enforce a dress code, Pastor Seulean has made it known that he believes that the Bible says it’s immodest for women to wear pants. “Corey has preached from the Bible what he believes, his interpretation and what the Bible says about a woman dressing modestly, and he believes that in today’s day and age, pants on a woman sometimes can show a woman’s body immodestly,” said Seulean. “That’s why he’s taught it’s proper, he believes, for a woman to wear a dress or modest culottes. He might not have used that exact terminology, but he believes yes, a woman should dress modestly, and part of that goes into women not wearing pants.” “His wife Pam, I can tell you, does not own a pair of pants,” he added. “She only wears dresses and skirts and sometimes, on occasion, culottes.” If, like me, you’ve never before encountered the phrase “modest culottes,” you can find examples of them on websites like DressingForHisGlory.com. There’s also ModestApparelUSA.com, which explains that culottes offer “an alternative to pants to provide women more freedom to do activities such as gardening, cleaning, bike riding, etc. and still look like one is wearing a skirt.” Seulean also explained that the pastor teaches directly from the Bible “as it is written.” “He just preaches the Bible straight as it is, and the Bible says a woman is to dress modestly,” Seulean said. " Yeah, let's get candidates who are addressing THE REAL problems in society - like lady-pants and the evil they do. Not guns, income inequality, mental health needs, childhood ed - LADY PANTS!!!! Lest you think, "Oh, he's just ridiculous. Colorado won't elect him...." I present Exhibit A: Gordon Klingenshmitt - he won election and served one term in the Colorado House of Representatives from 2015–17. "Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former U.S. Navy chaplainwho believes homosexuality is a sin and often compares President Barack Obama to a demon on his daily religious television show, won this week’s Republican primary for state representative in an eastern El Paso County district. The District 15 Republican candidate has also said that ” Obamacare causes cancer.”"
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 23, 2019 13:30:49 GMT
I guess I am not sure if you are suggesting that he is running for this position and then wants to some how enforce no pants for all ladies, or he is just a candidate that believes no pants for those in his religion/congregation? I would not necessarily disregard him as a candidate for that philosophy only, as I have no problem with as long as he doesn’t try and regulate all of us.
We just had a conversation here about Mennonites and why they choose to follow that doctrine. It is just clothes, wear what you want. In my opinion not really different than a burka or head coverings in some religions.
My grandmother very rarely wore pants or long sleeves. Short sleeve dresses is what I saw her in all my life. Absolutely was not for religious reason, just her own comfort.
I apologize if I misconstrued the meaning behind your post...now Obamacare causing cancer, that seems down right off the wall.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 13:44:32 GMT
I guess I am not sure if you are suggesting that he is running for this position and then wants to some how enforce no pants for all ladies, or he is just a candidate that believes no pants for those in his religion/congregation? I would not necessarily disregard him as a candidate for that philosophy only, as I have no problem with as long as he doesn’t try and regulate all of us. We just had a conversation here about Mennonites and why they choose to follow that doctrine. It is just clothes, wear what you want. In my opinion not really different than a burka or head coverings in some religions. My grandmother very rarely wore pants or long sleeves. Short sleeve dresses is what I saw her in all my life. Absolutely was not for religious reason, just her own comfort. I apologize if I misconstrued the meaning behind your post...now Obamacare causing cancer, that seems down right off the wall. I don't care what he wears or believes for himself. I care about him telling OTHER people what to wear and taking time to admonish others on what to wear (unless its for health or safety reasons - like no sandals in machine shop, etc.) People who use their personal book of stories to tell OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO (minus health & safety issues) have no business in making laws for others, imo.
|
|
schizo319
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,030
Jun 28, 2014 0:26:58 GMT
|
Post by schizo319 on Aug 23, 2019 13:51:36 GMT
I want to road trip to Colorado just so I can go to his church in the most immodest dress I can possibly find. I am far more modestly dressed in pants than I am in a skirt/dress most of the time.
I think this is about more than the possibility legislating women's wardrobes. It is indicative of a mindset that women are to obey HIS interpretation of what he believes the Bible says (or his definition of the word "modest"). I have a hard time believing that a man like that would put much effort into supporting things like Equal opportunity employment for women, equal pay, etc.
I'm all for women choosing how they want to dress, I am not for men TELLING women how they have to dress (especially based on a book that has been edited and interpreted by men for centuries).
