Should Women Wear Pants?

[revdw76]

In the year 1473 B.C.E., just before the nation of Israel entered the land of Canaan after having wandered for forty years in the wilderness, Moses gave "reminders" to them. Due to the gross sexual perversions that existed in the land of Canaan, such as incest, sodomy, and bestiality, Moses told the Israelites that "no garb of an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman, neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for anybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah your God."(Deut 22:5)

The Canaanites also practiced “sacred” prostitution by male and female temple prostitutes, but God prohibited the bringing of “the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog” into his house, “because they are something detestable.”(Deut 23:17, 18) The sim·lah´ (Heb.), “mantle,” was the outermost garment worn by the majority. The mantle, comparable in some respects to our shawl, could be used as a covering (Ge 9:23), as bed clothing (Ex 22:27; De 22:17), and to bind or wrap up articles.(Ex 12:34; Jg 8:25; 1Sam 21:9)

The sim·lah´ was worn by both men and women, the woman’s being distinguishable from the man’s, perhaps in size, color, and decoration such as embroidery. God commanded that a woman should not wear a man’s garment, nor a man a woman’s mantle; this command doubtless being given in order to prevent sex abuses. Hence, wearing dress of the opposite sex (to deceive for immoral purposes) was prohibited. Women were not to wear the clothing of a man or a man the clothing of a woman, a practice that might open the way for immorality, including homosexuality or lesbianism, which is becoming more and more common in many lands.

Thus, the evident purpose of this law was to prevent sex abuses and confusion of sexual identity. In appearance and attire, normally a man wants to look like a male and a woman like a female. For an Israelite to act contrary to this internal sense of propriety could have led to homosexuality. Although both men and women then wore robelike garments, there was a difference between the garb of males and that of females.

Similarly, in some parts of the earth today, both men and women wear slacks, though the styles differ for each sex. The principle in this text would not rule out a Christian woman’s wearing slacks sometimes, as when working around the house or on a farm. And according to local custom and necessity, slacks may be the desired attire in very cold climates. The Bible counsels women to “adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind.”(1 Timothy 2:9, 10)

BINGO!!! gIVE THIS MAN A PRIZE!!!

Yes they were talking about it being a detestsble abomination for a woman dress and take on the sexual position of a man with another woman and for a man to take the position of a woman with aother man in a sexual act. This includes the act of wearing of clothes and or makeup and jewelry of the opposite sex to attract someone of your own sex. But I also believe it does include the modesty of the person's clothing too.

Many translators I believe from the early days to the days of King James to now have confused many of the words of God in an attempt to be what they considered more modest. So much so that we get confused and completley go off course in what we read in the Bible and how we understand it. Really...in my honest opinion...God probably was more direct in what He told His prophets. And in the days the KJV was written...with the Victorian standards of modesty in public things...this clouded the issues so much more.

Ok..let the mud fly.

 

[[email protected]]

I was asked the other day if it was a sin for Women to wear pants. Heres what the bible says on this.Deu 22:5 ¶ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. This has nothing to do with wearing pants. As today both men and women wear pants. In those days both men and women wore toga type skirts/dresses. A women was not to grit up her loins, witch means when a man was going into battle he would grab the hem of his toga and tuck it in his belt making a type of loose fitting type of shorts. It is about the dividing of the sexes and has a sexual connotation to it. We might think of today as crossdressing or transvestites Or trying to dress like the other sex To attract same sex partners.. Its not about wear any particular garment such as slacks/pants but rather that a Women dress in what is acceptable for a women and a man dress in what is acceptable for a man. As long as its obvious as to what sex you are by the other sex.

Nothing to do with pants?

The question has been asked and the dictates of fashion and political correctness will determine the acceptable answer, not the Bible.

There will be all sorts of fussing and fuming and accusations flying back and forth, yet the acceptable answer will be that which conforms to fashion and not scripture.
Women will wear whatever they feel like wearing and will not accept any sort of criticism from anyone; even if they simply look bad in it.

The custom of wearing super tight jeans in addition to tights is acceptable today, even in church.
Even some men are wearing them.
There is no utilitarian or fashionable reason for it except for arousal.


On the part of the wearer of such items, there is no consideration of the overall effect such clothing has on anyone else.
It is an inconsiderate act, pure and simple.
What did St. Paul say about considering the life of a brother or sister?
That one should take the weaknesses of others into consideration and act accordingly.
Not today folks. It's all about Me, Me, Me.

Arousal is guaranteed and the rule of thumb seems to be that the person who wears it is the sole determinate of whether such a reaction is acceptable.

Once upon a time the community had a voice in the matter.
Once upon a time the word of God carried some weight in the matter.
Once upon a time is gone and never comes again.

With regard to fashion and who-shows-what-to-who in public; the Bible has less value than the underwear that is also visible to the world.
Showing one's tushy in church?
It's fashionable and it has the ok of women, so no one will utter a peep about it.
(Once upon a time Christian women were the pillars of morality. Today they are simply fashionable.)
I note that its the man's fault for staring at something that is openly and wantonly advertised.

JUST DO IT isn't a corporate slogan any more. If it has to do with degenerate fashion, even in church, its acceptable.
The fact that this subject is being discussed AND DEFENDED is a sign of the sick times in which we live.

Call me a prude if you want, but I believe that the feelings and emotions of another Christian should be considered.
If you're going to advertise it, then don't be shocked when someone wants to buy a whore's product.