Why is cross-dressing a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
If you are acting or infiltrating you are not cross-dressing. That is not what cross dressing means.
A cross dresser is a transvestite and that is an abomination to God.

Deut 22:5 "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.
Click to expand...
That passage does not address the motive for wearing clothes of the opposite sex. It says “shall not” and “nor shall”. Those phrases don’t leave any room for interpretation based on motive. It doesn’t say “unless you are acting or infiltrating”.

So based on Deut 22:5 alone I don’t see how crossdressing in any form is allowable.

Reason tells me something else. I see it as an extension of the idea that it’s not what we put into our bodies that defiles us, it’s what comes out of our hearts. Likewise, what we put on our bodies is not the issue. The issue is why we are putting those things on our body. God doesn’t judge by what’s on the outside, but what is on the inside.

If the purpose is for non-biblical sexual activity, then it is a problem. If you are doing it to deceive someone for your own advantage, that’s a problem. However, if the purpose is to perform a role in a play, for the purposes of comedy, or just because you like it, I don’t see how that is a problem.

Then you have St. Joan of Arc. She obviously violated Deut 22:5, yet she is canonized.

It would be nice to read some thoughtful responses instead of knee-jerk reactions to a single verse of scripture. What is the official Catholic teaching on the issue?
 
St. Joan of Arc’s wearing of clothing reserved for men came up at her canonization, and I read, that she qualified for one of the exceptions to the rule.

‘. . . it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice-versa; especially since this may be the cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deut 22). Nevertheless this may be done at times on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some other such reason.’

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church

In other words, extraordinary situations can cause one to have a temporary and singular exception to the rule. Acts of God, serious danger, etc. These -exceptions- do not -break-, or serve as an example for everyone to thenceforth -break- the law. 🙂 However much some people wish they did. . .
 
But Aquinas’s teaching doesn’t adhere to Duet 22:5 🙂

Which should take precedence?

Aquinas is appealing to motive, but he doesn’t go so far as to say it’s OK in the case of acting or comedy.
 
Obviously Deuteronomy. However…

St. Thomas clarifies it, Deuteronomy 22:5 is a brief statement which does not go in depth or detail.
 
Acting or comedy would not be sufficient reason I would think.

We’re talking about dangers that produce exceptions, rather than hmm… so-called entertainment.
 
Sonic said:
Are these rhetorical questions, or are you disputing something I said? I thought I was supporting your position.
Click to expand...
rhetorical, I meant to post reply instead. But my son was talking to me and I wasn’t paying attention.
 
Shin said:
‘. . . it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice-versa; especially since this may be the cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deut 22). Nevertheless this may be done at times on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some other such reason.’

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
Click to expand...
Was Aquinas sitting in the chair of the Pope and speaking ex cathedra when he wrote that? If not, where did he derive the authority to attach exceptions to Duet 22:5?

What about the catechism? Does it have anything to say?
 
thistle said:
If you are acting or infiltrating you are not cross-dressing. That is not what cross dressing means.
A cross dresser is a transvestite and that is an abomination to God.

Deut 22:5 "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow your argument. the Deuteronomy quote would seem to rule out all dressing as the opposite sex, making no allowances for special reasons.

In ancient times and even in Shakespeare’s day, the acting profession was considered inappropriate for women and so female parts were played by men.

Did the Church ever condemn that?
 
PLeeD said:
That passage does not address the motive for wearing clothes of the opposite sex. It says “shall not” and “nor shall”. Those phrases don’t leave any room for interpretation based on motive. It doesn’t say “unless you are acting or infiltrating”.

So based on Deut 22:5 alone I don’t see how crossdressing in any form is allowable.

Reason tells me something else. I see it as an extension of the idea that it’s not what we put into our bodies that defiles us, it’s what comes out of our hearts. Likewise, what we put on our bodies is not the issue. The issue is why we are putting those things on our body. God doesn’t judge by what’s on the outside, but what is on the inside.

If the purpose is for non-biblical sexual activity, then it is a problem. If you are doing it to deceive someone for your own advantage, that’s a problem. However, if the purpose is to perform a role in a play, for the purposes of comedy, or just because you like it, I don’t see how that is a problem.

Then you have St. Joan of Arc. She obviously violated Deut 22:5, yet she is canonized.

