Jump to content
IGNORED

Split... "Womanhood" - Pants


wingnut-

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  39
  • Topic Count:  101
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  7,674
  • Content Per Day:  1.27
  • Reputation:   7,361
  • Days Won:  67
  • Joined:  04/22/2008
  • Status:  Offline

I thought I did answer you. How did you come to the conclusion that women shouldn't wear suits? How did Sevenseas come to the conclusion jeans and slacks are ok for women, but not trousers? I am saying that pants pertain to a man. That would include jeans. How did anyone conclude dresses pertain to a woman? Why is it that the universal symbol for a man shows someone in pants, and the universal symbol for women shows someone in a dress? The pants pertain to the man, and the dress pertains to the woman. Why do the ladies at Concerned Women For America feel the need to attack a book that depicts a little boy in a skirt as promoting the practice of dressing in clothing typically worn by members of the opposite sex?

Even people in the world often recognize that women are dressing like men, but they are scared to say it, except in passing. I have heard Rush Limbaugh mention it a couple of times. You will see references to it on "The Beverly Hillbillies," where Jed recognizes that he has been dressing Elly Mae up like a boy from her youth. I read a book sometime ago, where people thought it was a novelty to see women who worked in a factory dressed like men. You see references to it on shows like "Dick Van Dyke," where the husband is bothered by his wife wearing pants when he is feeling less than a man. Why is that? Because it is a sign of authority in the home. It is clear for anyone to see, but women don't want to admit it because they are more comfortable in pants, and men won't say anything because they don't want to anger women. You also have the fact that men can get brownie points by defending women in pants. I often wonder how much mileage some at WB get by telling their wives how they defended them against the caveman named Butero at WB? My position is that pants pertain to a man, and dresses pertain to a woman.

No, you still haven't addressed the questions I asked other than one, and answering a question with a question isn't really answering is it? I will answer yours though, I think a suit is not gender neutral, just as a dress is not. As far as jeans, they are made for both men and women, and your view of "universal" is inaccurate, this is an issue for western culture and does not span the globe. We see above comments from other cultures that jeans are not part of the attire for either gender.

My original point is that if in the history of jeans they were ever thought of as male only clothing it was men who decided it, just like they decided to saddle women with dresses. What man decides is not a violation of what God decides, and I honestly don't think He cares if a woman wears jeans. Is the bible not consistent in pointing out that God looks inward and it is man that gets hung up on the outward appearance?

I'm still interested in hearing your replies to my original questions regarding career women and what Paul had to say about remaining single. For the record, I don't think you're a caveman, nor do I feel the need to attack your character behind your back. I think you're a good guy with good intentions, I just don't agree with you on this matter. Mostly because you apply terms like "universal" to your personal view, and clearly it is not universal, the universe does not revolve around our culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  5.93
  • Reputation:   9,978
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

On the flip side, when you have a woman in pants, she loses her femininity

Note: This is a personal opinion.

and there are a lot of times I don't know if I am looking at a man or a woman when they are walking down the street until I can see their face.

I can only think of two, maybe three times, I saw someone whom I could not tell was a male or female. Very odd that this is a common occurrence for you.

I have to agree; I almost never see a person in pants whose gender is not obvious. In fact I really only remember a couple of times in my whole life.

well I have to tell on myself... well I don't have to but it is truth and humiliating so why not :happyhappy:

One of the most beautiful woman I ever saw ... wasn't :( and I was a Marine oooooooh raaaaaah ...

Oh no! But that had to be a man deliberately making himself up as a woman....right? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  5.93
  • Reputation:   9,978
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

I thought I did answer you. How did you come to the conclusion that women shouldn't wear suits? How did Sevenseas come to the conclusion jeans and slacks are ok for women, but not trousers? I am saying that pants pertain to a man. That would include jeans. How did anyone conclude dresses pertain to a woman? Why is it that the universal symbol for a man shows someone in pants, and the universal symbol for women shows someone in a dress? The pants pertain to the man, and the dress pertains to the woman. Why do the ladies at Concerned Women For America feel the need to attack a book that depicts a little boy in a skirt as promoting the practice of dressing in clothing typically worn by members of the opposite sex?

