Women Wearing Pants?

[Stan53]

Nothing in the Mosaic Laws, is applicable to this issue. I wish people would start to understand that we are under a NC and as such God has written His laws on our hearts. If you think that ANY particular verse in Deut is applicable to the church today, then you have to accept them all. That means also Deut 22:8, and means that ALL our houses should look like mini castles. Come on let's stop all this legalistic garbage. Women's pants are fine.
There is a practical reason for v11 and you may find it hard to actually find clothes made of Wool and Linen today. Back then it could cause a danger to your health. Just like the Mosaic Law says to NOT boil a kid in it's mother's milk. Practically speaking, today it would give you digestive problem.

 

[farouk]

This woman has tattoos and wears pants.

When I see her coming I always run and try to hide, but she runs faster than me. She makes me very afraid

Hi joe:

I don't know who this lady is, but your comment just isn't on my wavelength.

Sorry, I'm lost.

Blessings.

 

[handy]

This woman has tattoos and wears pants.

When I see her coming I always run and try to hide, but she runs faster than me. She makes me very afraid

Joe, I always tell my kids... If you don't want someone to chase you, don't run. Who is she, btw... she looks, from her photo as if she is looking at a friend and someone she genuinely likes.


Stan... The problem is, if some can't pull some texts from the Old Testament... they have no fodder to paint any woman that doesn't meet their very own and wholly arbitrary standards of "modesty" as Jezebels and Whores of Babylon.

And, as we can see... in the manner of stuffing a square peg in a round hole, if the context has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, doesn't matter at all... not as long as it seems to say what one wants it to say...

 

[farouk]

Wow, this discussion done gone and got all technical.:eeeekkk


On feminism...let me just say that modern feminism makes me roll my eyes. I'm against modern feminism. "We have the right to have jobs and careers and vote now, just like anyone else...but we're still oppressed!!1!!" Yeahright.

The way it originally was, though, they just wanted equal rights, like the right to vote. It's not as if we don't have brains and can't think for ourselves, after all. It is rather insulting to insinuate that we are not much more than children in an adult body, when it's obvious that this is not the case.

questdriven:

Yes, pants for women are especially apt in the post-Suffragette era, aren't they? (Also, when women gained the vote in the US, it's historically provable that there was also an increase in women wearing lipstick, and even tattoos — I can supply the references, but this is another story, I guess.)

Blessings.

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah... I can come up with a lot of passages about the evil nature of men... and they would still have nothing to do with Deuteronomy 22:5... neither do the passages you refer to either.

Please, at least concede that the passage is speaking every bit as much to men as to women...

And for goodness sakes, recognize that there are men's pants and women's pants, just as there were men's robes and women's robes...

Hi! 'i' will do one better than that, as I BELIEVE that Inspiration speaks to the Lords CREATION... and not just the Jew either.3 Rom. 2:28-29.

--Elijah

 

[joethemechanic]

Who is she, btw... she looks, from her photo as if she is looking at a friend and someone she genuinely likes.

She is my friend the crazy cat lady. She lives around the corner from me. She always smiles like that. I really think she genuinely likes people. There must be something wrong with her lol

 

[felix]

If pants for women are an abomination before the Lord based upon Deuteronomy 22:5 then pants for men are too...

Pants, in of themselves are either an abomination or they are not... Deuteronomy 22 is equally applied to both men and women.

I agree that the OT provides guidelines... the applicable guideline to Deuteronomy 22 is that men are not to wear women's clothing and women are not to wear men's clothing.

At the time... robes were what was covering people... robes that were clearly designated as either for male attire or for female attire.

Pants equally come in men's and women's attire. You cannot deny this... or you can (people can do anything), but it's foolish to do so.

So, either pants, in of themselves are the abomination and therefore neither men nor women should wear them... or we simply apply what the text actaully says, women are not to wear men's attire nor are men to wear women's attire.

I am always amazed at how many view Deuteronomy 22:5 as SPEAKING TO WOMEN ONLY!!!!

