Women Wearing Pants?

[joethemechanic]

Oh, great. Now it's another gay thread ! Nice work, Joe!

Hey, its Handy's fault. She started it with her Trans-Man picture

 

[handy]

Who me?

 

[Pizzaguy]

Some people think that girls in jeans are "dirty girls", perhaps they have a point!

View attachment 2537

Click the image for a larger view - and no, it's not Miranda Lambert.

 

[Stan53]

Stan, even secular women aren't (by and large) as bad as Joe makes them out to be. I know a great many.

Yes I agree... I was just trying to bring some balance to the negativity.

 

[evenifigoalone]

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.

 

[Godisgreat]

No, I don't think so. Jesus has told us not to draw attention to ourselves in the way that we dress, and women wearing pants does not immediately draw attention.

 

[Elijah674]

Me and my wife were researching this subject for quite some time. Fortunately or unfortunately, my wife had to wear pants and there is no easy alternative. Even the women pants are not so modest as most pants are not loosely fit but tight enough to expose the curves of private parts which are not to be public.

I was doing a little research on when women began to wear pants because it is not even in the western culture to wear pants and the women wearing pants is a more recent invention and pushed enough to be widely accepted.

I noticed in wikipedia for Women_wearing_pants
In the United States, this may be due to the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which made public education treat males and females equally and in turn dresses could not be required of female students and dress codes changed in public schools across the United States.

Here we go .. change the children, you change a generation.

Even today, there will not be a single woman or a school girl who will wear pants in my home town. I have never seen in my entire schooling nor in my college (which is nearly 10 yrs back) and even today, not a single girl wears a pant in my native town.

I wonder how Satan has cleverly introduced an abomination totally unnoticed and that abomination is now completely accepted dressing among all.

If all Christians had read the Bible properly and defended Scripture, it this would have not began in 1972. Too late we have to see and live with this abomination.

Very good posting. You ask but did not answer your own question! of... '
I wonder how Satan has cleverly introduced an abomination totally unnoticed and that abomination is now completely accepted dressing among all.'

Don't be like the ones of Num. 16:2-3 of today, who actually are mostly the cause of Rev. 17:1-5's lost! But give it to us 'straight' ok? Isa. 59:1-2
[1] Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
[2] But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Perhaps what we have today is not just more of satan's creeping cancer? I wonder how much further pastors will remain still with the way that their wives will dress.. or un/dress???

--Elijah

 

[felix]

No, I don't think so. Jesus has told us not to draw attention to ourselves in the way that we dress, and women wearing pants does not immediately draw attention.

Oh crap!

(Matt 6:25-30) " Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, [will He] not much more [clothe] you, O you of little faith?

View attachment 2538

Jesus was speaking about "people who had no or little money - who worry about what to eat and dress" (left side image). He was not speaking about "people who had enough money and luxury and yet worry about how fashionable and exposing they had to dress" (right side image).

 

[reba]

When a person reads the NT to include polygamy they have no creditability IMO

 

[handy]

No, I don't think so. Jesus has told us not to draw attention to ourselves in the way that we dress, and women wearing pants does not immediately draw attention.

Hi Godisgreat, welcome to the board and discussion! :waving


Yes, I believe it was early on in this very thread that I shared about my Mennonite friend who often felt uncomfortable and very "noticed" because of the dress she was forced to wear by her religion. The long skirts, long sleeves and white cap immediately drew attention to her wherever she went, especially in 100+ degree weather in California.

If one's dress is immediately drawing attention to one, how can it fit the definition of modesty?

 

[handy]

When a person reads the NT to include polygamy they have no creditability IMO

When people go on about what an abomination simple and modest pants are... when they are not even following the dress codes for men in the Old Testament, it also smacks of hypocrisy...

Deuteronomy 22 (notice, same chapter):11-12
<sup class="versenum">11 </sup>“ You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.
<sup class="versenum">12 </sup>“ You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself."


How about it Elijah and Felix... do you have the tassels on the corners of your garments? Ever mix materials?



If you do and you don't... good for you! But, I've known a few men (not really all that many at all) who like to spout on and on and on about Deuteronomy 22:5 as if it only speaks to women and not men (which is ignoring both the letter and the spirit of the text) and yet would wear a linen shirt with a wool jacket with nary a tassel in sight. Not only bad exegesis... it's also hypocritical.

 

[felix]

When people go on about what an abomination simple and modest pants are... when they are not even following the dress codes for men in the Old Testament, it also smacks of hypocrisy...

Deuteronomy 22 (notice, same chapter):11-12
<sup class="versenum">11 </sup>“ You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.
<sup class="versenum">12 </sup>“ You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself."


How about it Elijah and Felix... do you have the tassels on the corners of your garments? Ever mix materials?