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 23, 2019 13:57:21 GMT
I guess I am not sure if you are suggesting that he is running for this position and then wants to some how enforce no pants for all ladies, or he is just a candidate that believes no pants for those in his religion/congregation? I would not necessarily disregard him as a candidate for that philosophy only, as I have no problem with as long as he doesn’t try and regulate all of us. We just had a conversation here about Mennonites and why they choose to follow that doctrine. It is just clothes, wear what you want. In my opinion not really different than a burka or head coverings in some religions. My grandmother very rarely wore pants or long sleeves. Short sleeve dresses is what I saw her in all my life. Absolutely was not for religious reason, just her own comfort. I apologize if I misconstrued the meaning behind your post...now Obamacare causing cancer, that seems down right off the wall. I don't care what he wears or believes for himself. I care about him telling OTHER people what to wear and taking time to admonish others on what to wear (unless its for health or safety reasons - like no sandals in machine shop, etc.) People who use their personal book of stories to tell OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO (minus health & safety issues) have no business in making laws for others, imo. I agree to some extent. However isn’t that the what any religious person/pastor does in their congregation? Now if he is trying to legislate other people to that thinking he has no business making those laws.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 14:00:47 GMT
I don't care what he wears or believes for himself. I care about him telling OTHER people what to wear and taking time to admonish others on what to wear (unless its for health or safety reasons - like no sandals in machine shop, etc.) People who use their personal book of stories to tell OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO (minus health & safety issues) have no business in making laws for others, imo. I agree to some extent. However isn’t that the what any religious person/pastor does in their congregation? Now if he is trying to legislate other people to that thinking he has no business making those laws. I think good religious person/pastors spend their time worrying about how to get the congregation to help others to the greatest extent they can. Pastors who spend sermons on telling women not to wear pants have really missed the boat, imo.
|
|
freebird
Drama Llama

'cause I'm free as a bird now
Posts: 6,927
Jun 25, 2014 20:06:48 GMT
|
Post by freebird on Aug 23, 2019 14:15:42 GMT
I agree to some extent. However isn’t that the what any religious person/pastor does in their congregation? Now if he is trying to legislate other people to that thinking he has no business making those laws. I think good religious person/pastors spend their time worrying about how to get the congregation to help others to the greatest extent they can. Pastors who spend sermons on telling women not to wear pants have really missed the boat, imo.
I don't completely disagree, however, do you feel the same way with women who are told they must wear a headscarf or a burka? A woman that must wear a long skirt and head cover?
I don't have a problem with a pastor leading his flock in the way that he thinks needs to be lead as long as they get to choose whether they want to live that life or not. At the point where you have no choice is where I start having major issues with it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 14:21:23 GMT
I think good religious person/pastors spend their time worrying about how to get the congregation to help others to the greatest extent they can. Pastors who spend sermons on telling women not to wear pants have really missed the boat, imo.
I don't completely disagree, however, do you feel the same way with women who are told they must wear a headscarf or a burka? A woman that must wear a long skirt and head cover?
I don't have a problem with a pastor leading his flock in the way that he thinks needs to be lead as long as they get to choose whether they want to live that life or not. At the point where you have no choice is where I start having major issues with it.
Yes. Absolutely. People who spend time, energy & breath telling other grown ups what to wear (not to wear), except for health/safety reasons, are in no position to lead in ANY capacity - religious or legislative, imo. Spend your leadership time INSPIRING people to get out to help the elderly, volunteer at a shelter, make cards for people, whatever, instead of telling other grown ups what to wear.
|
|
|
Post by busy on Aug 23, 2019 14:23:10 GMT
Thank god for that article and the links. I've been struggling to find a pair of camo culottes. Now I can go hunting to cook for the menfolk!
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 23, 2019 14:28:42 GMT
I agree to some extent. However isn’t that the what any religious person/pastor does in their congregation? Now if he is trying to legislate other people to that thinking he has no business making those laws. I think good religious person/pastors spend their time worrying about how to get the congregation to help others to the greatest extent they can. Pastors who spend sermons on telling women not to wear pants have really missed the boat, imo. Again, I agree to an extent. However like I hear all the time on a variety of things, those two things are not mutually exclusive. I would think a Pastor can do both, especially if women not wearing pants is part of their doctrine. I can’t even fathom having those thoughts, as I have probably only worn a dress 20 or 30 times since I have been in my teens (and I am now 54.  ). There are many things religion related that I just don’t understand or agree with, which is why I am not religious. However I have no problems with other people believing or following various religious practices. Just don’t make me follow them if it is only done for a religious reason. Sorry I don’t mean to sound argumentative. I guess I am not bothered by a Preacher who preaches to his congregation that women shouldn’t wear pants. If you don’t believe that than wear pants or change religions. However I don’t think that necessarily means he is incompetent to be a legislator.
|
|
johnnysmom
Drama Llama

Posts: 5,687
Jun 25, 2014 21:16:33 GMT
|
Post by johnnysmom on Aug 23, 2019 15:24:20 GMT
Thank god for that article and the links. I've been struggling to find a pair of camo culottes. Now I can go hunting to cook for the menfolk! I don't think you're supposed to go hunting; you probably have too much vagina for that. The man should go out and get the bacon, you should be home ready to fry it up.....you can probably wear a skirt for that  (I could be off base, I didn't read the article/links, just making some wild assumptions here)
|
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,748
Aug 14, 2015 21:47:17 GMT
|
Post by pilcas on Aug 23, 2019 15:33:36 GMT
Let me just dig into the back of my closet and dig out that tiny black mini skirt!
