Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

This post appears to be discussing more than the origin of pants in society.

I don't understand what you are saying here. My posts in regard to the origin of pants in society had to do with the title of this thread. I wasn't putting that together with Deut 22:5.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't understand what you are saying here. My posts in regard to the origin of pants in society had to do with the title of this thread. I wasn't putting that together with Deut 22:5.

I don't think I've mentioned Deut. 22:5 either...I've been discussing cross dressing. So I was equally bumfuzzled as to why you made this comment:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thanks for taking the time, but I'm not interested in this type of conversation. I was mainly interested, because of the title of the thread, in the "origin" of pants in society.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't think I've mentioned Deut. 22:5 either...I've been discussing cross dressing. So I was equally bumfuzzled as to why you made this comment:

Oh, okay. The pictures you posted weren't origins in ancient history. I'm not really interested, yet, at what is going on now. The pictures you posted were more modern times. I wanted to reach back further - 1500 AD and earlier.

For instance, some have stated that Chinese women in the rice fields always wore trousers, but that isn't true. It was the ancient Chinese soldiers who wore them first. It is a tedious picking, because you have to be inside of a subject to come across what you are looking for.

You were also mentioning the clothing on the women as being more modest. I wasn't wanting to get into that because I think each person should have the freedom to choose what they feel is modest for themselves without being rained on. It gets into a tit for tat and I'm not interested in that type of conversation.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Oh, okay. The pictures you posted weren't origins in ancient history. I'm not really interested, yet, at what is going on now. The pictures you posted were more modern times. I wanted to reach back further - 1500 AD and earlier.

For instance, some have stated that Chinese women in the rice fields always wore trousers, but that isn't true. It was the ancient Chinese soldiers who wore them first. It is a tedious picking, because you have to be inside of a subject to come across what you are looking for.

I see. So you just didn't want to talk about my pictures.

It's really hard to research this subject, because reliable sources are few and far between and many of the best ones are offline. (books/libraries/universities/experts)

Personally, I think that within a culture there are understood ideas about what is feminine and what is masculine, but those ideas can't be universally applied. For centuries, many cultures have worn fairly unisex clothing with the exception of European countries, and it seems important to me to remember that the Bible was written in Hebrew--not English, French, German, etc. We so often look through things with the American or European microscope, but if you view scripture through the light of those times--when men and women wore very similar clothing according to history, you have to then wonder what even constituted cross-dressing. It had to be something more than wearing clothing that has a similar cut or flow; it had to extend into motives, mannerisms, behavior, etc.

From that perspective, the origin of women wearing pants becomes irrelevant to me, because the scripture was written in a time when men and women wore somewhat unisex clothing. That would render the popular Apostolic application rather moot. It would render discovering the origin of pants rather moot, although we can have an intellectual curiosity in any direction. (And I'm curious about it, too.) In our culture, pants are definitely not exclusively masculine, but at the same time, most of us can spot a cross dresser. Why is that? You can line up 10 women in pants and we can tell which one is truly trying to pass herself off as a man. Which woman is "manly." Occasionally, I've encountered women with masculine traits in skirts--right in Apostolic realms. Women who I had to consciously give the benefit of the doubt, because in my mind I was thinking "lesbian!"

IMO, a woman participates in cross dressing by cross dressing. By deliberately taking on manly traits and characteristics and trying to appear to others as a man. It's not so simple as putting on a pair of jeans.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I see. So you just didn't want to talk about my pictures.

It's really hard to research this subject, because reliable sources are few and far between and many of the best ones are offline. (books/libraries/universities/experts)

Personally, I think that within a culture there are understood ideas about what is feminine and what is masculine, but those ideas can't be universally applied. For centuries, many cultures have worn fairly unisex clothing with the exception of European countries, and it seems important to me to remember that the Bible was written in Hebrew--not English, French, German, etc. We so often look through things with the American or European microscope, but if you view scripture through the light of those times--when men and women wore very similar clothing according to history, you have to then wonder what even constituted cross-dressing. It had to be something more than wearing clothing that has a similar cut or flow; it had to extend into motives, mannerisms, behavior, etc.

From that perspective, the origin of women wearing pants becomes irrelevant to me, because the scripture was written in a time when men and women wore somewhat unisex clothing. That would render the popular Apostolic application rather moot. It would render discovering the origin of pants rather moot, although we can have an intellectual curiosity in any direction. (And I'm curious about it, too.) In our culture, pants are definitely not exclusively masculine, but at the same time, most of us can spot a cross dresser. Why is that? You can line up 10 women in pants and we can tell which one is truly trying to pass herself off as a man. Which woman is "manly." Occasionally, I've encountered women with masculine traits in skirts--right in Apostolic realms. Women who I had to consciously give the benefit of the doubt, because in my mind I was thinking "lesbian!"

IMO, a woman participates in cross dressing by cross dressing. By deliberately taking on manly traits and characteristics and trying to appear to others as a man. It's not so simple as putting on a pair of jeans.