It would be nice to read some thoughtful responses instead of knee-jerk reactions to a single verse of scripture. What is the official Catholic teaching on the issue?
Click to expand...
Clothing is morally and physically neutral. Clothing itself cannot be “evil” or “good”. Therefore, the act of wearing clothing is, by itself, morally neutral. What one does while wearing the clothing, “the intent”, may be sinful depending on the intention of the person wearing the clothes and their objective.

For example, a ski mask is not “evil” or “good” by itself. If one puts on a ski mask, it is not necessarily a sin. If one wears it outside where it is cold and snowy, it is worn for protection. Therefore, it is a good thing to wear a ski mask to keep oneself healthy. However, if a person puts on a ski mask and then robs a bank, the wearing of the ski mask is sinful becauset it disguises one’s identity to commit an evil.

If one refuses to examine the context of the act allowing for no exceptions, since the wearing of a ski mask can be and is sometimes used to commit sinful, evil actions, then logically the wearing of a ski mask must always be sinful, no matter what the reason or no matter how cold it is outside.

One has to be very careful about trying to read too much into this particular verse. There are many men and women today who look at Deut 22:5 by itself and think that women who wear blue jeans* for any reason* are going to burn in hell because they are an abomination to God. However, this is an incorrect way of reading the Bible for us Catholics. We cannot take a single verse, any verse, from the Bible and interpret it without looking at the Bible as a whole. That is why there is no official Catholic Church teaching on this one narrow issue.

If one examines this verse in the context of the entire Bible, which one of the Ten Commandments would this relate to? How about the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels? How about other verses mentioning “abomination”? Many of these abominations are sexual in nature. Could this have been written with only a sexual context in mind?
 
RichP said:
Clothing is morally and physically neutral. Clothing itself cannot be “evil” or “good”. Therefore, the act of wearing clothing is, by itself, morally neutral. What one does while wearing the clothing, “the intent”, may be sinful depending on the intention of the person wearing the clothes and their objective.

For example, a ski mask is not “evil” or “good” by itself. If one puts on a ski mask, it is not necessarily a sin. If one wears it outside where it is cold and snowy, it is worn for protection. Therefore, it is a good thing to wear a ski mask to keep oneself healthy. However, if a person puts on a ski mask and then robs a bank, the wearing of the ski mask is sinful becauset it disguises one’s identity to commit an evil.

If one refuses to examine the context of the act allowing for no exceptions, since the wearing of a ski mask can be and is sometimes used to commit sinful, evil actions, then logically the wearing of a ski mask must always be sinful, no matter what the reason or no matter how cold it is outside.

One has to be very careful about trying to read too much into this particular verse. There are many men and women today who look at Deut 22:5 by itself and think that women who wear blue jeans* for any reason* are going to burn in hell because they are an abomination to God. However, this is an incorrect way of reading the Bible for us Catholics. We cannot take a single verse, any verse, from the Bible and interpret it without looking at the Bible as a whole. That is why there is no official Catholic Church teaching on this one narrow issue.

If one examines this verse in the context of the entire Bible, which one of the Ten Commandments would this relate to? How about the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels? How about other verses mentioning “abomination”? Many of these abominations are sexual in nature. Could this have been written with only a sexual context in mind?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your level headed approach, The Bible is full of content that we do not follow literally, for example Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off …
I believe our Father is looking at our heart to see if it is an act of love (which only He can determine).
Everything we do will be judged by the following:

Matthew 22:37-40
37
He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
39
The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40
24 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
 
WHY is the person cross-dressing in the first place? Is it for sexual gratification? Then that is a sin. If it is because they have gender disorder, then that may not be a sin. I think it really depends on why someone is doing this before you can determine if it is sinful or not.

~Liza
 
You know, I hate to bring up dead topics, but I’m recently interested to know if one can cross-dress in order to infiltrate a place (maybe to save someone). So basically is the FF7 Cloud-has-to-dress-like-a-girl-to-save-friend-from-pimp-scenario morally praiseworthy or bad?
 
This is silly. Fashion changes all the time. When women started wearing pants it was considered cross-dressing and now it’s normal. Some men’s shirts look like women’s blouses. So where is the line? Women sometimes wear a men’s oxford with a tie and hat. As long as you’re not like the dude in Silence of the Lambs, who cares?
 
well I think that moderation has to be observed in dress and since moderation probably follows closely with reason, then obviously men’s and women’s clothes should never intermingle for the reason that men are obviously different from women. But there are certain cases where the action (at least) of wearing different clothes can be dispensed with. These are to avoid danger, if you have no more clothes, and for similar reasons.