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Aug 23, 2019 15:43:41 GMT
Who defined ‘modest’ as not being pants. I do not remember ‘thou shalt not wear pants’ in the Bible. In fact the Bible does not define modest in terms of a shape of clothing at all, the Bible does make effort to define modest in terms of not extravagant, not gold etc.
So this pastor is NOT preaching the Bible ‘as it is written’ he’s making an interpretation on what ‘modest’ means.
He can interpret in his church however he wants, but don’t bring that into the statehouse it doesn’t belong in law
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 23, 2019 16:26:35 GMT
It concerns me when a Christian pastor preaches this way because historically, it’s conservative Christian sects in this country who work to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us in law. I have never seen a Jewish politician in this country advocate for Kosher laws to be followed by everyone, or a Muslim try to ban pork or force women to wear headscarves. It’s only Christians who try to legislate religion.
Now do I think this guy would be likely to try to legislate that all women would wear skirts? No. But I think he’s more likely to be the type who wants to legislate against gay marriage and women’s bodily autonomy, and I’m not OK with that.
|
|
|
Post by moretimeplease on Aug 23, 2019 16:38:04 GMT
I think good religious person/pastors spend their time worrying about how to get the congregation to help others to the greatest extent they can. Pastors who spend sermons on telling women not to wear pants have really missed the boat, imo. Again, I agree to an extent. However like I hear all the time on a variety of things, those two things are not mutually exclusive. I would think a Pastor can do both, especially if women not wearing pants is part of their doctrine. I can’t even fathom having those thoughts, as I have probably only worn a dress 20 or 30 times since I have been in my teens (and I am now 54.  ). There are many things religion related that I just don’t understand or agree with, which is why Sorry I don’t mean to sound argumentative. I guess I am not bothered by a Preacher who preaches to his congregation that women shouldn’t wear pants. If you don’t believe that than wear pants or change religions. However I don’t think that necessarily means he is incompetent to be a legislator. I think this part of schizo319 ’s post hits the nail squarely on the head: “I think this is about more than the possibility legislating women's wardrobes. It is indicative of a mindset that women are to obey HIS interpretation of what he believes the Bible says (or his definition of the word "modest"). I have a hard time believing that a man like that would put much effort into supporting things like Equal opportunity employment for women, equal pay, etc.”. (bold mine)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 16:45:56 GMT
Somebody needs to learn about the history of the time the Bible was written. Sheer silk robes and flouncing boobs were the norm for woman....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 16:47:48 GMT
I'm confused as to how he can define pants as being imodest  Surely pants cover up more flesh than a skirt/dress or culottes. I don't recall them mentioning pants in the bible. Wonder what they called then....pants, trousers ? in those days
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 16:51:28 GMT
I'm confused as to how he can define pants as being imodest  Surely pants cover up more flesh than a skirt/dress or culottes. I don't recall them mentioning pants in the bible. Wonder what they called then....pants, trousers ? in those days Yoga pants. Devil clothes. Also too “gender roles”.
|
|
MaryMary
Pearl Clutcher
Lazy
Posts: 2,976
Jun 25, 2014 21:56:13 GMT
|
Post by MaryMary on Aug 23, 2019 16:56:23 GMT
Hija mia.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 16:56:32 GMT
I think good religious person/pastors spend their time worrying about how to get the congregation to help others to the greatest extent they can. Pastors who spend sermons on telling women not to wear pants have really missed the boat, imo.
I don't completely disagree, however, do you feel the same way with women who are told they must wear a headscarf or a burka? A woman that must wear a long skirt and head cover?
But the women themselves very often chooses to do this. That is their interpretation of modesty.....to cover the flesh.Not all Muslim women do so it is a choice in many countries. Pants are not in any way the opposite, in fact they're the same....they cover more than a dress/skirt.
|
|
|
Post by mustlovecats on Aug 23, 2019 16:58:30 GMT
I think good religious person/pastors spend their time worrying about how to get the congregation to help others to the greatest extent they can. Pastors who spend sermons on telling women not to wear pants have really missed the boat, imo.
