Should Christian men and women dress differently or does it matter under the new covanent?
- Thread starter thywordisalampuntomyfeet
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I’m wondering if when women stated wearing pants in the West by and large if they were dressing like men (it seems the first ones were) and if so, woud that at that time that have been not the right thing to do? I’m not sure how modest it is, but I’m starting to see it’s a cultural norm, once it’s been accepted over time (even if it did start with egalitarian feminism by and large) then it doesn’t apply to her generation today because those aren’t her motives (“to dress like a man”)... Maybe I just don’t like what the enemy has done to the world and wish the genders were as distinct as possible... Thanks everyone for your edifying replies 🙂
-
1
- Show all
Intent
I think the issue is really one of intent.
All cultures, in all times, generally have some kind of clothing differences between men and women.
The key is intent.
Are you INTENTIONALLY trying to dress and appear as the opposite sex?
If you are INTENTIONALLY trying to appear as the opposite sex, that is a weird intention... and it's a problem.
The LGBT community is quite familiar with this matter of intent, and they refer to it as how you "present yourself."
They use the word "present" as an almost technical term to refer to this issue of intent.
If a transsexual is a man trying to look like a woman, his friends will say he "presents" as a woman.
It isn't just about the clothes they're wearing, it's about intent... it's about their overall intent to "present" themselves as the opposite gender.
So if my girlfriend wants to wear one of my shirts while painting, that's not a problem.
But if she wants to do an entire makeover so she can "present" herself as a man, because she wants to "appear" as a man... then that's a weird intention, and that's a problem.
It's a matter of intent.
...
...
I think the issue is really one of intent.
All cultures, in all times, generally have some kind of clothing differences between men and women.
The key is intent.
Are you INTENTIONALLY trying to dress and appear as the opposite sex?
If you are INTENTIONALLY trying to appear as the opposite sex, that is a weird intention... and it's a problem.
The LGBT community is quite familiar with this matter of intent, and they refer to it as how you "present yourself."
They use the word "present" as an almost technical term to refer to this issue of intent.
If a transsexual is a man trying to look like a woman, his friends will say he "presents" as a woman.
It isn't just about the clothes they're wearing, it's about intent... it's about their overall intent to "present" themselves as the opposite gender.
So if my girlfriend wants to wear one of my shirts while painting, that's not a problem.
But if she wants to do an entire makeover so she can "present" herself as a man, because she wants to "appear" as a man... then that's a weird intention, and that's a problem.
It's a matter of intent.
...
...
-
3
-
1
- Show all
You all make some great points, thanks for helping me in my understanding 
While I can't shake the feeling that the enemy may have brought pants to women in the 60's feminist movement as a way to get more men to sin by way of their thoughts while at the same time women wanted to to be the head of the man/head of their home, I realize that the great majority of women who wear pants today are just doing what is culturally acceptable now for women and don't have the heart intention of dressing like the opposite sex like perhaps like those first women in the '60s did (who also burned their bras)... This seems to make a lot more sense to me now... Cultural perspectives, that makes sense... Plus with women wanting to work outside the home in many jobs they would require those clothes that men who have traditionally held those jobs wear on those jobs (as mentioned in a previous comment).... I think the whole thing is the work of the enemy to try to break up the family and put men and women at odds with each other (which we see everywhere now), and I think I may just have been bothered by whether or not women wearing pants have been "dressing like men" for the past 80 years (in the West) unbeknownst to them, but I do know that those redeemed by Christ do consider the intent (this is true), and I now have a more cultural perspective (so thank you all for the replies!)
While I can't shake the feeling that the enemy may have brought pants to women in the 60's feminist movement as a way to get more men to sin by way of their thoughts while at the same time women wanted to to be the head of the man/head of their home, I realize that the great majority of women who wear pants today are just doing what is culturally acceptable now for women and don't have the heart intention of dressing like the opposite sex like perhaps like those first women in the '60s did (who also burned their bras)... This seems to make a lot more sense to me now... Cultural perspectives, that makes sense... Plus with women wanting to work outside the home in many jobs they would require those clothes that men who have traditionally held those jobs wear on those jobs (as mentioned in a previous comment).... I think the whole thing is the work of the enemy to try to break up the family and put men and women at odds with each other (which we see everywhere now), and I think I may just have been bothered by whether or not women wearing pants have been "dressing like men" for the past 80 years (in the West) unbeknownst to them, but I do know that those redeemed by Christ do consider the intent (this is true), and I now have a more cultural perspective (so thank you all for the replies!) -
1
- Show all
The Bible isn’t suppose to confuse people. Pants are more practical in some instances. It’s not the clothing article type, it’s the motivation. If I’m a dude trying to look like a woman I can buy woman’s pants and a woman’s sweater, or blouse, abominable. If a woman is in the trades and wears coveralls because they are safer (cut resistant, fire retardant) and cleaner, no abomination, just practical.
