Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What about ancient chinese women in the rice fields? I heard that is where it started. that was the case in the Han Dynasty.

Also...

[edit]Antiquity


Scythian archer. Interior from an Ancient Greek Attic red-figure plate, ca. 520–500 BC, from Vulci. British Museum, London.

Germanic trousers of the 4th century found in the Thorsberg moor, Germany

Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BCE, with the appearance of horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek ethnography. At this time, not only the Persians, but also allied Central Asian peoples such as the Bactrians, Armenians, and the Tigraxauda Scythians are known to have worn them.[4][5] Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.

...from

^ Payne, Blanche. History of Costume. Harper & Row , 1965. pp. 49–51
^ book name: The Persian Army 560–330 BC, Author: Nicholas Sekunda, Illustrator: Simon Chew – http://www.ospreypublishing.com/stor...bookcode=p2501
^ Lever, James. Costume and Fashion: A Concise History. Thames and Hudson, 1995, 2010. p. 15.

"...believed to have been." Not quite an emphatic - yes they did, but we can file that away for further study.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

"...believed to have been." Not quite an emphatic - yes they did, but we can file that away for further study.

Your leaning towards no pants is quite evident.

Basically, the idea needs to be considered... Pants became men's apparel when robes used to be men's apparel, not due to God's leading. It was purely cultural. To say women should not wear pants today is ignoring this historical fact and refusing to apply the same principle in accepting pants for men to pants for women. God never had pants in mind whatsoever when words were written about masculine attire as opposed to women's. And dresses and skirts can be as immodest as SOME pants on women, while pants on women are often more modest then those immodest skirts and dresses. There are very modest pants for women. When we time lock ourselves into the last few decades we lived, we fail to realize God surveys all of time since the beginning. And he made no pants for man. Just a coat, and the same was for Eve, for that matter. And the only reason anyone would push for no pants on women is a cultural issue amongst some denominations, alone. People just have to admit that.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Your leaning towards no pants is quite evident.

Basically, the idea needs to be considered... Pants became men's apparel when robes used to be men's apparel, not due to God's leading. It was purely cultural. To say women should not wear pants today is ignoring this historical fact and refusing to apply the same principle in accepting pants for men to pants for women. God never had pants in mind whatsoever when words were written about masculine attire as opposed to women's. And dresses and skirts can be as immodest as SOME pants on women, while pants on women are often more modest then those immodest skirts and dresses. There are very modest pants for women. When we time lock ourselves into the last few decades we lived, we fail to realize God surveys all of time since the beginning. And he made no pants for man. Just a coat, and the same was for Eve, for that matter. And the only reason anyone would push for no pants on women is a cultural issue amongst some denominations, alone. People just have to admit that.

I've never seen or tried on a pair of modest pants in my entire life. LOL! If I'm going to wear them, they sure in the world aren't going to be loose like a bag lady. So, that isn't going to work for me.

I think that most denominations had women wearing dresses. I know the Catholic Church did when we were growing up. When pantsuits came in vogue, it was a big issue and finally the Catholic Church relented so as not to lose members.

Oops.....

Women wearing pants was historically virtually non-existent but has become commonplace since the advent of feminism in the middle to late 20th century. Today, most women wear pants in Western cultures some of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_wearing_pants

[hometown guy]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've never seen or tried on a pair of modest pants in my entire life. LOL! If I'm going to wear them, they sure in the world aren't going to be loose like a bag lady. So, that isn't going to work for me.

I think that most denominations had women wearing dresses. I know the Catholic Church did when we were growing up. When pantsuits came in vogue, it was a big issue and finally the Catholic Church relented so as not to lose members.

Oops.....

That sounds a lot like what all the "christian" churches did.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've never seen or tried on a pair of modest pants in my entire life. LOL! If I'm going to wear them, they sure in the world aren't going to be loose like a bag lady. So, that isn't going to work for me.

I think that most denominations had women wearing dresses. I know the Catholic Church did when we were growing up. When pantsuits came in vogue, it was a big issue and finally the Catholic Church relented so as not to lose members.

Oops.....

Saying what is modest and what is not is far too slanted in many folks. I know the power of a trend in a fellowship firsthand.

And the western culture feminist issue you cite from the same source where I found words that ancient women wore trousers is based upon the idea that what was involved in something's origin is more important than what the actual something is in and of itself, while you agreed Europe influenced our culture with men dressing like modern-day fruitcakes in France () when they first wore pants. To be consistent, your emphasis on stressing feminism's roots with pants for women ought to cause you to abandon pants for men for the French reasons of origin in our culture.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Saying what is modest and what is not is far too slanted in many folks. I know the power of a trend in a fellowship firsthand.

And the western culture feminist issue you cite from the same source where I found words that ancient women wore trousers is based upon the idea that what was involved in something's origin is more important than what the actual something is in and of itself, while you agreed Europe influenced our culture with men dressing like modern-day fruitcakes in France () when they first wore pants. To be consistent, your emphasis on stressing feminism's roots with pants for women ought to cause you to abandon pants for men for the French reasons of origin in our culture.

That's a good thought. It is just that the "origin" of trousers didn't begin with the fruitcaked men in France.

Anyway, you keep going back to the idea of upholding a standard. I wish you could wash that out of your head for a bit.

I am coming from the point that trousers have, it seems, been universally a male garment and so I want to see where in culture and from who in culture made the transition. I don't have any nefarious plans or ideas here. I am just curious about the subject. So, you can now give a sigh of relief and give me some information that is better than, "thought to have been worn by women". If I gain some type of knowledge, I want it to be accurate.

Maybe a fact finding history lesson is out of place or too much of a tangent on this thread?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Your leaning towards no pants is quite evident.

Basically, the idea needs to be considered... Pants became men's apparel when robes used to be men's apparel, not due to God's leading. It was purely cultural. To say women should not wear pants today is ignoring this historical fact and refusing to apply the same principle in accepting pants for men to pants for women. God never had pants in mind whatsoever when words were written about masculine attire as opposed to women's. And dresses and skirts can be as immodest as SOME pants on women, while pants on women are often more modest then those immodest skirts and dresses. There are very modest pants for women. When we time lock ourselves into the last few decades we lived, we fail to realize God surveys all of time since the beginning. And he made no pants for man. Just a coat, and the same was for Eve, for that matter. And the only reason anyone would push for no pants on women is a cultural issue amongst some denominations, alone. People just have to admit that.

Well, they won't.

And, a point that we have discussed before - women in pants doesn't show their "stuff" as much as some men do. When a man sits down, has his knees two feet apart it leaves little to the imagination. Is that modest?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Well, they won't.

And, a point that we have discussed before - women in pants doesn't show their "stuff" as much as some men do. When a man sits down, has his knees two feet apart it leaves little to the imagination. Is that modest?

So men need to go back to wearing robes?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Amanah

So men need to go back to wearing robes?

Sure!

The argument gets old when they say pants are immodest on women when, to me, pants can be much more revealing on men.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Sure!

The argument gets old when they say pants are immodest on women when, to me, pants can be much more revealing on men.

I'm thinking that it is because women are normally held to a higher degree of keeping themselves modest.

I mean look at all the skanky things that men can say and do, but if a women does it - Good Lord!