Women forbidden to wear pants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aball1035

Guest
“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.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?
 
aball1035 said:
“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.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?
Click to expand...
In many cultures pants are women’s apparel, besides dresses and skirts and blouses.

I think if a woman wore a man’s pants, jacket, shirt and tie, that would be wearing men’s apparel.
 
aball1035 said:
“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.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?
Click to expand...
I would suggest that one would need to define what "men and women’s apparel is.

When this was written apparel was quite different than what it is today.
In fact, when this was written I don’t think anybody wore [pants].

Peace
James
 
bigfootbob said:
Don’t forget about Kilts. 😃
Click to expand...
Women don’t wear kilts.

If you are suggesting that a kilt is a skirt, you will have several very angry Scots keen to show you just how sharp a claymore is… :knight2:

😃
 
Men and women cloths were almost identical. It is from this passage that it was realized that there were differences.

As someone else pointed out, pants are not a man’s apparrel. The scripture was not specifying pants but that a man shouldn’t try to be a woman nor a woman try to be a man.
 
Before making the assumption that this passage means that women shouldn’t wear pants, think about the time that this was written. NOBODY wore pants back then. 😃
 
Yes, but they might have not worn dresses either, but that doesn’t mean men should do it
 
Right. From what I understand, Israel, Greece, Rome, etc. (The ‘civilized’ world) wore robes AKA chitons, togas, tunics, etc.

Now the styles of a man’s ‘clothing’ were different from that of a woman. Sometimes it was the way the fabric was draped, or wrapped, or the color, or the length, or the accessories that were worn, or the way the hair was styled; but it was distinct. Men and women are different (vive la difference) and while both men and women often did the same ‘jobs’ so to speak (farming, fishing, weaving etc.) they were very distinctively men and women.

Now the 1970s for example, as I well recall, was an era of very androgenous dressing. After the 1960s with miniskirts and really twiggy girls and shaggy guys, the 1970s were ‘jeans and t-shirt’, hair long for men, long for women, usually straight except for the horror years of the male ‘fro’ (especially laughmaking on white males and good for snickers everytime I show my high school yearbook photos of the guys in my class!). A lot of people today either lived through those times or their parents did, and a lot of those parents never ‘grew out of’ jeans and T’s, ‘natural’ hair, ball caps, bongs. . .(bleah).

Still I would rather see a woman in the jeans and T than in some of the godawful styles for young girls --and I mean young, right down to infant and toddler-- with skimpy, sleazy, hypersexualized style, color, WORDS etc. I don’t care how ‘PINK" it is, how many beads and feminine ‘trappings’ it has, a shirt for a 6 year old has no business being see-through, proclaiming, “I’m too sexy for you”, or looking like something shrunk from one of the Desperate Housewives’ dryers and palmed off on the kids. . .

It WOULD be nice to see people care enough for themselves, for others, and above all for God, and try to dress with dignity, decorum, modesty, prudence, frugality, and an eye for true, modest, lasting and godly beauty of form and function. . .
 
aball1035 said:
“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.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?
Click to expand...
The Hebrew meaning is “a man’s item shall not be on a woman” and “a man shall not wear a woman’s garment.” The fact that the first admonition uses a different Hebrew word for clothing compared to the second and that the first statement is a passive sentence construction while the second is active have elicited diverse interpretations among the Jewish sages. It is thought by some that the first statement refers specifically to religious articles of clothing, in particular prayer shawls, which women are forbidden to wear. This restriction itself has been contested within Judaism. Others have interpreted the first abomination with respect to a woman disguised as a man for the purpose of committing adultery. The cross-dressing warning seems to apply only to men (the same is true for male homosexuality in that female homosexuality is not explicitly forbidden in the Torah). The term “abomination” also has three meanings in Hebrew scripture, ranging from the most abominable to lesser degrees of abhorrence.
 
I’m just spit-balling here, but at the time, wouldn’t it have been normal for a woman to keep her head covered in public while a man would go about bare headed?
This could have to do with the idea of women remaining “pure” and “hidden” and not “Brazen”, while men should NOT hide, but be readily identifiable, honest and open and not hiding behind a hood or veil…

Maybe…🤷

Peace
James
 
aball1035 said:
“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.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?
Click to expand...
No, nor is it a good idea to cite Bible without considering their context. Deuteronomy 22 is part of the so-called Deuteronomic Code, which was intended to govern the early Israelites.It is not binding on Christians (or most Jews, for that matter.) The code, specifically chapter 22 is full of dictates which we would consider odd, if not unjust, today. For example, it forbids wearing clothing made out of a polyester and cotton blend (mixing two different fibers together) or forcing a raped woman to marry her rapist.

Pulling one verse out of Deut. 22 and saying it is binding, while dismissing the rest of the chapter, simply can’t be justified.
 
A little bit of info.The kilt as seen in parades is really a very formal version of the kilt.Originally the kilt was used as a portable blanket or coat ,which could be used at night as protection from cold ,during the day it was pleated and tied round the waist.The original and ancient tartans obviously signified the separate clans or families .today anybody can apply for a tartan but they are not authentic as the tartan "skirts " sold at many gatherings around the US and Canada do not qualify as kilts
 
aball1035 said:
“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.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?
Click to expand...
I think its funny that whoever brings this up always brings up womans pants ! Instead of the obvious transvestitism for both sexes
 
juliamajor said:
I think its funny that whoever brings this up always brings up womans pants ! Instead of the obvious transvestitism for both sexes
Click to expand...
One night I had dinner on a balcony over Bourbon Street in New Orleans, after a technical conference. Got to see plenty of that – across the street was a club where a guy out front held up a sign “boys will be girls.” Some of the performers came out in costume, even. :eek:

Alan
 
AlanFromWichita said:
One night I had dinner on a balcony over Bourbon Street in New Orleans, after a technical conference. Got to see plenty of that – across the street was a club where a guy out front held up a sign “boys will be girls.” Some of the performers came out in costume, even. :eek:

Alan
Click to expand...
That’s the point of the whole passage, not whether woman should wear pants or whether men shouldn’t wear kilts.

Cross dressing to cause someone of the same sex to be attracted to you is a sin. That’s the point.

Dale_M makes the point that the prohibition against cross dressing was part of the mosaic law. Many of the statuetes in the Law of Moses were designed to protect the Israelites against the practices of the pagan nations around them. Boy prostitutes in the pagan temples, homosexual orgies, incest, and even child sacrifice - these were common practices among the pagan nations.

No Christian in his right mind would cross dress with the intent of soliciting homosexual sex.

-Tim-
 
aball1035 said:
“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.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?
Click to expand...
St. Paul is speaking of men’s apparel of the day, which by the way, was not pants for men either.
In today’s world, we can say a woman who wears clothing designed** only for men**, cutting one’s hair into a man’s style, basically denying her feminity and/or passing herself off as a man,

Now this is not refering to a woman, who for example, wears a game-tee to a ballgame or jeans and an old flannel when doing yard work, looking at her you still know she is a woman.

A man who dons a dress or ladies pant suit and makes himself look womanly is the same.

But on the same token in societies where dress/kilt/skirt are** respectfully** accepted, this is not a man hiding his masculinity, but following socitey norms.

Besides, those men in kilts hardly look feminine;)😃
 
aball1035 said:
“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.” Deut 22:5

Does this mean it’s abominable for women to wear pants?
Click to expand...
if you take this literally it also means modern men should be dressing as men did in biblical times, with precisely the same garments, fabrics and construction. no tighty whities, that’s for sure
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top