-
2
- Show all
M
You all make some great points, thanks for helping me in my understanding While I can't shake the feeling that the enemy may have brought pants to women in the 60's feminist movement as a way to get more men to sin by way of their thoughts while at the same time women wanted to to be the head of the man/head of their home, I realize that the great majority of women who wear pants today are just doing what is culturally acceptable now for women and don't have the heart intention of dressing like the opposite sex like perhaps like those first women in the '60s did (who also burned their bras)... This seems to make a lot more sense to me now... Cultural perspectives, that makes sense... Plus with women wanting to work outside the home in many jobs they would require those clothes that men who have traditionally held those jobs wear on those jobs (as mentioned in a previous comment).... I think the whole thing is the work of the enemy to try to break up the family and put men and women at odds with each other (which we see everywhere now), and I think I may just have been bothered by whether or not women wearing pants have been "dressing like men" for the past 80 years (in the West) unbeknownst to them, but I do know that those redeemed by Christ do consider the intent (this is true), and I now have a more cultural perspective (so thank you all for the replies!)
While I can't shake the feeling that the enemy may have brought pants to women in the 60's feminist movement as a way to get more men to sin by way of their thoughts while at the same time women wanted to to be the head of the man/head of their home, I realize that the great majority of women who wear pants today are just doing what is culturally acceptable now for women and don't have the heart intention of dressing like the opposite sex like perhaps like those first women in the '60s did (who also burned their bras)... This seems to make a lot more sense to me now... Cultural perspectives, that makes sense... Plus with women wanting to work outside the home in many jobs they would require those clothes that men who have traditionally held those jobs wear on those jobs (as mentioned in a previous comment).... I think the whole thing is the work of the enemy to try to break up the family and put men and women at odds with each other (which we see everywhere now), and I think I may just have been bothered by whether or not women wearing pants have been "dressing like men" for the past 80 years (in the West) unbeknownst to them, but I do know that those redeemed by Christ do consider the intent (this is true), and I now have a more cultural perspective (so thank you all for the replies!)
the problem is actually with them, but they are blaming women for their own
inadequacies.
-
2
- Show all
M
Yesterday I was watching some TV documentaries about the war days.
The first and Second World War - im from the UK.
It occurred to me while watching it that is wasn’t actually women who
encouraged wearing trousers, it was circumstances.
The men joined the army’s either volunteered or conscripted. But then there
was a huge gap in the labour market. So women had to do the jobs, work
the land, work in the ammunition factories, build, do plumbing, work on farms,
build tanks/aircraft. That required the wearing of trousers/pants, boiler suits etc.
According to the documentary they even promoted women’s football teams and
women’s football became the norm.
Then the wars came to an end and women were expected to go back to
household chores and become all delicate and girly again. Even in regards to
football, it was no longer considered healthy for women to play football.
Unfortunately life doesn’t work like that. Women are not there just to be taken
out of a cultural box when needed, then put back in it when it no longer suits society.
Just another angle to see things from.
The first and Second World War - im from the UK.
It occurred to me while watching it that is wasn’t actually women who
encouraged wearing trousers, it was circumstances.
The men joined the army’s either volunteered or conscripted. But then there
was a huge gap in the labour market. So women had to do the jobs, work
the land, work in the ammunition factories, build, do plumbing, work on farms,
build tanks/aircraft. That required the wearing of trousers/pants, boiler suits etc.
According to the documentary they even promoted women’s football teams and
women’s football became the norm.
Then the wars came to an end and women were expected to go back to
household chores and become all delicate and girly again. Even in regards to
football, it was no longer considered healthy for women to play football.
Unfortunately life doesn’t work like that. Women are not there just to be taken
out of a cultural box when needed, then put back in it when it no longer suits society.
Just another angle to see things from.
-
2
- Show all
Why are women the head of the household, well its because men abdicate that position when they go out of the home to work. If the men stayed at home and worked at home, they would be head of it. Its because of the industrial revolution and the rise of suburbia that thers this artifical home and work divide. Zoning laws mean, one cant even work from home, like you would if you lived in a village or the countryside. You now need to commute to work miles away.
Zoning laws and high land rates mean that now, to own a home most peoples need TWO incomes to pay a mortgage, and they cant even make use of their own land to pay for it. Why because zones restrict industry to different zones. You cant run a business from home without a permit. And most office workers and factory workers dont want to LIVE at the factory or office...not that these places even provide accomodation.