I don't completely disagree, however, do you feel the same way with women who are told they must wear a headscarf or a burka? A woman that must wear a long skirt and head cover?
I don't have a problem with a pastor leading his flock in the way that he thinks needs to be lead as long as they get to choose whether they want to live that life or not. At the point where you have no choice is where I start having major issues with it.
I am a religious person and have been most of my life. From my perspective however, one of the downsides of religion is that “having no choice” is a bit of a moving target. There’s “has no choice” as in you must wear this burqa or we will kill you, and there’s “has no choice” as in you must wear this dress or we will excommunicate you, and there’s “has no choice” as in you must dress this way or your eternal soul is in jeopardy or you aren’t really an accepted member of this special group. Each teaching is a level of has no choice but that last one is a bit insidious and a very subtle form of control that I think religion can exert on others. It is very typical of conservative and evangelical forms of Christianity as well as other religions too. I struggle with the validity of this form of control. In some forms it appears to be choice but isn’t really fully free choice because the taught consequences of the “wrong choice” are exclusion or even damnation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:02:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 16:59:28 GMT
I'm confused as to how he can define pants as being imodest  Surely pants cover up more flesh than a skirt/dress or culottes. I don't recall them mentioning pants in the bible. Wonder what they called then....pants, trousers ? in those days Yoga pants. Devil clothes. Also too “gender roles”. Exactly, it has nothing to do with modesty or imodesty. I don't think a woman is indecent wearing pants. In fact she's far more decent than wearing a short skirt!
|
|
|
Post by busy on Aug 23, 2019 17:22:23 GMT
Yoga pants. Devil clothes. Also too “gender roles”. Exactly, it has nothing to do with modesty or imodesty. I don't think a woman is indecent wearing pants. In fact she's far more decent than wearing a short skirt! I think what is "immodest" about pants is that, though they hide skin, they show the shape of a woman's body and her butt. The flowy volume is what makes culottes ok, in their minds, because they don't show any shape. Of course the problem with showing any shape is that it's some kind of temptation to men and naturally is our responsibility to mitigate that, not men's. *gag* Short skirts are never ok with these people. It's mid calf or longer and wide.
|
|
DEX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,438
Aug 9, 2014 23:13:22 GMT
|
Post by DEX on Aug 23, 2019 17:35:14 GMT
I found this on the Modest Apparel USA website. It is part of a modesty bible study.
Some simple rules for Modest Apparel
1. Does it accent feminine portions of my body (Is it too tight)?
2. When I bend over can you see "cleavage".
4. when I raise my hands does it show my belly
5. when people look at me can they tell I am a woman? Is it feminine?
6. could it possible cause a brother to stumble?
7. Does it show my thigh (upper part of the leg)(either in form-leggins or skin)? And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach. showing nakedness is from the knees up.
8. Do you look like the rest of the world around you. Will people notice you are different (not obnoxious or rediculous)
9. If you thought there was a "pervert" in the room, would you dress like that or dress your dauhter like that?
10. Can you stand before God with a clear conscience?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Aug 23, 2019 17:39:00 GMT
but, you guys! pants call attention to the fact that you have lady parts between your legs!! <gasp!!!> we can't have people seeing that, now, and getting lustful when they're trying to do the important task of running the world!  In which case, I agree that men should ALSO wear skirts. 6. could it possible cause a brother to stumble? because Lord knows, they can't be responsible for their OWN selves-- the women have to be responsible for them and their immortal souls, in addition to our own.
|
|
|
Post by scrapsotime on Aug 23, 2019 17:40:42 GMT
Did people in biblical times even wear pants?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,919
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 23, 2019 19:11:54 GMT
This reminds me of when decades ago, many companies did not allow their female employees to wear pantsuits when they first became en vogue. Our own Senate banned pants for women until 1993. Just very recently, female flight attendants on British Airways won a two-year fight for new recruits to be given the right to wear pants. (I wish our friend, Amelia Bloomer, would come back for she could accurately describe Amelia’s fight for women’s right to wear pants.)
It’s difficult to believe nowadays but it was pretty much accepted then. And wouldn’t you know it, that was indicative of the other forms of unfairness against women in the workplace that were also generally accepted -- women then were paid 2/3 of their male counterparts' wages, were more commonly subjected to sexual harassment and abuse, were routinely discriminated against when it came to promotions and career advancement, and had to accept employer-provided insurance plans that wouldn’t cover pregnancy.