But going back to infiltration, most infiltrating is dangerous so I wonder, if you know there is a strong reason for avoiding danger can infiltrating be one and can you then, cross-dress to do this -it seems to make sense.

Any thoughts?
 
fakename said:
well I think that moderation has to be observed in dress and since moderation probably follows closely with reason, then obviously men’s and women’s clothes should never intermingle for the reason that men are obviously different from women. But there are certain cases where the action (at least) of wearing different clothes can be dispensed with. These are to avoid danger, if you have no more clothes, and for similar reasons.

But going back to infiltration, most infiltrating is dangerous so I wonder, if you know there is a strong reason for avoiding danger can infiltrating be one and can you then, cross-dress to do this -it seems to make sense.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Of course you can. You’re not dressing up to get off or anything, you would be doing it to help another person.
 
fakename said:
You know, I hate to bring up dead topics, but I’m recently interested to know if one can cross-dress in order to infiltrate a place (maybe to save someone). So basically is the FF7 Cloud-has-to-dress-like-a-girl-to-save-friend-from-pimp-scenario morally praiseworthy or bad?
Click to expand...
Funny how you mention FF7 because I know a lot of cosplayers. They do this thing called ‘cross-playing’ where they dress up as characters of the opposite gender. Personally, when I see a guy do it, it kinda weirds me out but that’s just it. I actually find it cool when girl does it (and seriously, some guy characters really look more bishie when it’s a girl cosplaying them >_>;; ).

So what do we have here? They don’t really dress to ‘get off’ as much as they do it for artistic reasons (cosplay is pretty much just a fan-based form of costume design). It’s not an ‘extraordinary situation’ either though so is it a sin?

Me thinks not. ‘Getting off’ seemed the only rationale why people would deem it sinful. You take that out of the picture, then it wouldn’t make sense would it? 😛
 
Thoughtfulone said:
This is silly. Fashion changes all the time. When women started wearing pants it was considered cross-dressing and now it’s normal. Some men’s shirts look like women’s blouses. So where is the line? Women sometimes wear a men’s oxford with a tie and hat. As long as you’re not like the dude in Silence of the Lambs, who cares?
Click to expand...
It’s not silly, it’s dead serious. I know someone who was (is?) a cross dresser, and it completely destroyed his marriage. Cross dressing - dressing up TO LOOK LIKE a woman. Not wearing the styles of the day that maybe lean toward the male or female traditional. I’m talking about putting on silk panties, lipstick, high heels. THAT is cross dressing. Not a woman wearing an oxford shirt.

Who cares? The people who are impacted by such a person, they care.

~Liza
 
lizaanne said:
It’s not silly, it’s dead serious. I know someone who was (is?) a cross dresser, and it completely destroyed his marriage.
Click to expand...
What were the circumstances? Was it something he was hiding from his wife? Did he get arrested on a streetcorner or something?
 
I saw a lady in a mouse costume at one of those kiddy arcades. The mouse character was a male. Clearly, she deserves to burn in hell.
 
I mean, lets face it. There is a huge, fuzzy gray line when it comes to the question “Is cross-dressing a sin?”

For the marriages that have failed because of cross-dressing, could it not have been from the lying and sneaking around that made the marriage sour? I mean, we really don’t know. So you can’t really state for a fact that cross-dressing = end of a marriage. I’m sure if both partners were aware of the cross-dressing, and decided to get married then it may not be as big of a deal to them.

Neither can you say it is because the person is homosexual. That implies that the person is committing the act of sexual relations with another person of the same sex. Cross-dressing does not imply that, it could go either way. Could a cross-dresser be a homosexual? Yes. Could they be a heterosexual? Yes.

And you can’t say that just wearing clothes of the opposite sex (based on the society you live in) is “cross-dressing”. As people have said, just because a woman wears pants, doesn’t make her a cross-dresser. However, there are some 90 year old men that may think otherwise. Styles change and adapt as time moves on. Clothing choices change. Just because it isn’t the norm, doesn’t make it a sin.

Now, if you are wearing different clothes because you are conflicted internally and are using your clothing choices as a way to lie to others, or de-value yourself, or some other negative reason than yes you are sinning. But not because you are wearing different clothes. Because of WHY you are wearing those clothes.

In short, you know why you are cross-dressing, and you know if it is wrong or if it’s right to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top