Now, perhaps some men will view pants as being immodest for women because of the fact that the general shape of a woman's body is seen... but the general shape of a men's body is seen when he wears pants as well. And, it's just as immodest for a man to have the area of his privates on display as it is for women... so if the argument against women wearing pants is that they, how did you phrase it Felix, "expose the curves of private parts which are not to be public"... well, men's "curves of private parts" are just as much on display wearing them. Or are you going to say that it's OK for a man's "curves of private parts" to be displayed, but not a woman's?

You will never understand because you had been dissolved into a culture from the beginning that makes you to think it is acceptable as you are from that generation that makes no distinction in dresses in the name of equality. You need to come out and look into other non-western cultures and then think to yourself how Deu 22:5 applies in other cultures and how such an abomination has been made acceptable and how you are trying to justify such an abomination.

The issue is not about pants. To make you understand what Deu 22:5 says, imaging all men are wearing skirts and running around - I think you will still justify there are men's skirts fit for them differentiating from women's.

 

[AirDancer]

Hi, Felix -

If you spent time in Scotland, you would soon learn that many Scots men still wear their national dress: kilts. These are worn to work - business offices, banks, teaching, etc. The Scots men have worn these for centuries, and no one considers a kilt to be a woman's skirt.

Likewise, in the USA, women wear slacks & jeans designed for them, and have for decades.

In this current day, females of all ages are encouraged to wear them from a self-defense stance. Since some men cannot control their urges from a dominant, controlling and violent edge, they will seek out females wearing skirts & dresses... easier access for rape.

When taking classes to learn realistic self-defense tactics & techniques, not only are slacks/jeans encouraged, but also hair styles, jewelry, purse styles, and other pertinent information is provided in order to help prevent a female from becoming a victim/statistic of rape or robbery.

These classes are now being taught in locations around the world, and each year more classes are offered.

It is a very sad commentary of the world's condition when women feel they have no other choice but to learn self-defense in order to protect themselves against such violence.

 

[Stan53]

You will never understand because you had been dissolved into a culture from the beginning that makes you to think it is acceptable as you are from that generation that makes no distinction in dresses in the name of equality. You need to come out and look into other non-western cultures and then think to yourself how Deu 22:5 applies in other cultures and how such an abomination has been made acceptable and how you are trying to justify such an abomination.

The issue is not about pants. To make you understand what Deu 22:5 says, imaging all men are wearing skirts and running around - I think you will still justify there are men's skirts fit for them differentiating from women's.

The Bible transcends cultural and societal pressures. Jesus said we are free. Not just in some things, but in ALL things. Deut 22 does NOT apply in ANY culture or society. Some cultures or societies may have 'rules' about dree and those 'rules' may be adopted by the majority, but that is NOT a Biblical endorsement of how one should dress.

You are correct, the issue is NOT about pants. So what exactly IS the issue with you? Would you not accept a woman with braided hair because Paul said women should not braid their hair? Understanding the context of ANY scripture is paramount to understanding what God is trying to tell us.

 

[Stan53]

This woman has tattoos and wears pants.

When I see her coming I always run and try to hide, but she runs faster than me. She makes me very afraid

Not sure why you would run from her, but I find her attractive and the sleeve looks great. Obviously a very ostentatious person. It takes all kinds. I was quite ostentatious when I was young. Still am to some degree, with my black eel skin cowboy boots.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

The issue is not about pants. To make you understand what Deu 22:5 says, imaging all men are wearing skirts and running around - I think you will still justify there are men's skirts fit for them differentiating from women's.

Yeah, it's called Scotland. You can find it on a map, assuming you've switched over from the flat-Earth model. Lord knows some of your other opinions haven't.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

This woman has tattoos and wears pants.

When I see her coming I always run and try to hide, but she runs faster than me. She makes me very afraid

If she scares you so much, why do you have a picture of her on your computer?

She seems like a very nice woman, happy and friendly and obviously female. I'd have no problem chatting with her, and most certainly wouldn't feel a need to run away.

I wonder if she knows you're posting her picture online in connection with your rather unsavory comments?

