Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I could more, because of various translations, understand Deut. 22:5 speaking to the man toward his "masculinity" as opposed to being "feminine" in women's clothing. I still believe the "abomination" is referring to homosexuality. Don't see warrior here at all.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The women not wearing pants standard is a health hazzard. We live in a society that has become sedentary. Most of our work is done on computers. We sit in front on computers at work and at home. We sit on our butts at church. We sit a lot.

We have an obesity epidemic. 60% of US women are obese.
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publicat...ght-loss.cfm#a

Years ago when I joined a UPChurch, I gave up my 5 mile a day run, and my active lifestyle to comply with a dress standard that made it very uncomfortable for me to exercise. I gained weight. Our bodies were created to move and work, not sit all day.

When I abandoned the dress standard, I began to run, lift weights, and swim. I feel so much better physically. I am a healthy weight. I could never go back to the bondage of being confined to dresses all the time. It's like chinese women having their feet bound.

Or give up dancing that was excercise too.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The women not wearing pants standard is a health hazzard. We live in a society that has become sedentary. Most of our work is done on computers. We sit in front on computers at work and at home. We sit on our butts at church. We sit a lot.

We have an obesity epidemic. 60% of US women are obese.
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publicat...ght-loss.cfm#a

Years ago when I joined a UPChurch, I gave up my 5 mile a day run, and my active lifestyle to comply with a dress standard that made it very uncomfortable for me to exercise. I gained weight. Our bodies were created to move and work, not sit all day.

When I abandoned the dress standard, I began to run, lift weights, and swim. I feel so much better physically. I am a healthy weight. I could never go back to the bondage of being confined to dresses all the time. It's like chinese women having their feet bound.

I understand your POV and appreciate your personal experience, Amanah, but I don't agree with your conclusions. There are just as many obese women in pants as in skirts. The 60% includes women from all walks of life--many of whom wear pants all the time--it isn't a cross section of only Apostolic women.

[houston]

obese women... eww.

[houston]

amananah,

u cnt blame skirts for obesity

[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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand your POV and appreciate your personal experience, Amanah, but I don't agree with your conclusions. There are just as many obese women in pants as in skirts. The 60% includes women from all walks of life--many of whom wear pants all the time--it isn't a cross section of only Apostolic women.

[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.

[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.