It’s not really the pants vs dress and which is more modest that’s at issue – it’s the philosophy behind the banning. The philosophy that, not so subtly, communicates women ought to be subjugated because they are subordinates who must adhere to precepts dictated by a patriarchy. Take religion away from the article and that’s what it’s about. Their interpretation of biblical scriptures just provides cover. It’s about subordination and subjugation, two destructive forces perpetrated and perpetuated by religion that should have no purchase anymore in a civilized world.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Aug 23, 2019 19:35:09 GMT
coloradotimesrecorder.com/2019/08/ultra-conservative-pastor-running-for-co-house-seat-thinks-women-shouldnt-wear-pants/16950/"Longmont pastor Corey Seulean, who recently announced he’s running to replace term-limited Colorado Rep. Lori Saine (R-Firestone), tells women in his congregation at Hopewell Baptist Church that it’s immodest to wear pants, and that they should instead wear either skirts or “modest culottes,” a woman who attended his church said on Facebook.... Benjamin Seulean told the Colorado Times Recorder that while the church doesn’t enforce a dress code, Pastor Seulean has made it known that he believes that the Bible says it’s immodest for women to wear pants. “Corey has preached from the Bible what he believes, his interpretation and what the Bible says about a woman dressing modestly, and he believes that in today’s day and age, pants on a woman sometimes can show a woman’s body immodestly,” said Seulean. “That’s why he’s taught it’s proper, he believes, for a woman to wear a dress or modest culottes. He might not have used that exact terminology, but he believes yes, a woman should dress modestly, and part of that goes into women not wearing pants.” “His wife Pam, I can tell you, does not own a pair of pants,” he added. “She only wears dresses and skirts and sometimes, on occasion, culottes.” If, like me, you’ve never before encountered the phrase “modest culottes,” you can find examples of them on websites like DressingForHisGlory.com. There’s also ModestApparelUSA.com, which explains that culottes offer “an alternative to pants to provide women more freedom to do activities such as gardening, cleaning, bike riding, etc. and still look like one is wearing a skirt.” Seulean also explained that the pastor teaches directly from the Bible “as it is written.” “He just preaches the Bible straight as it is, and the Bible says a woman is to dress modestly,” Seulean said. " Yeah, let's get candidates who are addressing THE REAL problems in society - like lady-pants and the evil they do. Not guns, income inequality, mental health needs, childhood ed - LADY PANTS!!!! Lest you think, "Oh, he's just ridiculous. Colorado won't elect him...." I present Exhibit A: Gordon Klingenshmitt - he won election and served one term in the Colorado House of Representatives from 2015–17. "Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former U.S. Navy chaplainwho believes homosexuality is a sin and often compares President Barack Obama to a demon on his daily religious television show, won this week’s Republican primary for state representative in an eastern El Paso County district. The District 15 Republican candidate has also said that ” Obamacare causes cancer.”" Fuck that. A man will NOT tell me how to dress, what to wear, how to complete the look with make up, or any other bullshit like that. Unless us women can start dictating to men the same.
|
|
|
Post by roberta on Aug 23, 2019 19:40:02 GMT
IMO a person with such extreme beliefs about what others should do, especially for religious reasons, does not belong in government.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Aug 23, 2019 19:44:42 GMT
I think good religious person/pastors spend their time worrying about how to get the congregation to help others to the greatest extent they can. Pastors who spend sermons on telling women not to wear pants have really missed the boat, imo.
I don't completely disagree, however, do you feel the same way with women who are told they must wear a headscarf or a burka? A woman that must wear a long skirt and head cover?
I don't have a problem with a pastor leading his flock in the way that he thinks needs to be lead as long as they get to choose whether they want to live that life or not. At the point where you have no choice is where I start having major issues with it.
I disagree. Dictating to a congregation of what women should wear (or not) is male patriarchy where it’s determined that men control women. First we were lesser of a being and couldn’t vote. Women were frowned upon for wanting to work. Now we are in danger of losing complete control over our health and bodies. We have a potus who treats women like shit, disparages them, calls them names. We have to fight every damn day just to be seen as equal—yet we’re not treated that way in wages, health, bodies, and clothing?? Yep—fuck that bullshit. Jesus doesn’t give a flying rats ass as to the clothing that one wears. In other cultures it’s tradition and/or religious. (and oppressive) I would stand up for those who are religiously oppressed IF they wanted to be free of wearing headless/burkas. If they support it, it’s not for me to make them stop. It’s the dictating of what a woman should do by men, under the guise of being Christian, who think that the Bible tells women that it’s their responsibility be modest so that the leering, sex driven men don’t come on to us or rape us, and if we dress immodestly then it’s our fault. We women don’t get to tell men what to wear, how to dress.
|
|