I found out that it was very hard to research the subject, of course on-line, but when I went to a couple of libraries as well. I found that studying even geography, you could run across some information being inside a subject. That is always very intriguing to me. It's like going down a rabbit trail. It's like finding a little treasure. LOL! And always very exciting!

I agree that it is much more involved than donning a pair of jeans. What interests me, is that even though women are wearing pants, dresses are still universally a woman's garment. Pants are universally still related to men. And in times past it was very daring to wear men's trousers or to smoke a cigar or cigarette.

Katherine Hepburn involved herself in pushing for women to wear pants. That was her thing. So, on that account, and because of the daring that it used to be, it still interests me today. I can't file it away as moot. Not yet.

It interests me also that the Orthodox Jewish women only wear pants to exercise, etc. if a man is not present. There still seems to be a stigma attached to a pair of trousers. It hasn't totally crossed over and become moot, IMO.

And really, just because it interests me, doesn't mean it does anyone else.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Oh, okay. The pictures you posted weren't origins in ancient history. I'm not really interested, yet, at what is going on now. The pictures you posted were more modern times. I wanted to reach back further - 1500 AD and earlier.

For instance, some have stated that Chinese women in the rice fields always wore trousers, but that isn't true. It was the ancient Chinese soldiers who wore them first. It is a tedious picking, because you have to be inside of a subject to come across what you are looking for.

You were also mentioning the clothing on the women as being more modest. I wasn't wanting to get into that because I think each person should have the freedom to choose what they feel is modest for themselves without being rained on. It gets into a tit for tat and I'm not interested in that type of conversation.

I agree. We got sidelined with whether or not men should be in pants.

[mfblume]

I just wish people would think for themselves instead of fear offending a standard keeper's rules from an organization. It's like catholics who dare not cease prayer to Mary, for their CHURCH demands it, more than if they really see it without the church looking over their shoulders. People under that really cannot see it til they get out, though. Been there, done that. People just refuse to even consider thinking differently about this issue due to the pressure of their "fellowship". They've seen the castigation and do not want that sort of thing whether they honestly believe the same way or not.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I just wish people would think for themselves instead of fear offending a standard keeper's rules from an organization. It's like catholics who dare not cease prayer to Mary, for their CHURCH demands it, more than if they really see it without the church looking over their shoulders. People under that really cannot see it til they get out, though. Been there, done that. People just refuse to even consider thinking differently about this issue due to the pressure of their "fellowship". They've seen the castigation and do not want that sort of thing whether they honestly believe the same way or not.

I'm not going to mention one fundamental difference you and I have over I Corinthians, because you know what it is. LOL! I have just as much problem with that as you do with what you said in your post.

And really, when you go over the divergent views and beliefs of others, we are just trading one thing for another, IMO. There are always going to be differences.

I was reading Romans 15:5-6 in the NLT - "May God, who gives this patience and encouragement, help you live in complete harmony with each other, as is fitting for followers of Christ Jesus. Then all of you can join together with one voice, giving praise and glory to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

That really spoke to me and I thought of AFF.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm not going to mention one fundamental difference you and I have over I Corinthians, because you know what it is. LOL! I have just as much problem with that as you do with what you said in your post.

And really, when you go over the divergent views and beliefs of others, we are just trading one thing for another, IMO. There are always going to be differences.

I was reading Romans 15:5-6 in the NLT - "May God, who gives this patience and encouragement, help you live in complete harmony with each other, as is fitting for followers of Christ Jesus. Then all of you can join together with one voice, giving praise and glory to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

That really spoke to me and I thought of AFF.

We all indeed need to practice patience and encouragement, but I cannot help but believe your views are somewhat biased by pressure from others, although I would say you honestly cannot see it, which is honourable of you, really. But even if you did disagree and chose to sacrifice your freedoms, that is honourable as well! It is a no-lose situation for you, in that sense.

But those in the fellowship have that pressure, and I know firsthand. It's like some issues are places we just cannot go so long as we are in it, unless we simply choose to abide by this for the sake of unity, although we personally do not agree. I honestly think God honours such sacrifice. While I was with the fellowship I did not believe all the standards, but did not contend for those differences for the sake of unity. I even encouraged them for sake of unity. And I actually encourage anyone in the fellowship to not contend for such differences, or else such folks should get out. I say this in all sincerity that I believe God blessed me for sacrificing some liberties I felt fully free to enjoy for the sake of unity. I believe Paul taught that in Romans 14:22.

Roman 14: 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

I think it is BETTER for the whole fellowship to cast off standards since they are silly, to be honest. And that way there would not be a need to sacrifice IN THAT ISSUE for unity. It's a silly sacrifice, but those who have liberties and have to enjoy them privately know that. And I know there are lots who do. But if God wanted me back in the fellowship I would keep the standards without complaint and sacrifice my liberty.