Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think we should also look at where this change in culture began. If you study the transition of women from dress to pants, you will find that the women in France, who were involved in politics, began the culture change. The Rational Dress Society in England picked up on that and moved it along to America, where the women in Hollywood championed the change. So, I'm just thinking that I want to see who is instrumental is any type of culture change. And, as is normally true, it is politics and Hollywood that are the strongest voices.

Check to see how the change from robes to pants occurred among men. France again, with Nickers, and high heels, knee high stockings with frilly shirts, amongst the upper dales of politics. So should men not wear pants due to what was involved in the change? Let's not hold to a view at any cost of reason, neither deny a view due to political issues. The clothing is the clothing, period, despite what occurred with politics.

[Praxeas]

His use of Job 38:3 is a great example of ignoring hermeneutics esp taking scripture out of context. There is no evidence Job was wearing a dress and God was correcting him to wear pants like a man. That is just silly distorted delusional thinking of people desparate to prove their views

he was telling Job

Here is what the verse REALLY says

Job 38:3 Now gird up your loins like a man; for I will ask of you, and you teach Me.

Notice the part in bold? This was the reason for God telling Job to gird up his loings like a man.

This is why better translations render it

Job 38:3 Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.
I have to repeat, this is a perfect example of people reading their views into scriptures and ignoring context, grammar and history

Barnes
Gird up now thy loins like a man - To gird up the loins, is a phrase which has allusion to the mode of dress in ancient times. The loose flowing robe which was commonly worn, was fastened with a girdle when men ran, or labored, or engaged in conflict; see the notes at Mat_5:38-41. The idea here is, "Make thyself as strong and vigorous as possible; be prepared to put forth the highest effort." God was about to put him to a task which would require all his ability - that of explaining the facts which were constantly occurring in the universe. The whole passage is ironical. Job had undertaken to tell what he knew of the divine administration, and God now calls upon him to show his claims to the office of such an expositor. So wise a man as he was, who could pronounce on the hidden counsels of the Most High with so much confidence, could assuredly explain those things which pertained to the visible creation. The phrase "like a man" means boldly, courageously; compare the notes at 1Co_16:13.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Check to see how the change from robes to pants occurred among men. France again, with Nickers, and high heels, knee high stockings with frilly shirts, amongst the upper dales of politics. So should men not wear pants due to what was involved in the change? Let's not hold to a view at any cost of reason, neither deny a view due to political issues. The clothing is the clothing, period, despite what occurred with politics.

The subject of the thread is about cross-dressing and how it relates to women.

I'm simply saying that if we are going to argue from the point of culture, it is important to me where that culture was derived. And that hasn't been a part of the subject on this thread. So, I can't agree with you that clothing is clothing, period, and it doesn't matter where it began.

I know that when you study fashion in the early 1400 and 1500's that the middle class began to change their styles which were set by the elites. You even state in your post that the men in elite society started running around like women with frills and heels.

So, as Randy stated earlier, the "political" and "upperclass" have always led the way in fashion. It is still true today. And that is a point of interest to me.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The subject of the thread is about cross-dressing and how it relates to women.

I'm simply saying that if we are going to argue from the point of culture, it is important to me where that culture was derived. And that hasn't been a part of the subject on this thread. So, I can't agree with you that clothing is clothing, period, and it doesn't matter where it began.

I know that when you study fashion in the early 1400 and 1500's that the middle class began to change their styles which were set by the elites. You even state in your post that the men in elite society started running around like women with frills and heels.

So, as Randy stated earlier, the "political" and "upperclass" have always led the way in fashion. It is still true today. And that is a point of interest to me.

Then you must agree that pants on men are wrong due to the manner in which pants started to come to be men's clothing. That was my point. If you do not agree, then you must agree clothing is clothing. Honestly does God care HOW something started when he is dealing with modesty? He did not say to dress in a way that culturally and politically was free of aberrant intentions when the specific clothing came into being. He said to dress MODESTLY for modesty's sake. So, if you disagree clothing is clothing, period, then you disagree with why God said what He did about modesty, for it means you do not agree modesty is the point in and of itself.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Then you must agree that pants on men are wrong due to the manner in which pants started to come to be men's clothing. That was my point. If you do not agree, then you must agree clothing is clothing. Honestly does God care HOW something started when he is dealing with modesty? He did not say to dress in a way that culturally and politically was free of aberrant intentions when the specific clothing came into being. He said to dress MODESTLY for modesty's sake. So, if you disagree clothing is clothing, period, then you disagree with why God said what He did about modesty, for it means you do not agree modesty is the point in and of itself.

I've understood that Iranian Scythians and Achaemenid Persians were the first to wear trousers. And I know that in Ancient China only soldiers wore trousers. I think that the way they came into society in European culture was in a different manner altogether - frills and heels.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've understood that Iranian Scythians and Achaemenid Persians were the first to wear trousers. And I know that in Ancient China only soldiers wore trousers. I think that the way they came into society in European culture was in a different manner altogether - frills and heels.

Clothing is meant for distinction and modesty alone. Surrounding circumstances are moot. Europe dictated our culture, not the far or middle east. IMHO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Clothing is meant for distinction and modesty alone. Surrounding circumstances are moot. Europe dictated our culture, not the far or middle east. IMHO.

That is right, Europe did dictate our culture.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've understood that Iranian Scythians and Achaemenid Persians were the first to wear trousers. And I know that in Ancient China only soldiers wore trousers. I think that the way they came into society in European culture was in a different manner altogether - frills and heels.

Ah...pagans invented pants. So it's wrong for Christian men and women to wear pants

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Ah...pagans invented pants. So it's wrong for Christian men and women to wear pants

You are misreading what I wrote. I was, initially, still responding to this portion of mfb's post:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Check to see how the change from robes to pants occurred among men. France again, with Nickers, and high heels, knee high stockings with frilly shirts, amongst the upper dales of politics.

His response allowed me to know that he understood what I was saying:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Clothing is meant for distinction and modesty alone. Surrounding circumstances are moot. Europe dictated our culture, not the far or middle east. IMHO.

I was getting the impression that mfb, on a historical point, was saying that the change from robes to pants started in European culture, which it didn't. We weren't arguing wearing or not wearing them. We were talking about the origin. I was simply stating that pants developed prior to European culture. He said he still felt that European culture dictated American culture and I agreed.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You are misreading what I wrote. I was, initially, still responding to this portion of mfb's post:



His response allowed me to know that he understood what I was saying:



I was getting the impression that mfb, on a historical point, was saying that the change from robes to pants started in European culture, which it didn't. We weren't arguing wearing or not wearing them. We were talking about the origin. I was simply stating that pants developed prior to European culture. He said he still felt that European culture dictated American culture and I agreed.

Didn't you assert pants were first worn by the Iranians (persians)?