Should men wear pants only?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Gina B, Jul 6, 2003.

  1. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, I know they should wear a shirt too, but you know what I mean!
    What is modest dress for a man? Can he wear a tank top? Is exposing his upper arms/shoulders too immodest?
    What about Bermuda shorts? Are they ok as long as they cover the knee, somewhat equivalent to culotte's, or are Bermuda shorts just modified culottes?
    What about the material? Should men stay away from pants made of materials that might cling and reveal shape, and stick with more baggy styles? What about colors? Is it effeminate for a man to wear shades of pink or other colors such as rose or magenta?
    Gina
     
  2. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Men should look as masculine as possible while being modest too. This is in direct opposition to women who should look as feminine as possible and be modest.

    It is satan who has sought to blur the lines and he has acheived this as evidenced by the many threads here claiming that it does not matter what we wear.
     
  3. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    All those kilt-wearers in "Braveheart" looked masculine to me. [​IMG]

    Karen
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't seen anything here that would lead me to believe that anyone disagrees with your first paragraph. But where are the biblical commands for masculnity and femininity?? The command for modesty is clear. And who gets to define what is feminine and masculine?? That is, and always has been, a cultural definition. There is no reason to believe that was feminine the Bible times was not what was feminine 100 years ago or 50 years or today.

    Again, at the risk of repeating myself, I think we need to stick with what Scripture says. If your conscience leads you to a certain standard, then by all means apply it and evalute it in light of Scripture. But do not try to force that standard on others whose conscience is different in light of Scripture. Let's attack the real enemies, not these false enemies.
     
  5. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking as a descendant of some of those kilt-wearers, I thank you. I wore combat fatigues for over 20 myself.
     
  6. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,
    Yes, I understand that the words masculine and feminine are not there. But, Deuteronomy 22:5 says that it is an abomination for women to wear men's clothing and vice versa. I personally do not believe that God changed His mind as to what is an abomination and what is not.

    I think that the feminists were the first to put pants on and the Christian women followed right behind them. I do see this is a problem that is lacking in Christianity, because the distinctions in gender have been blurred.

    Not only by the women wearing the pants literally, but figuratively leaving their homes as well for careers and such. I believe it all goes together.


    I know there are some ladies who wear pants and are not feminists, I truly believe that. But, I think the wearing of men's clothing began as rebellion.

    I know this about hair but: Revelation 9:7-8 "And their faces were as the FACES OF MEN, And they had HAIR AS THE HAIR OF WOMEN..."


    The locusts that came from the pit of hell have men's faces and women's hair. :(
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think so either. But Deut 22:5 does not refer to women wearing pants. It refers to transvestism. That is a horse of a different color. To use that to support women not wearing pants is an abuse of Scripture on two levels: 1) That is not talking about women wearing pants; 2) We are not under the Law of Israel because we are in the church, not Israel.

    But you cannot prove this. The evidence in fact leans against it. Whoever might have started women wearing pants, the meaning that they are invested with now is a far different meaning. To say that feminists were the first to do it is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter.

    Some people run off and get married as a sign of rebellion. But you are not forbidding marriage for all. In teh same way, do not accuse everyone of the same motives for a particular act.

    Again, this is irrelevant. John is a giving a description, not a command. There is no valid theological or exegetical basis for taking this Scripture and making it out to be about gender distinctions. That is an improper use of Scripture. :( :(
     
  8. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the US, women began wearing pants as a matter of course during WWII. The men went to war and many women went to work in factories to build the munitions of war. It was a change made of practicality, not a change to rebel against their husbands.
     
  9. hsmom3

    hsmom3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gina, I think for a man, he needs to be masculine as possible and stay away from girly colors. (lol) I wouldn't necessarily say it was a sin if a man had on a pretty purple shirt, because I have seen them on a man and it was totally masculine. I think fabrics that are clingy are wrong and he shouldn't wear clothes too tight. I don't see anything wrong with a man in a tank top in appropriate circumstances (he's at home working in the yard). I see nothing wrong with a man wearing Bermuda or dress shorts. I've never seen men's legs that were worth lusting over! lol I think it's RIDICULOUS for church leaders to expect little boys to play in 100 degree heat with pants on.

    hsmom3 [​IMG]
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Where do we get the idea that a man without a shirt on is somehow "immodest"? Or a man showing his knees or thigh is sinful? Or wearing a light pink polo shirt to church along with cargo shorts and sandals is wrong?

    There are days, I swear, that the inmates are trying to run the assylum.

