Modesty

I didn't know that, but again, I guess I had no way of knowing...............

If women didn't wear p*nties, then I guess "women rights" and the liberation of women started even back then, right??????????????

BBob,

 

If women aren't wearing them, thats not right, its wrong.:laugh:

 

I'm not doing your homework for you, menageriekeeper. There are plenty of links that will talk about the history of pants, some even contradict their selves with yours and yours with mine. Honestly, I wouldn't rely on these as final sources.

I still ask if pants aren't men's clothing, what is?

 

Depends....

I think that is what they use now.

Bbob,

 

Exactly why I pointed you to a primary document, art work from the period, to support my arguement. Primary documents always trump information found in books and articles that are written about the primary. That is why your links are called "secondary documents".

LOL Bro. Bob. Perhaps we were too "liberated" and that is why we invented them.

You men still have to answer for hoisery though!

 

To Both Donna and MK
Please drop the arrogant attitude and learn to debate without throwing all the under-handed insults.
Frankly, I'll be happy to close this thread any time now.

 

There was a news story a while back about a man whose pants were a bit tight. There was a picture of him, and people complained that they could clearly see his "shape" in front. What I would like to know is: Why were people looking between his legs?"

My mother always insisted that I wear loose fitting pants so I wouldn't "show my shape" as she put it. I never had much "shape" to show, but why would any normal person be that interested in my "shape"?

 

menageriekeeper, bad thing about that though is it shows a certain person wearing them and not everyone. I'd hate for someone to draw what goes on at the drama department in local schools and use that as fact what Americans dress like... :laugh:

 

A look is normal, but when that look turns into more looks and staring, ogling, and desiring it becomes sin on the part of the one looking. If the woman's INTENT was to cause lust and be desired, then she has sinned. Why should a woman be held responsible for what goes on in the minds of horny guys who have nothing on their minds but women and sex when it was NOT her intent to cause lust?

Isn't it also normal for a man to notice an especially attractive woman and want to look? I've done my share of looking, but I never once wanted to have sex with her or desired her in any way. However, many Christians would say that I committed adultery by looking and noticing her beauty. To me it's no different from noticing other beauties of God's creation.

 

Are you talking about a person telling us to live by O.T. laws then refuses to do so themselves? Who makes claims they can not support. Who refuses to use untwisted scripture, or actually just to present scripture, who demands facts, but refuses to accept facts? Who has called people " christian" with quotation marks which is challenging their christianity, and if you don't agree with him you get the quotation marks:tonofbricks: . I think we have the right to address his accusations, twisted scripture, or lack thereof, his demanding christians live his way.

 

Her you go shane I even looked them up for you,
http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/All 613 laws.htm

 

Having reached 30 pages we will now close the thread.