I think we miss the point when it says that women are to dress modestly. We think she just needs to cover her skin, but the verse goes on to say what she shouldn’t wear, not how much should be covered. I think it’s the other kind of modest, as in not being flashy. A woman could be covered head to toe and still violate the command in that verse, while a topless woman sitting in church in Africa would not be violating it at all.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Pants for women?
- Thread starter Pacman
- Start date
I think we miss the point when it says that women are to dress modestly. We think she just needs to cover her skin, but the verse goes on to say what she shouldn’t wear, not how much should be covered. I think it’s the other kind of modest, as in not being flashy. A woman could be covered head to toe and still violate the command in that verse, while a topless woman sitting in church in Africa would not be violating it at all.
I’m pretty sure that everyone here at Biblical Families knows that the women are not supposed to wear the pants in the family... some of them have stated that they are all too aware of that.
Totally agree. It has nothing to do with sexuality... and even those specific things mentioned in the passage are not wrong it’s speaking against them in the contrast against shamefacedness and sobriety... which is the whole point of it...
A little over a year ago, my wife and I were in a restaurant and I had to ask my wife if a certain person sitting near us was a girl or a guy. (remember Pat from SNL?) my wife said this person was a girl, but the only thing I had to go on was my wife’s opinion. I know some people are if the opinion that women should not wear make up, but in all honesty, this person was in dire need of makeup. Clothing? Ya, that too.
Can I get an amen!
Unfortunately, this is the trend.
I see a lot of talk about modesty and discretion. That is good, but beside the point on the issue of pants. The question is: what kinds of clothing constitute feminine attire?
This is hard to answer today as clothing varies greatly by culture and everything is all mixed up today. But I come down solidly on the side of wearing dresses & skirts not pants.
It is important to realize that abandonment of dresses for woman and embracing of pants didn't just happen. It was a a conscious result of the feminist movement and unisex propaganda and happened at the same time that women entered the workplace in force, abandoned headcoverings, and started to adopt masculine demeanors and goals.
Think about the goal: feminine attire. A woman in a dress is distinctly feminine and her clothing will not be mistaken for that of a man. This cannot be said for pants; the difference for which comes down to mere cut and styling. Even today, for all the fads and changes in our culture dresses are still uniquely and explicitly feminine. It is much much easier to convey femininity in a dress. To do so with pants in most cases requires a very tight cut and/or some kind of feminine bling, which is the opposite of discrete.
Lastly a message to fathers and young women: as a practical matter, a young woman who walks in virtue and wears dresses with discretion and modesty with a quiet spirit will be a unicorn, a kind of unique throwback to traditional times that is highly prized among men. Frankly, they're just about the only kind of girl increasing numbers of men would even consider marrying.
It may sound weird, but eyes are often more apt to focus on a fully covered woman because of the mystery. Too often, the women who display more shouldn't, and what you see isn't what you want to get.
As far as male and female both wearing pants, and one of them being feminine and the other masculine, I think it's a hard problem to solve. As far as I know, in most ancient cultures (in temperate climates) both men and women wore flowing tunics of some sort. Men and women wore distinct styles, but pants weren't the determinant.
This is a serious question: Would any of our patriarchal men on this site wear a kilt or tunic out in public on a daily basis in the name of masculinity? Curious.
As far as male and female both wearing pants, and one of them being feminine and the other masculine, I think it's a hard problem to solve. As far as I know, in most ancient cultures (in temperate climates) both men and women wore flowing tunics of some sort. Men and women wore distinct styles, but pants weren't the determinant.
This is a serious question: Would any of our patriarchal men on this site wear a kilt or tunic out in public on a daily basis in the name of masculinity? Curious.
No I wouldn’t
I couldn't tell you if that was a man or woman in the second image, regardless of clothing. And the scarf certainly doesn't help.
That’s Pat!
Samuel wore a kilt the first time he took me out to a dance. And he had one eyebrow... I was more concerned about the eyebrow to be honest, but nobody noticed it because of the kilt!
Ah, the joy of university days.
Ah, the joy of university days.
Got pics?
I wish I did. I think there might be one floating around somewhere with our old uni friends, but we don't have it.
The eyebrow took a long time to grow back.
Sadly my waistline has expanded beyond the confines of that kilt. However I do have a sulu I picked up in Fiji and wear around the house sometimes. It's very comfortable in hot weather. It also shocks Jehovah's Witnesses, but that's not intentional, I discovered it by accident...
For most of history men have worn some form of tunic / kilt / skirt-like-garment. It's only in very recent centuries where fabrics have become simultaneously affordable and strong enough for trousers to become an everyday-wear item. So this whole trousers / skirts dichotomy is missing the point in my opinion - historically it hasn't even been a question. Furthermore, to be honest, there are anatomical reasons that mean that the healthiest attire for a man is a kilt or such garment worn commando, it lowers the temperature of the testes and increases sperm count - seriously, that's science. The only reason men started wearing trousers is for practicality in certain manual labour tasks. The fact they became commonplace is just fashion, and I ignore fashion...
@rockfox has correctly brought this back to the point of the matter - what kinds of clothing constitute feminine attire?
And I would answer that by simply saying "if she's obviously female, she's in feminine attire", vice versa for men, and "if you can't tell, they're doing it wrong".
So if a woman's in trousers but wearing a feminine top and long hair, so you'd never be confused, that's no problem. And that's the most practical attire for horseriding or many other activities. And if a man's in an obviously masculine-looking kilt, there's really no confusion - especially if he's got a beard. It's really quite common in New Zealand cities to see men of Pacific Island origin wearing sulus / lavalavas etc, there's still no mistaking that they're men.
Just be clear who you are in a way that is recognisable to those around you.
Sadly my waistline has expanded beyond the confines of that kilt. However I do have a sulu I picked up in Fiji and wear around the house sometimes. It's very comfortable in hot weather. It also shocks Jehovah's Witnesses, but that's not intentional, I discovered it by accident...
For most of history men have worn some form of tunic / kilt / skirt-like-garment. It's only in very recent centuries where fabrics have become simultaneously affordable and strong enough for trousers to become an everyday-wear item. So this whole trousers / skirts dichotomy is missing the point in my opinion - historically it hasn't even been a question. Furthermore, to be honest, there are anatomical reasons that mean that the healthiest attire for a man is a kilt or such garment worn commando, it lowers the temperature of the testes and increases sperm count - seriously, that's science. The only reason men started wearing trousers is for practicality in certain manual labour tasks. The fact they became commonplace is just fashion, and I ignore fashion...
@rockfox has correctly brought this back to the point of the matter - what kinds of clothing constitute feminine attire?
And I would answer that by simply saying "if she's obviously female, she's in feminine attire", vice versa for men, and "if you can't tell, they're doing it wrong".
So if a woman's in trousers but wearing a feminine top and long hair, so you'd never be confused, that's no problem. And that's the most practical attire for horseriding or many other activities. And if a man's in an obviously masculine-looking kilt, there's really no confusion - especially if he's got a beard. It's really quite common in New Zealand cities to see men of Pacific Island origin wearing sulus / lavalavas etc, there's still no mistaking that they're men.
Just be clear who you are in a way that is recognisable to those around you.
