S
steveandersen
Guest
In some places of the world only
And even then the fashion for pants in the West is a fairly recent occurrence
Jesus probably never wore pants
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
And even then the fashion for pants in the West is a fairly recent occurrence
Jesus probably never wore pants
L
latinmasslover
Guest
It was made, as he was likely referring to civilized areas that don’t require one to go in the bush. I’ve been overseas quite a bit, as has my family, and he is right: the signs are there.And you appear to not have traveled very much; in many areas, the “bathroom” is a slit in the floor, and both men and women squat over that and do their business. The “bathrooms” are uni-sex.
Your point is not made.
S
Sure
Guest
otjm,It was made, as he was likely referring to civilized areas that don’t require one to go in the bush. I’ve been overseas quite a bit, as has my family, and he is right: the signs are there.
They’ve got you. Give up! It’s the old “infallible bathroom signs” argument!
hey Latinmasslover…Mary wore black (not white and blue) as was the jewish custom of the time should women today also only wear black?
B
bobzills
Guest
So you do agree that in some places of the world, that pants are men’s apparel. As can be easily seen from the fact that in those places of the world, if a lady is directed to an area for a restroom, and she sees two doors, one of which has a figure with pants, and the other of which has a figure with a skirt, then she will always choos the door with the figure with the skirt. This is true in at least, the whole western hemisphere and Europe. So pants are then men’s apparel in those areas. Now let’s see what Scripture says:In some places of the world only
And even then the fashion for pants in the West is a fairly recent occurrence
Deut 22:5
“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.”
What is the meaning of the term abomination, except that it is something quite seriously wrong?
L
latinmasslover
Guest
To clarify, I personally am opposed to pants more because of the anti-woman mentality behind it.Since he isn’t going to do that, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Church ahs been around 2000 years without issuing specifics as to style of dress. It will be around for a long time to come without the same.
You seem to have almost no understanding of moral law at all. The “world” as you say, has a tremendous difference, based on cultural norms, as to what is sexually provocative and what is not; just compare, for example, the cultural norms of say, an Eskimo with a native tribe in central Africa. So, as a matter of fact, the Church does not change the laws of modesty; what it does is say that modesty is in part a cultural issue (a point you seem unwilling or unable to recognize). It is not the clothes or lack thereof which defines modesty; it is in part cultural conditioning as to what is acceptible and what is not. One who went to central Africa and reacted to bare breasts as if the women were being sexually suggestive would be treated as someone who had very strange ideas b out sexual attraction, and one who had a major problem with lust. The problem would not be theirs, but rather the viewer’s who reacted inappropriately.
A
aurora77
Guest
How specifically are they anti-woman?To clarify, I personally am opposed to pants more because of the anti-woman mentality behind it.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Signs which, when present, are of course a late 20th century invention.…and he is right: the signs are there.
I’ll have to check the dates but they probably came after the feminists’ movement so using them as a sign of pre-feminist tradition is a little strange.
The older signs for the sexes (in the west at least) were ♀ and ♂ which are still used today in some places.
No pants or skirts there
B
bobzills
Guest
This is what is being talking about. The fact that pants are men’s apparel in the western hemisphere and in Europe in this day and age. And the fact that the Bible says that for women to wear men’s apparel is an abomination.Signs which, when present, are of course a late 20th century invention.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
What does that have to do with the quote of mine you gave? Dear, nobody is using bathrooms signs as infallible anything, simply as an observation. My comment was that the sign is if fact, as opposed to what otjm said, in other countries. If you’re going to make sarcastic comments in your own Christian way, please let it match the post you’re mocking.otjm,
They’ve got you. Give up! It’s the old “infallible bathroom signs” argument!
hey Latinmasslover…Mary wore black (not white and blue) as was the jewish custom of the time should women today also only wear black?
E
estesbob
Guest
Well my mom wore pants and I obviously like girls so that pretty much blows your theory apart doesn’t it?Well, anyone serious about modesty now knows not to consider your opinion, that you’re just a “typical guy” as the phrase go. Thank you for the clarification.
E
estesbob
Guest
Only if they’re chasing space aliens.otjm,
They’ve got you. Give up! It’s the old “infallible bathroom signs” argument!
hey Latinmasslover…Mary wore black (not white and blue) as was the jewish custom of the time should women today also only wear black?
L
latinmasslover
Guest
It makes the “man’s world” more available to women. This mentality as wrong as it suggests that a woman is nothing unless she does what a man does. There’s no pride these days in being a woman, a feminine woman. A woman these days, to get any respect in the eyes of the world, has to be very manly.How specifically are they anti-woman?
L
latinmasslover
Guest
There’s that Christian mockery we all find so appealing.Only if they’re chasing space aliens.
E
estesbob
Guest
My wife , my mother and my daughters would strongly disagree with you.It makes the “man’s world” more available to women. This mentality as wrong as it suggests that a woman is nothing unless she does what a man does. There’s no pride these days in being a woman, a feminine woman. A woman these days, to get any respect in the eyes of the world, has to be very manly.
E
estesbob
Guest
I take you didn’t see the movie? Come to think of at the woman in that movie did wear pants. However the guy wearing pants got eaten by a space monster. Perhaps there’s a message there?There’s that Christian mockery we all find so appealing.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
My mother wore pants and I love men? You, though…from what you say it seems like the better phrase would be: I obviously **lust **after girls. I’m basing this on your comment (among others) on your post regarding Rosie and Nicole.Well my mom wore pants and I obviously like girls so that pretty much blows your theory apart doesn’t it?
S
steveandersen
Guest
They were exclusively men’s apparel in very limited areas for relatively short periods of time.So you do agree that in some places of the world, that pants are men’s apparel.
In other areas both sexes wore similar pieces of clothing
So making a broad rule out of a transient fashion appears to be problematic.
A more appropriate question is what is the meaning of men’s and women’s apparel?…
“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.”
What is the meaning of the term abomination, except that it is something quite seriously wrong?
Since several people have already shown that fashion and styles of dress have varied widely throughout time and geography
In the area and time the verse that you quoted was written what was considered men’s or woman’s apparel?
Would you wear that now?
Why?
If you aren’t wearing sandals, a robe, and a head covering are you abominable?
Just as Peter told us when the old dietary laws were lifted, it is what is inside you that make you abominable not what is on the outside.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
That’s nice. Many people like to argue fact. Anyway, what does this post prove? Many women, and men (gentlemen) disagree with you and your family.My wife , my mother and my daughters would strongly disagree with you.
A
aurora77
Guest
I’m not sure where you’re living or what company you keep, but I couldn’t disagree with you more. Can you please prove that women have to be men in order to be respected? This certainly hasn’t been my experience in my church, my family, my job, or my community.It makes the “man’s world” more available to women. This mentality as wrong as it suggests that a woman is nothing unless she does what a man does. There’s no pride these days in being a woman, a feminine woman. A woman these days, to get any respect in the eyes of the world, has to be very manly.
Also, how do you define “man’s world” and how should women keep from entering into it? Are there certain things men are allowed to do that women are not? For example, the bishop mentioned skiing and home repair, among others. Do you feel that these are men only activities? A woman should not paint walls in her home or mow the lawn, because this can be construed as “home repair,” therefore men’s work?
F
First_of_9
Guest
According to some posters on proper Mass attire, ***wearing sandals and men wearing a robe *** to Mass would be wrong.If you aren’t wearing sandals, a robe, and a head covering are you abominable?
Chacun a son (or sa) gout.
BTW, Should Vietnamese women give up the traditional ao ba ba and start wearing just dresses?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.