If you do and you don't... good for you! But, I've known a few men (not really all that many at all) who like to spout on and on and on about Deuteronomy 22:5 as if it only speaks to women and not men (which is ignoring both the letter and the spirit of the text) and yet would wear a linen shirt with a wool jacket with nary a tassel in sight. Not only bad exegesis... it's also hypocritical.

While I don't follow Moses law as we are not under the old covenant, the law is a "tutor" which provides "guidelines" given by God.

The problem and most importantly the importance of Deuteronomy 22:5 is that it specifically says it is abomination to God. "Abomination" is a strong word. But the other references pointed out is not. Just like Deut 22:6-10, which are not mentioned as abominations, there should be good reasons for it as explained in some.

 

[farouk]

I see that on the tatt thread that is currently live, someone has raised the comparison of women's pants with getting tattoos.

I really don't know what this is supposed to prove. This whole area seems to evoke notions of what might be termed cultural imperialism, whereby some imagined past state of affairs on a cultural level supposedly should become normative again now, if it ever was, even.

 

[chakham]

If I may, as far as Im concerned a woman may wear pants. Especially when they fit well and leave no doubt in my mind she is a woman .:yes So yes, go for it girl!

On a more serious note I think the heart of the matter concerning the prohibition in Devarim 22:5 is to prevent her to appear like a man, thereby enabling her to go among men. Which is why I believe a woman is permitted in this day and age to wear pants provided of course I can tell the person in them is a woman. As for a man not wearing a woman’s garment: it would be to prevent him to appear as a woman and to go and abide among the women.

This prohibition was apparently given to forbid dressing in a manner which would lead to deceptive, immoral and or illicit behavior. Think about this too, clothes were much different back then it was easier to hide ones gender.


Oh and even though I have four tizzits on my tallit gadol. I dont wear it all the time.

 

[handy]

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?

 

[chakham]

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?

^
|
|

My wife wear pants and I can tell with all certaintiy she is all women so thats ok in my book . Forgive me for sounding like a chuavanistic pig but I like looking at those beautiful curves of hers. She isnt trying to hide them or be deceptive which is what I think the commandment in Dueteronomy 22:5 is driving at.

 

[handy]

You are sounding like a chauvinist pig, Kumri... but she's your wife and is most likely as glad that you find her beautiful as I am that my husband finds me so...

I do agree with you, the intent of Deuteronomy 22:5 is to prevent the deception of appearing to be one sex, when one is the other.

 

[Elijah674]

--Elijah back with you:
'i' also know what Moses laws were mostly about, that which he wrote in a book called the 'book of the law' & were put in [the side of the Ark], and what they were pertaining to, which ended in Gal. 3:19. And the WORD ABOMINATION STILL BARES SWAY.

So Handy, what can be addressed by you for the Inspiration of the Rev. 17:1-5 ones as is defined there? 'THE ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH'. And you do think that the Isa. 3 is a STRETCH??? With only needing a verse 4-9 for 'identification'??

Isa. 3
[4] And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
[5] And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and [[the base]] (Vile, you look it up) against the honourable.

[6] When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand:

[7] In that day shall he swear, saying, I will not be an healer; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people.
[8] For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory.

[9] The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

And all this is ruled out such as cival rights, womans & homosexual all united together with nearly naked woman even in the WALL/MART sun morning ads? (and the beaches???:seehearspeak) +++! And this is all just a 'loving christian stretch'???

Now.. just ending with my 'believing' time for the Matt. 24:21 prophecy on for what is now in progress as we speak!;) And it is now time for the preterist ones to work!

_________________________________

Re: Women Wearing Pants?

Originally Posted by handy
When people go on about what an abomination simple and modest pants are... when they are not even following the dress codes for men in the Old Testament, it also smacks of hypocrisy...

Deuteronomy 22 (notice, same chapter):11-12
<sup class="versenum">11 </sup>“ You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.
<sup class="versenum">12 </sup>“ You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself."


How about it Elijah and Felix... do you have the tassels on the corners of your garments? Ever mix materials?



If you do and you don't... good for you! But, I've known a few men (not really all that many at all) who like to spout on and on and on about Deuteronomy 22:5 as if it only speaks to women and not men (which is ignoring both the letter and the spirit of the text) and yet would wear a linen shirt with a wool jacket with nary a tassel in sight. Not only bad exegesis... it's also hypocritical.



While I don't follow Moses law as we are not under the old covenant, the law is a "tutor" which provides "guidelines" given by God.

The problem and most importantly the importance of Deuteronomy 22:5 is that it specifically says it is abomination to God. "Abomination" is a strong word. But the other references pointed out is not. Just like Deut 22:6-10, which are not mentioned as abominations, there should be good reasons for it as explained in some.
​

I quote from NKJV

Why did Jesus Christ had to die?|Old Covenant – Abomination to God|Scripture Vs Word of God|Generational Curses
​

 

[handy]

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...

 

[joethemechanic]

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