Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

There is no such thing as a pair of womens britches (jeans, whatever). There are certain jeans I would not wear because they are tight fitting, the wrong color, or the wrong length. That is the problem, the devil has used the fashion industry to dress up something that belongs to a man and market it to a woman using colors women prefer, or designs women prefer. Sorry, but it is still a pair of pants that neither gender should wear. I don't let the world dictate to me what I wear.

So.... just a plain ol' pair of basic, baggy jeans, no designs, say from the Walmart women's dept.... you'd wear those? Those don't meet the criteria you described above.

You know you wouldn't, so why don't you just say so? You wouldn't wear a pair of women's pants, no matter what they look like.

[Narrow Is The Way]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

So.... just a plain ol' pair of basic, baggy jeans, no designs, say from the Walmart women's dept.... you'd wear those? Those don't meet the criteria you described above.

You know you wouldn't, so why don't you just say so? You wouldn't wear a pair of women's pants, no matter what they look like.

Ok, you are changing your argument, now you are describing basic baggy jeans with no designs? Is this your idea of a womens garment? My question is why would these be called female pants? Oh and to answer your question, I guess I would just have to see them. lol. They are either for a male or nobody. Certainly not for a female.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

Ok, you are changing your argument, now you are describing basic baggy jeans with no designs? Is this your idea of a womens garment? My question is why would these be called female pants? Oh and to answer your question, I guess I would just have to see them. lol. They are either for a male or nobody. Certainly not for a female.

I didn't change my argument. I am asking, and have been asking, if you would wear a pair of pants from the women's dept? A plain, simple, no designs pair of pants. And you know you wouldn't. Because they're not men's pants. You'd be wearing a woman's garment.




This was my original post:

NITW, would you wear a pair of women's jeans? Not ones with flowers, but plain ol' jeans? If not, why?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

I don't let the world dictate to me what I wear.

You do realize that it was the world who dictated that men start wearing pants? Jesus didn't wear them.

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

You do realize that it was the world who dictated that men start wearing pants? Jesus didn't wear them.

oh, you beat me to it!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

There is no such thing as a pair of womens britches (jeans, whatever). .

Why do you say that? Can you prove it? Is there such a thing as women's socks, underwear or shirts?

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

There is no such thing as a pair of womens britches (jeans, whatever). There are certain jeans I would not wear because they are tight fitting, the wrong color, or the wrong length. That is the problem, the devil has used the fashion industry to dress up something that belongs to a man and market it to a woman using colors women prefer, or designs women prefer. Sorry, but it is still a pair of pants that neither gender should wear. I don't let the world dictate to me what I wear.

Narrow Is The Way.... have you ever considered changing your name to "Narrow Is The Mind?" I think it would fit you better!

Been Thinkin

[Arphaxad]

weren't the britches , breeches, whatever they were called in ot times short pants? so why are short pants on men not allowed now? Because it shows too much skin? Didn't girding the loins show the same amount of skin?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

No no no no you have missed it again. It is referring to a male. A male warrior, a valiant MAN. That is the whole problem, you don't know the difference between a man and a woman. God made them different, but you are allowing for them to dress the same.

You are not even following through on your own logic. you pretended you always knew MAN in the verse you quoted meant WARRIOR or VALIANT man. Then you added the thought that MEN are in the fight for their souls to support your logic, which was simply grasping at straws to prove your point. So I pointed out the fallacy of your logic.

You said that MEN gird their loins, which is analogous to wearing pants, and not women. So, when you said MEN are in the fight for their souls, you implied several silly things.

(1) Since MEN fight for their souls...
(2) And since the verse speaking about MEN fighting for souls implies MEN wear pants...
(3) Then Women must not be fighting for their souls if they are not to gird up their loins.

For you to say God made man and woman differently is to change your whole argument of using this verse to prove women should not wear pants. You are becoming as confused and convoluted as that silly parable of confused bible stories I posted in the thread entitled "Can YOU answer this question? (Deep one)."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why do you say that? Can you prove it? Is there such a thing as women's socks, underwear or shirts?

He cannot prove it and no one can prove anything to him, because he has made himself believe Deut 22:5 is saying that only men wear PANTS, when he totally disregards the fact that CULTURE determined PANTS on men, not God (since God made man a robe in Genesis). He accepted the CULTURAL change from robes to pants for men, but think the same thing cannot happen for women, when culture clearly did say women wear pants, too. Had he lived in the day when robes changed over to pants for men, he would have bucked and said "NO, ROBES are for men." He begins from the standpoint of what is in fashion when he came into the world and sticks to that worldly fashion and somehow reasons God into it.