Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[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.

[*AQuietPlace*]

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.

You're definitely correct that obesity isn't merely an Apostolic problem, but she did have a good point. Being required to wear dresses at all times can make you not be as athletic. It doesn't always happen, but it can affect it.

I knew many Pentecostal girls who would opt out of P.E. if allowed because they felt stupid out there in a skirt. Swimming class was completely off-limits. Team sports weren't allowed because of the dress code.

Her own testimony was that she went from being active to sedentary because of the dresses only requirement, and I'm sure she isn't the only one.

[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.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I wonder how many years it took for the switch from robes to trousers for men to completely happen? During that time period it would have been hotly debated, but now is completely moot. It hasn't been that many years since the switch happened for women, so of course it's still a hot - or at least warm - subject (although MUCH less than it was even 20 years ago). 100 years from now, this debate will probably be ancient history.

Who knows what everyone will be wearing if the world is still here 1000 years from now? One thing you can count on, it will be different than what we wear now. Culture is always changing, and it always will. Men may be back in robes.

[houston]

naw, uc men will NEVER compromise this issue!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I wonder how many years it took for the switch from robes to trousers for men to completely happen? During that time period it would have been hotly debated, but now is completely moot. It hasn't been that many years since the switch happened for women, so of course it's still a hot - or at least warm - subject (although MUCH less than it was even 20 years ago). 100 years from now, this debate will probably be ancient history.

Who knows what everyone will be wearing if the world is still here 1000 years from now? One thing you can count on, it will be different than what we wear now. Culture is always changing, and it always will. Men may be back in robes.

Prax posted this information last night in post #206. I'm going to excerpt that. It is saying that until 1911, the women wore loose jackets and trousers. The Qing Dynasty started in 1644, so it could have predated this, but it is not clear. Then in 1925, they switch to a "qipao", which is a long gown. So, out with the pants and in with the long, flowing gown. Deja vu, baby!

And, IMO, it isn't a moot point today as the Orthodox Jewish women still adhere to dresses only.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Until 1911, the changpao was required clothing for Chinese men of a certain class, but Han Chinese women continued to wear loose jacket and trousers, with an overskirt for formal occasions. The qipao was a new fashion item for Han Chinese women when they started wearing it around 1925.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheongsam

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I wonder how many years it took for the switch from robes to trousers for men to completely happen? During that time period it would have been hotly debated, but now is completely moot. It hasn't been that many years since the switch happened for women, so of course it's still a hot - or at least warm - subject (although MUCH less than it was even 20 years ago). 100 years from now, this debate will probably be ancient history.

Who knows what everyone will be wearing if the world is still here 1000 years from now? One thing you can count on, it will be different than what we wear now. Culture is always changing, and it always will. Men may be back in robes.

The US population will likely be wearing robes and also post Christian. While Christianity is stagnant or in decline, the Muslim religion is rapidly growing.

Prep yourselves for Burkas ladies!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I wonder how many years it took for the switch from robes to trousers for men to completely happen? During that time period it would have been hotly debated, but now is completely moot. It hasn't been that many years since the switch happened for women, so of course it's still a hot - or at least warm - subject (although MUCH less than it was even 20 years ago). 100 years from now, this debate will probably be ancient history.

Who knows what everyone will be wearing if the world is still here 1000 years from now? One thing you can count on, it will be different than what we wear now. Culture is always changing, and it always will. Men may be back in robes.

Imagine seeing men in pants after robes for centuries. "My land sakes alive! HIS LEGS ARE SEPARATED AND YOU CAN SEE THE FORM OF EACH LEG!!! What is the world coming to?"

[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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Prax posted this information last night in post #206. I'm going to excerpt that. It is saying that until 1911, the women wore loose jackets and trousers. The Qing Dynasty started in 1644, so it could have predated this, but it is not clear. Then in 1925, they switch to a "qipao", which is a long gown. So, out with the pants and in with the long, flowing gown. Deja vu, baby!

And, IMO, it isn't a moot point today as the Orthodox Jewish women still adhere to dresses only.

Do they?