Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identity in

[Aquila]

Very good information. Amen.

[Pressing-On]

Excellent thread! Thanks, Dimples! Liked what Legalist had to say also!

[OilCityCajun]

All I see here is further support for the traditional values forbidding women to wear pants.

Women began wearing pants in America as part of the women's lib movement, seeking to compete with men in traditional men's roles and rejecting traditional women's roles. It may not be erotic transvestitism, but it certainly is rebellion against God's intended purpose.

As to Pentecostal traditions, I am sure they are few and far between , but I do recall hearing a UPC evangelist (I dont recall who, specifically) mention that "women's pants" began with a spirit of rebellious transvestitism and is motivated by the same spirit still today.

I am not sure I would take it to that extreme, accusing all women who wear pants of rebellion and transvestitism, but I do believe many lend themselves to that spirit out of ignorance, rather than intentionally.

Now, please don't misunderstand. I have no issue with women who work outside the home. Certainly, in these days it is almost impossible for a household to remain financially solvent otherwise. However, I think anyone with a "no preacher is going to tell me how to dress" attitude needs to do a bit of soul searching. I also think many families should carefully analyze their lifestyles, incomes, and expenses. Many women who once felt they had to work to make ends meet soon discovered they werent really contributing anything to the bottom line because all their income went to daycare for the child(ren).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

All I see here is further support for the traditional values forbidding women to wear pants.

Women began wearing pants in America as part of the women's lib movement, seeking to compete with men in traditional men's roles and rejecting traditional women's roles. It may not be erotic transvestitism, but it certainly is rebellion against God's intended purpose.

As to Pentecostal traditions, I am sure they are few and far between , but I do recall hearing a UPC evangelist (I dont recall who, specifically) mention that "women's pants" began with a spirit of rebellious transvestitism and is motivated by the same spirit still today.

I am not sure I would take it to that extreme, accusing all women who wear pants of rebellion and transvestitism, but I do believe many lend themselves to that spirit out of ignorance, rather than intentionally.

Now, please don't misunderstand. I have no issue with women who work outside the home. Certainly, in these days it is almost impossible for a household to remain financially solvent otherwise. However, I think anyone with a "no preacher is going to tell me how to dress" attitude needs to do a bit of soul searching. I also think many families should carefully analyze their lifestyles, incomes, and expenses. Many women who once felt they had to work to make ends meet soon discovered they werent really contributing anything to the bottom line because all their income went to daycare for the child(ren).

I think that anyone who would project an attitude of "no preacher is going to tell me how to dress" upon folks who have never even considered such a thing nor even been exposed to an environment where anybody told them how to dress but their own mother needs to do a bit of soul searching himself.

Women in ancient and primitive cultures wore "skirts" for a variety of reasons - often the same reasons men wore "skirts" as well. It was the barbarian horse riding cultures from northern latitudes who introduced "pants." The versatility and especially, the modesty, that pants afford caught on like wildfire.

If modesty is a primary concern for any culture or subculture, clothing both genders in slacks or "pants" is a no-brainer. Unless of course if your subculture has no brains to begin with; then you have other problems.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

All I see here is further support for the traditional values forbidding women to wear pants.

Women began wearing pants in America as part of the women's lib movement, seeking to compete with men in traditional men's roles and rejecting traditional women's roles. It may not be erotic transvestitism, but it certainly is rebellion against God's intended purpose.

As to Pentecostal traditions, I am sure they are few and far between , but I do recall hearing a UPC evangelist (I dont recall who, specifically) mention that "women's pants" began with a spirit of rebellious transvestitism and is motivated by the same spirit still today.

I am not sure I would take it to that extreme, accusing all women who wear pants of rebellion and transvestitism, but I do believe many lend themselves to that spirit out of ignorance, rather than intentionally.

Now, please don't misunderstand. I have no issue with women who work outside the home. Certainly, in these days it is almost impossible for a household to remain financially solvent otherwise. However, I think anyone with a "no preacher is going to tell me how to dress" attitude needs to do a bit of soul searching. I also think many families should carefully analyze their lifestyles, incomes, and expenses. Many women who once felt they had to work to make ends meet soon discovered they werent really contributing anything to the bottom line because all their income went to daycare for the child(ren).

If you are truly interested, the beginnings of "women wearing pants" was seen in the WWII when, as a result of many American men being at war, women began working in factories. In these environments dresses, and skirts, were a danger because they could be caught in machinery. So women wore men's pants while working. Working for less money and benefits; and facing sexual harrasment on the job ignited the women's liberation movement which began with sufferage.

So one could argue that women working is the root cause of this "evil" (if you believe it to be so).

[Aquila]

Interpreting this in relation to cross dressing and perversion makes far more sense.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Interpreting this in relation to cross dressing and perversion makes far more sense.

well of course but the line is drawn FOR DISTINCTION period in relation to presentment. You can't say oh it's cross dressing in extremes while ignoring the normal daily aspects. That's nonsensical and poor application. This is about DAILY LIFE! Distinction in life of what to do. In general there should not be a blending of styles but distinction. Not oh well as long as each man or women doesn't get extreme... The base line for extreme would be? Does that make the middle acceptable? OF COURSE NOT and to say so makes the application of normal daily wear of the text absurd because you are saying both sides can meet in the middle which negates distinction in the first place! To argue only against extremes is to magnify blending of daily styles as acceptable and it's not. You can't say say only extremes and act like that doesn't make the normal daily life wear a total contradiction to the text.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

well of course but the line is drawn FOR DISTINCTION period in relation to presentment. You can't say oh it's cross dressing in extremes while ignoring the normal daily aspects. That's nonsensical and poor application. This is about DAILY LIFE! Distinction in life of what to do. In general there should not be a blending of styles but distinction. Not oh well as long as each man or women doesn't get extreme... The base line for extreme would be? Does that make the middle acceptable? OF COURSE NOT and makes the application of normal daily wear of the text absurd! To argue only against extremes is to magnify blending of styles as acceptable and it's not.

Wearing "women's pants" is not cross dressing and is very distinct from men's pants.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Wearing "women's pants" is not cross dressing and is very distinct from men's pants.

currently I am not arguing direct application on this. I am dealing with the meaning of the text and the general principle logic it demands. Concerning application that's your opinion on application and I respect that whether I agree with it or not.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

well of course but the line is drawn FOR DISTINCTION period in relation to presentment. You can't say oh it's cross dressing in extremes while ignoring the normal daily aspects. That's nonsensical and poor application. This is about DAILY LIFE! Distinction in life of what to do. In general there should not be a blending of styles but distinction. Not oh well as long as each man or women doesn't get extreme... The base line for extreme would be? Does that make the middle acceptable? OF COURSE NOT and makes the application of normal daily wear of the text absurd! To argue only against extremes is to magnify blending of styles as acceptable and it's not.

What about all the pagan things that surround us? Wedding rings, most holidays, days of the week, church on Sunday, etc, etc. (Most) of us still participate in many things which were created by and for pagans, but we do not participate in the pagan aspect.