More on Skirts

[Aquila]

I think Deuteronomy is more about gender identity, cross dressing, and perversion. I think the specific articles or design of clothing isn't the issue. It's ownership. Every verse leading up to verse 5 is pertaining to ownership. A woman isn't to wear anything that is considered to be a male's attire. Nor is a man to wear anything that is considered to be a woman's attire.

I think what is considered male and female attire shifts and changes over time. For example both hosiery and high heels were originally a man's attire. But today they are seen as being women's attire. Since these things naturally shift and change through time, I believe this is additional evidence that there is to be some sort of avoidance on account of "perversion" or "immorality".

One could argue that it is strictly about design of attire. But... then we'd have to consider that no one in our culture dresses like ancient Israel did back in that time. So we're comparing apples to oranges. In addition, this is Law of Moses stuff. The very same body of law forbids the blending of two different fabrics. We're not bound by the Law of Moses. So, unless it is addressing a more spiritual condition or perversion, it wouldn't apply to us today.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

NO

Well you hold a different view then alot of protestant christian denominations that I know of. I know many baptists that remember when it was not appropriate for women to wear pants,and who remember ladies pants coming into fashion. The majority of the churches viewed pants not only as masculine but imodest on women. This has not always been just a pentecostal standard.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

NO

Do you think it is o.k. for men to wear dresses?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Well you hold a different view then alot of protestant christian denominations that I know of. I know many baptists that remember when it was not appropriate for women to wear pants,and who remember ladies pants coming into fashion. The majority of the churches viewed pants not only as masculine but imodest on women. This has not always been just a pentecostal standard.

I am well aware! But WHY? lets look at it from a pragmatic point of view.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Do you think it is o.k. for men to wear dresses?

In what situation would a man NEED to wear a dress?? so basically no

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

I am well aware! But WHY? lets look at it from a pragmatic point of view.

Because until the 20th century culturally it was determined that pants where for men.

It is interesting that men are not interested in wearing dresses unless they are dealing with other issues. Most men don't want to be viewed as feminine, but there is a large number of women who want to be masculine. Ladies find it complimenting to be called a tom boy, but boy's don't want to be considered a sissy. Why do so many women not want to be associated with being feminine.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

In what situation would a man NEED to wear a dress?? so basically no

So you don't think for a man to wear a dress would violate the purpose of DE 22:5.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Because until the 20th century culturally it was determined that pants where for men.

It is interesting that men are not interested in wearing dresses unless they are dealing with other issues. Most men don't want to be viewed as feminine, but there is a large number of women who want to be masculine. Ladies find it complimenting to be called a tom boy, but boy's don't want to be considered a sissy. Why do so many women not want to be associated with being feminine.

I guess your observation is different than mine.

[good samaritan]

My mistake I misunderstood you. You are saying no to men wearing dresses.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

So you don't think for a man to wear a dress would violate the purpose of DE 22:5.

From my point of view that's a trick question. Since there was no such thing as a "dress"........