Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

There is no such thing as a pair of women's britches. If they aren't for a man, then they are not for anybody. Just because I don't want to wear them does not mean that God intended for my wife to wear them. That is a mindless assertion. Most of the clothing that you find in stores today aren't for anybody to wear. They need to be thrown into a fire somewhere.

I don't agree with your view on pants, but I do respect your desire to lead a life that is set apart from the world. I don't think anyone will go to hell for not wearing pants.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Please support this assertion

First of all nobody says women have always worn them.

Second nobody is saying women everywhere have worn them for a long time, some time or at some point in antiquity.

The fact is neither men nor women have always worn pants everywhere all the time in history

I don't know how you can say, especially, the point in bold when it's been stated a million times that women in the rice fields of China have always worn them. I'd have to drag up lots of past conversations on this subject and I sure don't have the time for it.

The reason men have probably is for the same reason men girded their loins. Men needed garments that the did not trip over to fight. That was why Romans wore short skirts. Same with the Kilts. It allowed for free movement while fighting or doing other athletic activities

I can agree with you here.

But even then men wearing pants universally is only a RECENT invention

I'm not sure I agree with you here, because the origins did start with the men, as you stated - "men girded their loins." So, in that respect, I think in ancient antiquity, it already started to be a man's garment which developed into, as you say, recently universal.

Now, I will have to drag Pel's post to me, because it is probably just as simple as he states.

Originally Posted by pelathais

The further back one goes, the more transitions one will find. Fashion comes and goes. The needs of people changes as they move around. And, the social conventions of the past may seem stifling to some so they cast them off, only to see a later generation pick them up again.

Probably just that simple. Thanks, Pel!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

There is no such thing as a pair of women's britches. If they aren't for a man, then they are not for anybody. Just because I don't want to wear them does not mean that God intended for my wife to wear them. That is a mindless assertion. Most of the clothing that you find in stores today aren't for anybody to wear. They need to be thrown into a fire somewhere.

NITW: You have yet to establish or prove from Scripture that "God" has anything whatsoever to do with your opinion, here. Why not go back to the Word?

You had boasted of your "prowess" in understanding 1 Timothy 2:9, however you then went on to demonstrate very little experience or competence in NT exegesis: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...95#post1093695

You then fumbled your response to Mike Blume's explanation of Deuteronomy 22:5. Just how can you feel comfortable saying what "God intended" when you handle His Word so clumsily?

I don't mean to be insulting here; I'm just amazed at the way you get beat in a debate and then come back boasting that you have some sort of secret knowledge of what "God intended." Go back to the Word, Bro. Immerse yourself in the study of Scripture. There is a Spirit in these Words - that Spirit gives us life and not condemnation. John 6:63.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't know how you can say, especially, the point in bold when it's been stated a million times that women in the rice fields of China have always worn them. I'd have to drag up lots of past conversations on this subject and I sure don't have the time for it.


I can agree with you here.


I'm not sure I agree with you here, because the origins did start with the men, as you stated - "men girded their loins." So, in that respect, I think in ancient antiquity, it already started to be a man's garment which developed into, as you say, recently universal.

Now, I will have to drag Pel's post to me, because it is probably just as simple as he states.



Probably just that simple. Thanks, Pel!

Most observers of history seem to associate the development of the "bifurcated garment" (pants) as being a response to the needs of men riding horseback in colder climes. I personally don't know of any conclusive evidence for this, it just seems to be true because these are the people that brought this particular fashion into the Mediterranean world.

We have relatively little information about the "Northern Barbarians" compared to the relatively rich histories we have of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian cultures. In the warmer Mediterranean region, men wore skirts while riding horseback - see any illustration of Roman, Greek, Egyptian and etc. cavalry uniforms. When the Romans moved north through Gaul (France) and crossed the Rhine into northern Germany, they began to wear "leggings" for warmth

In the North, men wore "pants" because they rode horses. The "cultured" and educated men (the druids, for example) wore robes and skirt-liked tunics as they dwelt in the cities and spent little time on horseback. Notice too, the clerics, missionaries and monks of the Dark Ages all wore skirts - a practice that has been carried into the modern age by Roman Catholic and other clerics. These were considered "educated" and "cultured" men and they tended to shun the rough customs and apparel of the warriors, farmers and merchant travelers.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Most observers of history seem to associate the development of the "bifurcated garment" (pants) as being a response to the needs of men riding horseback in colder climes. I personally don't know of any conclusive evidence for this, it just seems to be true because these are the people that brought this particular fashion into the Mediterranean world.