What has this to do with clothing. Well, lets go back to adam and eve. They didnt wear any clothes right? Where did they live, In the Garden of eden. Why didnt they need any clothes at first? Well they were protected by God and guess what adam was told to name all the animals, God had planted this garden and told him to DRESS it and keep it. So what happned that the man and woman had to start wearing clothes. Have a look
Zoning laws and high land rates mean that now, to own a home most peoples need TWO incomes to pay a mortgage, and they cant even make use of their own land to pay for it. Why because zones restrict industry to different zones. You cant run a business from home without a permit. And most office workers and factory workers dont want to LIVE at the factory or office...not that these places even provide accomodation.
What has this to do with clothing. Well, lets go back to adam and eve. They didnt wear any clothes right? Where did they live, In the Garden of eden. Why didnt they need any clothes at first? Well they were protected by God and guess what adam was told to name all the animals, God had planted this garden and told him to DRESS it and keep it. So what happned that the man and woman had to start wearing clothes. Have a look
-
1
- Show all
i have no business wearing a bra. but my wife literally wears my old jeans when she does yard work a
and we swap t-shirts often.
in high school i was homecoming king two years in a row and wore a type of skirt. i suspect a portion of the votes the second year were because of the expectation that i would wear another skirt to the football game & crowning..
but afaik no one ever thought i was an homosexual, not even the homosexual friends i had. you'll just have to take my word for it but by no means at all was i effeminate in character or dress.
for the voters it was more about the novelty, i think, and for me at the time, hey it was darn comfortable. i don't think i did wrong but nowadays i think a lot more about causing a stumbling block. my attitude is changed.
and we swap t-shirts often.
in high school i was homecoming king two years in a row and wore a type of skirt. i suspect a portion of the votes the second year were because of the expectation that i would wear another skirt to the football game & crowning..
but afaik no one ever thought i was an homosexual, not even the homosexual friends i had. you'll just have to take my word for it but by no means at all was i effeminate in character or dress.
for the voters it was more about the novelty, i think, and for me at the time, hey it was darn comfortable. i don't think i did wrong but nowadays i think a lot more about causing a stumbling block. my attitude is changed.
-
1
- Show all
Yeah I think now that it just goes hand in hand with practicality, women leaving the home to go work elsewhere which also seems part of the enemy’s plans to break up families (adultery in the workplace, etc.)... I see it now as just cultural, sure it’s practical for a woman to wear pants these days and if a man thinks he’d be cooler wearing a dress in the summertime than pants or shorts then it’s still a cultural no-no (dresses are still for women where I live)... So we go by what culture says... When women starting wearing pants it was for practical reasons, then it stuck and now it’s normal and considered women’s garb as evidenced by what department stores and clothing manufacturers label “women’s” (I see that now)... Thanks all🙂
-
2
- Show all
lolol
personally i find women in skirts more attractive than in pants anyway
i have a friend who graduated from Bob Jones University, and she wouldn't be caught dead in pants. we worked together and she did struggle sometimes with the physical parts of our job at the time because of her clothing - would have been less awkward in slacks. i admire her faithfulness to her convictions, but even more i admire the fact that we had discussions about her attire, about the reasons behind it, about how i completely disagree with her views, and we were able to see that this is something in the final analysis of little or no consequence and never have any offense between us and praise God together each with our own conflicting thoughts about clothes.
personally i find women in skirts more attractive than in pants anyway
i have a friend who graduated from Bob Jones University, and she wouldn't be caught dead in pants. we worked together and she did struggle sometimes with the physical parts of our job at the time because of her clothing - would have been less awkward in slacks. i admire her faithfulness to her convictions, but even more i admire the fact that we had discussions about her attire, about the reasons behind it, about how i completely disagree with her views, and we were able to see that this is something in the final analysis of little or no consequence and never have any offense between us and praise God together each with our own conflicting thoughts about clothes.
-
1
- Show all
There is a new trend, in our Western society, for a unisex look for young people. Their clothes and jewelry look the same, regardless of gender. Girls have boyish haircuts and clothes, and boys have feminine haircuts and clothes. Their jewelry is also interchangeable. Although this is not transvestism, per se, I feel it violates the spiritual intent of the ban on transvestism. God made males and females different.
He wants us to be comfortable with that difference. We should not play it down, nor deny it; yea, we should celebrate it. We should not have to look at a young person, and wonder what sex they are. *
* Excerpted from my first book.
He wants us to be comfortable with that difference. We should not play it down, nor deny it; yea, we should celebrate it. We should not have to look at a young person, and wonder what sex they are. *
* Excerpted from my first book.