Forward-Thinking Traditionalist To Allow Wife To Wear Pants

June 26, 2017 by  
Filed under Libs & Trads



Traditionalist husband Arthur Nash issued his wife of eighteen years, Carla Nash, permission to wear pants “in a manner that is conducive to comfort, but that does not lead to temptation” for the first time in their marriage.

Mr. Nash’s decision did come with several stipulations, one of which was that “to insure that no form of my wife’s legs are seen by a stranger, any pair of pants worn must be large enough so that no part of her legs touch the inner parts of the pants.” In addition, statement said that any pants worn that are not at least two sizes larger than her size, are not to be worn without first having worn a pair of shorts beneath.

Mr. Nash’s decision comes in response to a complaint filed by Mrs. Nash, who had asked on several occasions to be allowed to “once in a while, perhaps on non-feast days or when it was just the two of them at home, to not have to wear a dress.” Mrs. Nash’s fifteenth request to remove the ban on pants in 2015 was not granted due to “insufficient reasoning.”

In a June 12 motion, Mr. and Mrs. Nash’s daughter Margaret Mary argued that her father “should not allow insufficient reasoning to play a role in the pants decision, stating that “mother has never been allowed to read any book other than the Latin Mass Daily Missal, meaning that she was never equipped with the ability to properly make a sound defense.”

In the end, Mr. Nash has given a temporary pants allowance and plans to reconvene discussions later this fall after seeing what type of backlash he receives from the community, as well as gathering data as to how many fellow parishioners were being scandalized by the pants.

  • Louis Bertrand

    Wearing pants beats nudity for the biologically challenged

    • echo4alpha

      Never realized it was just between those two options, thank you.

  • christopherschaefer

    A warning to Mr. Nash: this is the beginning of a slippery slope. Next she’ll want to shorten the length of her mantilla.
    THEN she’ll push to attend the once-a-month, Sunday 4:00 PM Novus Ordo. AND actually ask you to drive the 45 minutes to get there.
    Believe me, it just never ends.

    • Casper

      45 minutes to Novus Ordo? I think you have it backwards…

      • christopherschaefer

        Well, I suppose it various by region. I live off-grid on an isolated mountain top where the nearest Mass is in an SSPXXX chapel (the latter group having separated long ago from SSPX due to the increasingly liberal antics of the Late Archbishop Lefebvre. At one of his last public Masses, he could be seen holding his crozier at a slight angle. SSPXXX founders knew such wild innovations simply would never).

        • echo4alpha

          I’ve tried to live on mountain tops (Crede, CO or Payson, AZ), but all I ever run across is happy clappy Masses or death by a thousand guitar rifts. It’s definitely a commuter job, being a trad.

        • Thibaud313

          I’m afraid to ask what the two other “Xs” stand for.

          • christopherschaefer

            St. Pius XXX. They’re not sedevacantists. They took care of that problem by electing their own pope and, due to several centuries of a sede vacante situation, they lost count, so simply named him Pius the 30th.

          • Thibaud313

            Thank you for that clarification. May I suggest to the next Pope of the Society of St. Pius XXX to pick another Pope name that “sounds traditional”? Like Gregory XVII or Clement XV. Or even Thibaud I.
            Coming to think of it, it’s a perfect “traditional Pope name”: it’s medieval, you have no idea what it means and no one you know but a Pope would have that name.
            (If one potential anti-Pope in Kansas reads this in his mother’s basement and choses the papal name “Thibaud I”, I’m going to be a very happy dude)

          • Louis Bertrand

            FRANCIS is as medieval as it gets. Anti-Popes go back a long way.

      • Jim Brooks

        No Casper that is about right. As a proud member of JP1 society, that’s John Paul the first, we recite the Mass as said in 1978 prior to the horrid changes forced upon on us in 2011. A high light of our weekly services is a guitar Mass from the 70’s. Of course when it comes to pants they have to be bell bottoms.

    • Frank Zimmerman

      Yes it never ends. After a while, Mr. Nash will want to wear a dress…and on it goes.

  • Casper

    Next stop: halter top, short shorts, and showing off her tattoos at N.O Mass.

    • christopherschaefer

      When Mr. Nash comes home from work, opens the door and hears what sounds like a hastily-shut guitar case, then notices his wife softly humming “On Eagles’ Wings” while she prepares his favorite dinner, that will be a definitive sign that things simply have gone too far.

    • MamaK

      Two young ladies sat in front of me at mass, showing lots of leg in very short dresses. But they both were wearing lace veils, so I guess they get brownie points.

      • Casper

        Well, they have to catch their own versions of Mr. Nash, right? At least they were short dresses, and not short shorts.

    • Elaine S.

      A couple of years ago, while attending a Sunday Mass at a small town Wisconsin parish, I spotted a lady wearing a veil/mantilla, a dress with roughly t shirts length sleeves… and obvious tattoos on both arms. She had three kids and husband in tow so I’m guessing the tattoos are a relic of her past life, but who knows. Nice lady, just observing that you don’t normally see tattoos and mantillas at the same time.

  • Sheryl Nash-Dixon

    Not funny this time

    • Casper

      We can’t help but notice…your last name is Nash…but you hyphenated! GASP

      • christopherschaefer

        it’s…MRS. Nash!!

  • Viterbo Fangirl
  • MamaK

    “Forward-thinking traditionalist” is an oxymoron.

  • Karen

    Is this supposed to be funny? I thought this was exactly what traditionalist men thought?

    • Casper

      Wow – – you’re so right, Karen! You’ve got it figured out!

      • Karen

        Seriously. Tradionalist men believe that women should never wear pants and should be submissive. Isn’t what you describe their ideal?

        • Casper

          Yeah – – like I said – – you’ve got it figured out! You’re a genius at reading people!

          • Mr. Graves

            And appreciating sarcasm.

  • Gianna P. Borgia

    But but but women can’t wear pants because Mary never wore pants. Yeah, Jesus didn’t wear pants either, but that’s entirely different.

  • VeilOfTiers

    It would never ever cross the mind of a Real Traditional Woman™ to even think of wearing pants. Where on earth did Mr. Nash find her?