Even people in the world often recognize that women are dressing like men, but they are scared to say it, except in passing. I have heard Rush Limbaugh mention it a couple of times. You will see references to it on "The Beverly Hillbillies," where Jed recognizes that he has been dressing Elly Mae up like a boy from her youth. I read a book sometime ago, where people thought it was a novelty to see women who worked in a factory dressed like men. You see references to it on shows like "Dick Van Dyke," where the husband is bothered by his wife wearing pants when he is feeling less than a man. Why is that? Because it is a sign of authority in the home. It is clear for anyone to see, but women don't want to admit it because they are more comfortable in pants, and men won't say anything because they don't want to anger women. You also have the fact that men can get brownie points by defending women in pants. I often wonder how much mileage some at WB get by telling their wives how they defended them against the caveman named Butero at WB? My position is that pants pertain to a man, and dresses pertain to a woman.

Oh come on, Butero, I'm sure no one thinks you're a caveman because you have your own strong opinions about this. I also believe that dressing up as the opposite sex with the intent to deceive is a sin; just wearing certain clothing for comfort and to preserve one's modesty is not. As for men wearing dresses, I think it's MEN who are not really supportive of that as a rule. I don't know even ONE guy who would wear one or be seen with other men who wear them. I do have to admit that I would fall down laughing if I saw a man in a skirt and heels though. :laughing: In that instance, the guy would have to be trying to deceive because, to my knowledge, their are NO companies that make skirts, dresses or high heeled shoes for men. :lightbulb2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  30
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,373
  • Content Per Day:  0.73
  • Reputation:   683
  • Days Won:  22
  • Joined:  02/28/2012
  • Status:  Offline

How did Sevenseas come to the conclusion jeans and slacks are ok for women, but not trousers?

I grew up normal and unlike people with multiple hangups who confuse grace and the law, I have no problem with being normal. I imagine if I had been born a few hundred

years ago, I would be wearing a bodice so tight it would choke me, attached to a hoop skirt so big it would knock people over, in which case I could, with intent, aim myself

at someone and accidentally run them over while chuckling to myself. I would also be wearing a huge powdered white wig that could be used as a battering ram should the

hoop skirt fail.

In the meantime, here's a lovely man in a lovely skirt. My first serious boyfriend was Scottish and he looked grand in an outfit like this one. You have to have nice legs of course.

2268334418_67ac901ef5_o_zps6625b1cf.jpg

Anyone with a noodle of common sense, does not make an issue of things that are non sequitors...such as a man showing up in a dress. If someone wants to view a man in a dress, they

can always go to a drag show in Vegas...the likelihood of a man wearing a dress in public while driving a bus or delivering mail or changing your car's oil, is ridiculous....

If a man thinks it is unfair for women to wear slacks or jeans AND dresses, I have no problem with him going to Sears and finding one that suits his complexion. Instead of whining

about it, get thee to a store and buy yourself a couple of outfits. I promise not to laugh. You might even start a new trend and become famous.

If an individual says they consistently cannot tell a woman in slacks from a man in trousers, then I have a problem believing that is actually so. If it IS true, then my advice would be to

stay off the roads...you are a hazard and should not be driving. Please do not hunt either...farmers will not appreciate you shooting their cows and exclaiming "I thought it was a deer."

On the other hand, if you are married, does it matter?

Even people in the world often recognize that women are dressing like men, but they are scared to say it, except in passing. I have heard Rush Limbaugh mention it a couple of times.

And what kind of attitude does Rush have about women? How many times has he been married? Don't know?...then let me help you four times. Doesn't that make him a flaming ADULTERER? Now what kind of Christian would use an adulterous womanizer as an example? Seriously...that is outrageous! In fact, I think it is an abomination!!!!

Rush also calls the news ladies at Fox "info Babes"...women are babes to him which is why he wants to see them underdressed and over made up. Nice example. Thanks for that....I think

that helps us to know just where you are coming from.

Talk about duplicity.....using scripture to back up personal opinions and then using an unrepentant, sexist adulterer to make another point....stop saying that others are hypocrites when you

choose someone who is an adulterer to back up your opinions.