 

[tim-from-pa]

I just want everyone to know, there's absolutely nothing wrong with women wearing pants. My wife wears pants in this family. Now, I would say more, but I have to get going now. Dang! Where did I put my skirt my wife got me?

 

[felix]

Hi, Felix -

If you spent time in Scotland, you would soon learn that many Scots men still wear their national dress: kilts. These are worn to work - business offices, banks, teaching, etc. The Scots men have worn these for centuries, and no one considers a kilt to be a woman's skirt.

Likewise, in the USA, women wear slacks & jeans designed for them, and have for decades.

In this current day, females of all ages are encouraged to wear them from a self-defense stance. Since some men cannot control their urges from a dominant, controlling and violent edge, they will seek out females wearing skirts & dresses... easier access for rape.

When taking classes to learn realistic self-defense tactics & techniques, not only are slacks/jeans encouraged, but also hair styles, jewelry, purse styles, and other pertinent information is provided in order to help prevent a female from becoming a victim/statistic of rape or robbery.

These classes are now being taught in locations around the world, and each year more classes are offered.

It is a very sad commentary of the world's condition when women feel they have no other choice but to learn self-defense in order to protect themselves against such violence.

I used to wear something called Lungi, Dothi or Sarum.

Lungi_clad_man_in_Baleswar_Odisha.JPG

Sarung_in_Indonesia.jpg

While these may look like skirts, they are not a woman's dress. Telling them that lungi is a women's dress, they would laugh at you. I had been wearing this for all my adulthood days in India.

As I mentioned, the issue is not pants but diluting the dressing differences.

If a women in these cultures wear a men's dress or vice versa (like men wearing sarees), it is clearly considered as an "abomination" or a "kind of shame just next to a prostitue" even in a pagan rich country like India who do not know the law (with the exception of some places in metro cities).

This is exactly how God will feel. It is very natural to consider this as "abomination". However, this "feeling" of "abomination" is so diluted in western cultures to make is acceptable.

 

[handy]

You will never understand because you had been dissolved into a culture from the beginning that makes you to think it is acceptable as you are from that generation that makes no distinction in dresses in the name of equality. You need to come out and look into other non-western cultures and then think to yourself how Deu 22:5 applies in other cultures and how such an abomination has been made acceptable and how you are trying to justify such an abomination.

The issue is not about pants. To make you understand what Deu 22:5 says, imaging all men are wearing skirts and running around - I think you will still justify there are men's skirts fit for them differentiating from women's.

There are, they're call kilts. Back when Peter and Paul were writing there were also togas, which were basically dresses.

There are also cultures in which men still wear robes...

You are right, the issue isn't about pants, because pants are like robes and skirts, different for men and for women....

So... if pants are not the abomination, on what basis are you decided that western modest dress is abominable?

Those pictures of well dressed, modestly dressed women that both Mark and DHR shared... on posts #65 and #97... how are those women dressed abominably?

They certainly meet the criteria of being dressed in women's garb... You certainly wouldn't dress in this attire would you? If you did, here in America.... people would look at you askance because in spite of what you might think you know about America, there are definite distinctions between male and female attire. While Hollywood might continuously push the idea of transvestism... believe me, most Americans are not OK with transvestites and almost all Christians believe that transvestism is a sin issue.

I believe and accept that your lungi is distinctively male in your culture... why is our telling you that women's pants in our culture is distinctively female a sign of our being "dissolved into a culture from the beginning that makes you to think it is acceptable as you are from that generation that makes no distinction in dresses in the name of equality".


The overwhelming people here in the West (with only two exceptions and there are issues connected with both of them) are assuring you that the attire of women's pants is indeed as distinctively female as the lungi and the kilt and the toga are male. Are you going to accept that? Or continue on with the "abomination" nonsense?

 

[Stan53]

I used to wear something called Lungi, Dothi or Sarum.

Lungi_clad_man_in_Baleswar_Odisha.JPG

Sarung_in_Indonesia.jpg

While these may look like skirts, they are not a woman's dress. Telling them that lungi is a women's dress, they would laugh at you. I had been wearing this for all my adulthood days in India.