We have relatively little information about the "Northern Barbarians" compared to the relatively rich histories we have of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian cultures. In the warmer Mediterranean region, men wore skirts while riding horseback - see any illustration of Roman, Greek, Egyptian and etc. cavalry uniforms. When the Romans moved north through Gaul (France) and crossed the Rhine into northern Germany, they began to wear "leggings" for warmth

In the North, men wore "pants" because they rode horses. The "cultured" and educated men (the druids, for example) wore robes and skirt-liked tunics as they dwelt in the cities and spent little time on horseback. Notice too, the clerics, missionaries and monks of the Dark Ages all wore skirts - a practice that has been carried into the modern age by Roman Catholic and other clerics. These were considered "educated" and "cultured" men and they tended to shun the rough customs and apparel of the warriors, farmers and merchant travelers.

Which helps to prove to me that the scripture doesn't have a thing to do with wearing pants. Both men and women wore pants at some point in history and both men and women wore skirts at some point in history.

Women should look like women and men should look like men - and if a woman is trying to look like a man or a man is trying to look like a woman, then God doesn't like it.

Seems like a simple thing to me.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Most observers of history seem to associate the development of the "bifurcated garment" (pants) as being a response to the needs of men riding horseback in colder climes. I personally don't know of any conclusive evidence for this, it just seems to be true because these are the people that brought this particular fashion into the Mediterranean world.

As Prax posted, it seems to have begun with the "girding up of the loins" to free themselves for work, war, etc. Charlemagne in the 9th century wore a shorter pant. The ancient Persians, Chinese and Mongol's fought wars in the capri style.

Your paragraph above, Prax's comment and a portion of an earlier post from you round out my view. You had posted about the women in fields wearing the "Fu" which is a sort of capri pant and it means "work".

I still maintain that in ancient antiquity, the trouser type garment began with the man even though women began wearing them for the functionality in work. That is why, IMO, the garment has become to be universally known and identified, today, as man's apparel.

And just to be clear, it doesn't mean that women cannot and should not wear them. That has never been my point at all. I was simply wondering how we came to wear robes together and how, today, pants are depicted when having to make a differentiation between the sexes, on say, a restroom sign or stick figures. LOL!

We have women in our church who do wear pants and that doesn't bother anyone. There are some of us that have never cared for pants and don't want to wear them today. If I had to wear a pair of pants, I would never wear a pair that was loose in the leg. I hate them like that, I want them tight. So, that throws modesty out the window on that issue for me. LOL!

Thanks for taking the time. I really enjoyed reading your posts, Pel!

[rgcraig]

Here's where we have it all wrong - - since pants seem to be equated to working (outside the home) for both men and women (in the fields, fighting, etc.) and women wearing pants resulted from having to work in the fields or later on work in the factories doing a man's job......women should not be working outside the home!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Here's where we have it all wrong - - since pants seem to be equated to working (outside the home) for both men and women (in the fields, fighting, etc.) and women wearing pants resulted from having to work in the fields or later on work in the factories doing a man's job......women should not be working outside the home!

LOL! It's Friday and you are bored! Oh wait, it's Thursday! No, you are taking it into another argument that hasn't been started,

Again, my curiosity was how we began wearing robes and ending up, today, as man's pants being identified as, mainly, a man's garment. That has nothing to with women wearing or not wearing them. It was simply "origin" that I was interested in.

Pants are a totally functional piece of apparel and we won't be able to argue that and be sensible about it.

When we get into the issue of modesty, that is for women, individually, to decide. They can't ever be modest for me because I like them form fitting. Others do not. It's a personal choice. Chic jeans were my favorite and I'm afraid still would be.

[rgcraig]

My SIL loves these!

I don't see a guy wearing them:

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

My SIL loves these!

I don't see a guy wearing them:

Those are cute! I had some like them in 8th grade and let me tell you, you can trip and fall wearing wider legged pants. When you are walking the bottoms get a little tangled up. Scary!