    (BTW, did you hear about the fellow at the ifb school who got kicked out for wearing an immodest swim suit?

    It had a hole in the knee.) :eek:
     
  11. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think so either. But Deut 22:5 does not refer to women wearing pants. It refers to transvestism. That is a horse of a different color. To use that to support women not wearing pants is an abuse of Scripture on two levels: 1) That is not talking about women wearing pants; 2) We are not under the Law of Israel because we are in the church, not Israel.

    But you cannot prove this. The evidence in fact leans against it. Whoever might have started women wearing pants, the meaning that they are invested with now is a far different meaning. To say that feminists were the first to do it is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter.

    Some people run off and get married as a sign of rebellion. But you are not forbidding marriage for all. In teh same way, do not accuse everyone of the same motives for a particular act.

    Again, this is irrelevant. John is a giving a description, not a command. There is no valid theological or exegetical basis for taking this Scripture and making it out to be about gender distinctions. That is an improper use of Scripture. :( :( [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]So, according to you it is ok for a woman to wear clothing intended for men and for men to wear clothing intended for women?

    It absolutely does matter that the early cross-dressers were feminists. That IS the crux of the matter. I do not believe for one second that godly Christian women were the first ones to wear men's clothing.

    That is absolutely ridiculous to claim that one should not marry because of someone elses circumstances. God ordained marriage. But, He never ordained men to be effeminate. In fact the effeminate men WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of God.

    John is giving a description, yes but a description of what? A demon from hell who has a a man's face and women's hair. I think that is very siginifcant. Satan has done a great job in getting most people used to unisex clothing and appearances.
     
  12. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the US, women began wearing pants as a matter of course during WWII. The men went to war and many women went to work in factories to build the munitions of war. It was a change made of practicality, not a change to rebel against their husbands. </font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying that the fruits we see from the past generation or two are good?
     
  13. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems to me that in biblical times, men wore long loose gowns, and I am not sure when that changed, but some in the Middle East and Africa still wear those garments.

    In England, women started to wear trousers....they always wore pants (undergarments)..during the war when they had to "man" the factories.....I guess they got used to the practicality of wearing trousers in the real world.

    Cheers,

    Jim

    Oops! I just noticed Swaimj's post. We must be on the same wave length.......Not sure that is good Swaimj..given my reputation [​IMG]
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    These clothing threads make me laugh. [​IMG] They focus on what the rules should be, rather than why the rules should be in place. It's the Christian version of "building fences around Torah".
     
  15. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Excuse me people, this thread is about MEN'S way of dressing, not pants on women or women's dress!
    Let's get off the women's clothes for a while and discuss men's!
    I really think maybe we should start having the same standards. I want college men to have to kneel and twist in front of authority to have their clothes checked for modesty too. It's only fair. I want to discuss exactly what types of garments they may wear and still be modest.
    And I want to do it at length over and over on a regular basis so maybe, just maybe, they'll get a hint of what it's like to be judged by ridiculous clothing standards by the opposite sex. I want to blame their ill-fitting suits and themselves for the depravity of this world and for women's immoral thoughts and behaviors and maybe they will finally get a clue of how it feels to be held responsible for such things.
    Why do people argue with Christian women over culotte's and skirt lengths when there's women prancing around out there in bikinis and v-necklines down to their belly buttons? Go witness to them and leave the unbroken things unfixed!
    /end rant
    Gina
     
  16. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sorry about that, please accept my apologies.
     
  17. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm not sure HCL. Do you have any peanut butter cups? It would help.
    LOL
    J/K
    I really would like to see the men's clothing issue come up as frequently as the women's though!
    Gina
     
  18. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    No Reeses, but I just made some rice crispie treats. Would you like some of those? I guess the men's clothing issue is not as interesting...
     
  19. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] I went straight into the living room and told my wife that one.

    BTW, you might want to rethink that fashion advice aspect of your ministry though. [​IMG]

    Gina, I understand the seeming double standard. But, really it is more of a difference between the natures of men and women. There are lots of exceptions, of course, and varying degrees, but a much higher percent of men have more difficulty in this matter than women. Therefore, more threads with men blaming women for their sin.

    Lust is internal, enticement is external.
     
  20. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess that is why it says that it is good for a man not to touch a woman in 1 Cor 7. She is enticed by his touch.

    And that is why it says women are to dress modestly in 1 Tim 2 because men are enticed by what they see.
     

Share This Page

Loading...