So why is it OK to use a serial adulterer as an example in a discussion about what the Bible says? Because even the world knows better you say? No...the world is not our

example, especially when the example is as flamboyantly degrading of a virtuous woman as Mr. Limbaugh is.

It becomes quite obvious that this thread is about one person's hangups and has no basis in reality and certainly none from a biblical standpoint.

Not that you had any with me, but you just lost even more credibility. I don't think you have respect or affection for women in general unless you can control them.

In my opinion, this is an issue of wanting to control others and women in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  2,086
  • Topics Per Day:  0.48
  • Content Count:  49,835
  • Content Per Day:  11.56
  • Reputation:   30,850
  • Days Won:  231
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

More important than women wearing pants is that they dress appropriately.Alot of the time their pants are painted on.Very revealing and very inappropriate.Then you can see most of their body by the tops that they wear with everything sticking out.I often see skirts that only hide the reproductive parts of the body.Very tacky and unfeminine.Wearing jeans is nothing compared to these inappropriate issues. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  30
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,373
  • Content Per Day:  0.73
  • Reputation:   683
  • Days Won:  22
  • Joined:  02/28/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Well ok Bo Peep...but is that what the discussion is really about? Of course Christian women should not dress like that anymore than men should forget their underwear and put on overly tight jeans.

Both genders can dress provocatively....it's not just women and I think we already know that.

There are plenty of men who enjoy seeing women in the type of clothing you describe but it is not acceptable for a godly woman...that is not the issue IMO...it's about some people telling women that if they wear slacks, it is an abomination.

Anyone, at any time, can dress inappropriately....but dressing normally in normal clothing made for women...whether it be jeans, slacks or dress or skirt, is not an abomination any more than

men wearing a kilt is an abomination. And as has been pointed out (and numerous times I might add...not just in this thread) men and women wore very similar clothing when the Bible was written.

Does that mean, then, that we should all go back to that style of clothing? Is that what would be acceptable to God? Would that make us all more holy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  36
  • Topic Count:  102
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  44,011
  • Content Per Day:  8.23
  • Reputation:   23,022
  • Days Won:  81
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

On the flip side, when you have a woman in pants, she loses her femininity

Note: This is a personal opinion.

and there are a lot of times I don't know if I am looking at a man or a woman when they are walking down the street until I can see their face.

I can only think of two, maybe three times, I saw someone whom I could not tell was a male or female. Very odd that this is a common occurrence for you.

I have to agree; I almost never see a person in pants whose gender is not obvious. In fact I really only remember a couple of times in my whole life.

well I have to tell on myself... well I don't have to but it is truth and humiliating so why not :happyhappy:

One of the most beautiful woman I ever saw ... wasn't :( and I was a Marine oooooooh raaaaaah ...

Oh no! But that had to be a man deliberately making himself up as a woman....right? :confused:

:cry_smile: yes and I didn't know it... :red_smile: lucifer is very good at what he does!
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  40
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   4
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/02/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/03/1980

What is masculine or feminine clothing is constantly changing. What is considered feminine isn't the same today as it was in 1960, 1860, or in biblical times.

Even what is considered "modest" dress changes with the times.

Since there are no specific provisions in the Bible for what we should wear, saying that women shouldn't wear pants isn't biblical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  36
  • Topic Count:  102
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  44,011
  • Content Per Day:  8.23
  • Reputation:   23,022
  • Days Won:  81
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

What is masculine or feminine clothing is constantly changing. What is considered feminine isn't the same today as it was in 1960, 1860, or in biblical times.

Even what is considered "modest" dress changes with the times.

Since there are no specific provisions in the Bible for what we should wear, saying that women shouldn't wear pants isn't biblical.

there is specific... to dress modestly and not try to draw attention to their bodies but attention to God Who 'IS' dwelling in them!

1 Peter 3:3-5

3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward — arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel —

4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is

very precious in the sight of God.

NKJV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 1 reply
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Thumbs Up
      • 231 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
      • 20 replies
×
×
  • Create New...