As I mentioned, the issue is not pants but diluting the dressing differences.

If a women in these cultures wear a men's dress or vice versa (like men wearing sarees), it is clearly considered as an "abomination" or a "kind of shame just next to a prostitue" even in a pagan rich country like India who do not know the law (with the exception of some places in metro cities).

This is exactly how God will feel. It is very natural to consider this as "abomination". However, this "feeling" of "abomination" is so diluted in western cultures to make is acceptable.

Yes and that is mostly the take you got on pants, from a western POV, but you seemed to condemn that view as being wrong and an abomination. With ALL the problems India has with how it treats it's women, or Indonesia for that matter, why would you act so self righteous about North American dress codes?

 

[felix]

The overwhelming people here in the West (with only two exceptions and there are issues connected with both of them) are assuring you that the attire of women's pants is indeed as distinctively female as the lungi and the kilt and the toga are male. Are you going to accept that? Or continue on with the "abomination" nonsense?

I would not deny Deut 22:5 as not abominable but I would accept that I need to do more study on it.

 

[Elijah674]

handy;663430]The overwhelming people here in the West (with only two exceptions and there are issues connected with both of them) are assuring you that the attire of women's pants is indeed as distinctively female as the lungi and the kilt and the toga are male. Are you going to accept that? Or continue on with the "abomination" nonsense?

I would not deny Deut 22:5 as not abominable but I would accept that I need to do more study on it.[/QUOTE]

More Study? For myself, I can just 'think' of being to the right of Gods word or mankind being to the left as in being Led (Rom. 8:1 + verse 14) of God. What is best on any direction to take, liberal of conservative?? And what has even the last 40 or so yrs. 'LED' to?? And all one needs to do is look at the modern (?) day masses of women. (even the Rev. 17:1-5 ones)
(See Rom. 14:21-23 at the bottom of the post)

And these 'liberal' testimones even for their young girl's & grandchildren! But this all has nothing to do with DRESS, huh!

--Elijah


[21] It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [[***any thing]] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. (womens dress/less/ness comes to mind!)
[22] Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

 

[felix]

Yes and that is mostly the take you got on pants, from a western POV, but you seemed to condemn that view as being wrong and an abomination. With ALL the problems India has with how it treats it's women, or Indonesia for that matter, why would you act so self righteous about North American dress codes?

What's the problem with India treating women?

• The national ruling party leader is a woman.
• The current president of India is a woman.
• My native state's chief minister is a woman.

There are 3000 castes who never intermarry, has more than 800 languages (not dialects) and 30 official languages with each state has it's own language. It is so huge and has more population than Europe and US combined and the entire Australia lives in a single metro. So, when something happens in one particular community in one particular area, it is immature to blame the entire sub-continent.

 

[handy]

Felix,

I'm certainly not denying that Deuteronomy speaks of abominations... It wouldn't surprise me that if homosexuality is decried as abomination before God, so would transvestism. Both are similiar in that they go exactly opposite of how God made men and women to be.

The only thing that I deny, and I assume that this is what you see a need for "more study" on, is that western feminine attire is no more "male" than eastern feminine attire. As you've shown, the issue isn't skirts or pants... just as a skirt can be masculine attire, so can pants be feminine.

As for this:

[21] It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [[***any thing]] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. (womens dress/less/ness comes to mind!)
[22] Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

I certainly agree that Christian's are to dress modestly, and I also agree that modest dress has been an issue, even within the church lately. Not just Christian women either... those shorts that men wear that come just a bare hairsbreadth above their privates or pants so baggy their underwear show is just as much a violation of modest dress as girls with spaghetti strap tanks and short shorts.

But, at some point some men need to realize that a modestly dressed woman has done her part... and if he is still "made weak" by women dressed like this:

View attachment 2544

or this:

View attachment 2545

the he has a problem that he needs to deal with. Christian women should not be expected to wear burkas just because there are some guys who have no self control and/or have a dirty mind.