Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

A long loose skirt would take care of that.

Well, I'm not suggesting that we "solve" her problem with stretchy spandex slacks either. I suppose my own criticisms are too rooted in politics to be of much help here.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't know how you can say, especially, the point in bold when it's been stated a million times that women in the rice fields of China have always worn them.

Perhaps you did not read what I said carefully enough

Second nobody is saying women everywhere have worn them for a long time, some time or at some point in antiquity.

I purposely made that word in RED color so you would not miss it this time

I'm not sure I agree with you here, because the origins did start with the men, as you stated - "men girded their loins."

First of all that it started exclusively with men, when I quoted a source saying both men and women wore them where they seemed to have originated, is unsubstantiated

Second, that if started with men is irrelevant. Pants started with pagans...are you going to say only pagans can wear them?

"Men girding their loins" was not pants. Pants were never at any time legislated in scriptures anywhere, ever. Pants were a practical application for men just as short skirts on roman centurions were

So, in that respect, I think in ancient antiquity, it already started to be a man's garment which developed into, as you say, recently universal.

Recently universal but as it has been proven in antiquities while men began to wear pants, because they did not always wear them, so did women in some areas

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

As Prax posted, it seems to have begun with the "girding up of the loins" to free themselves for work, war, etc. Charlemagne in the 9th century wore a shorter pant. The ancient Persians, Chinese and Mongol's fought wars in the capri style.

Your paragraph above, Prax's comment and a portion of an earlier post from you round out my view. You had posted about the women in fields wearing the "Fu" which is a sort of capri pant and it means "work".

I still maintain that in ancient antiquity, the trouser type garment began with the man even though women began wearing them for the functionality in work. That is why, IMO, the garment has become to be universally known and identified, today, as man's apparel.

And just to be clear, it doesn't mean that women cannot and should not wear them. That has never been my point at all. I was simply wondering how we came to wear robes together and how, today, pants are depicted when having to make a differentiation between the sexes, on say, a restroom sign or stick figures. LOL!

We have women in our church who do wear pants and that doesn't bother anyone. There are some of us that have never cared for pants and don't want to wear them today. If I had to wear a pair of pants, I would never wear a pair that was loose in the leg. I hate them like that, I want them tight. So, that throws modesty out the window on that issue for me. LOL!

Thanks for taking the time. I really enjoyed reading your posts, Pel!

I would say it's no longer universally known as men's garments with the exception of rural backwards people where men treat women like servants more than wives.

I would though argue dresses are universally associated with women. Women are still depicted as the "weaker" sex..they are to have children and only get jobs where the work with children or the home. It's mostly western culture that has said women can achieve higher status and better standards.

Men needed pants to fight wars and right horses, to work hard without worrying about getting their skirt caught in a machine. Eventually it became less practical and more fashion/custom. Men don't need a suit to go to work but in some areas it has become custom.

Well now that women have entered the same work areas they also dress "suited". It can be a smart skirt ensamble or it can be a pant suit

BTW the kilt was the Scottish version of pants just as the Roman's short skirts were too.They wore they because they could move more freely in while women still wore longer and more restricting dresses

[Cindy]

If we really want to go by not wearing clothes pertaining to men, it wouldn't include pants. There was another distinction when that scripture was written. So are men the ones that started cross dressing?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Cindy

If we really want to go by not wearing clothes pertaining to men, it wouldn't include pants. There was another distinction when that scripture was written. So are men the ones that started cross dressing?

Well the problem is is that Hebrew men did not wear pants at this time anyways.

So what was it? Men wore robes and so did women

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Frankly, I'm more comfortable around ladies wearing pants in informal gatherings, picnics and etc. When we crowd a bunch of people into a living room for a gathering I often find myself giving up a seat and sitting on the floor. I don't mind, but I could really do without all of the knickers and such.

*snort*

Pants are simply more modest. I remember how some foreign heads of state used to gasp and privately complained about Madeline Albright's ... uh... "presentation" at some of their gatherings. When many of my female family members started wearing pants I noticed that it did make for more comfortable settings.

Yes, especially when you're seated eye level with people's behinds.

[Praxeas]

Personally I like dresses better on women apparentl for the same reason Obama does (TIC)

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Personally I like dresses better on women apparentl for the same reason Obama does (TIC)

LOL!!!!

[Praxeas]

I like the French presidents smirk...I imagine himself thinking in in a French accent. "Oh this president is a man after my own heart, eh?"

[Praxeas]

The funny thing is, we can't see her face. For all we know it's Jacobs_ladders girlfriend Lulu