Should Women Wear Pants?

[Jordan Kurecki]

 

[swathdiver]

The video comes up as private so I cannot comment on it.

However, the short is answer is no.  God says it is an abomination for a woman to dress as a man and men wear pants.  People are to dress modestly, to not be a stumblingblock to others which is almost impossible to do by a woman in pants.

Before this thread gets locked, there may be folks showing up to justify this style of feminized pants or that or making claims that pants are not for men only and that men and women wore robes back in the day or over there, wherever there is.

It's nice to see a lady dressed as a lady in a dress or blouse and skirt.  It is so rare to see them, I try to give a complement whenever possible.

[MountainChristian]

We have visitors wear pants to my church but the women who are members wear dresses or skirts. I'm thankful to the women for sacrifice. May the good LORD bless them. 

[2bLikeJesus]

I have never seen a transvestite who is trying to look like a woman, wear pants...wonder why?  If more women wore what men wear when they are trying to look like women, there would be no problem. What a twisted world we live in. 

[Rebecca]

8 hours ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

I have never seen a transvestite who is trying to look like a woman, wear pants...wonder why?  If more women wore what men wear when they are trying to look like women, there would be no problem. What a twisted world we live in.

I have, but I worked at Wal-mart for a while so I've seen everything.

[Genevanpreacher]

The Bible does not say a woman can't wear pants.

I have seen women wear dresses and skirts more immodestly than pants much more often.

Many times I think the 'modesty' question has more direction toward the mind of the man and less toward the dress code of the woman.

If us guys could contain our minds better, less questions about pants would be involved. Modesty is the point.

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

There it is.

[Jim_Alaska]

This question is as old as the hills. I heard it discussed over forty years ago by Baptists. To my mind it is a subject steeped in legalism. It goes hand in hand with another question, "should women wear a head covering."  Which is almost always determined to mean a hat.

I have always thought it very telling when the subject of women wearing pants comes up that there is always a certain phraseology connected with it, especially when preached against by certain pastors who bring the subject up. And the phrase is: "Split Legged."

It is used in this context; "Split legged pants." Now why is it that this phrase is only used by those that are against women wearing pants and never even mentioned in passing by  anyone else in the Christian or secular world?

I go along with GP's scripture reference that reinforces that women should dress in modest apparel, but then, so should a man. Tank tops and shorts have no place in church.

[Ukulelemike]

Wow, this is surely a contentious subject. What is the Bible saying when it commands that a woman not wear that which pertaineth to a man, and vice-versa? As was mentioned above, woman and men wore somewhat similar clothes in the time it was written-though I suspect they weren't uni-sex or even close to identical. Unfortunately, since Israel didn't make much in the way of pictures or sculptures of themselvs, there's little we can go off to compare. But since the command is there, we have to assume there was enough difference to tell the difference. But I suspect the command is more in the way of a woman seking to imitate a man, or a man imitate a woman. After all, sandals 'pertain' to a man, but women also wear them.  If I can get an image to upload, we Do have images made of them by other cultures. This is pretty good showing men's clothes. (also notice the short hair!). We see they have the fringe on the borders of the garments, just as the Lord commanded they have. Looks like the garments were layered, the coat with the robe underneath.

Here we see an Egyptian depiction of apparently Hebrew women. Their clothes are very different from the men. I don't know if this was during their time living in Egypt or later. According to the website this was them when they first sojourned into Egypt. Notice long hair, no headcoverings.

So it continues to be a question-clearly the women dressed differently from the men, but I don't know if that difference would be seen in a modern difference bwteen a dress and pants. My personal preference is women should wear full, covering and loose, though not like a bag, dress. But if loose pants that don't hug the figure are worn, or lower than the knee culottes, I suppose I would not be too worried. The question is MODESTY, which is as much borne out in the attitude as the clothing. A truely modest spirit will be marked by modest attire. I have known women who wore modest clothes but in spirit were anybut BUT modest. So we need the package. And again, in the difference between that which pertaineth to a man or a woman, I believe that there is to be seen an intent to emulate the other sex, and thereby challenge the God-given order.

[wretched]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 8:46 AM, Rebecca said:

I have, but I worked at Wal-mart for a while so I've seen everything.

Glad I wasn't sipping coffee when I read this one.  

[Salyan]

7 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

This question is as old as the hills. I heard it discussed over forty years ago by Baptists. To my mind it is a subject steeped in legalism. It goes hand in hand with another question, "should women wear a head covering."  Which is almost always determined to mean a hat.

I have always thought it very telling when the subject of women wearing pants comes up that there is always a certain phraseology connected with it, especially when preached against by certain pastors who bring the subject up. And the phrase is: "Split Legged."

It is used in this context; "Split legged pants." Now why is it that this phrase is only used by those that are against women wearing pants and never even mentioned in passing by  anyone else in the Christian or secular world?

Can I ask a question about the phrase 'split legged'? The people you mentioned who used it... how did they specifically define it? And did they apply it to everything - leggings, long johns, nylons, etc.? I'm genuinely curious - because, you see, the conclusion I've come to is that if women are to avoid pants because they're split legged, they should be avoiding everything else split legged to. Which in our climate means pretty much everything we generally wear with a dress to stay warm in winter. So I'm very curious whether those that use this terminology actually apply it consistently.

[Jim_Alaska]

Salyan, I never heard it actually defined. But it is used , as far as I can tell, to mean pants. they always call it "split legged pants." Maybe no one else has heard this term, might just be me, but I have heard it too many times to count.

[Genevanpreacher]

54 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Salyan, I never heard it actually defined. But it is used , as far as I can tell, to mean pants. they always call it "split legged pants." Maybe no one else has heard this term, might just be me, but I have heard it too many times to count.

Is there another kind of pants?

[heartstrings]

If a man puts on a dress, we look at him like he's a fruitcake. But if a woman wears bluejeans, most consider that normal and socially acceptable. Like I've said before;  it's no wonder there are so many effeminate men and masculinewomen. Our society is OK with women police officers, bosses, construction workers, big game hunters and infantry soldiers: women have taken over all the men's roles including wearing our pants. I'm serious. No wonder we have so many pathetic folks who can't use their own bathroom. And our stupid president makes facilitating such the law of our land. Short answer is "No". A woman should wear womens clothes, and act like a feminine lady. Let men wear men's clothes and be men....and use the men's bathroom. Speaking of bathrooms, isn't the universal symbol for "men's room" a stick-dude wearing pants? And look what the "womens" symbol has on...If the WORLD still recognizes the "dress" symbolized on a bathroom door, then THAT is what "pertaineth to a woman" in our culture; know what I'm saying?

[swathdiver]

20 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The Bible does not say a woman can't wear pants.

I have seen women wear dresses and skirts more immodestly than pants much more often.

Many times I think the 'modesty' question has more direction toward the mind of the man and less toward the dress code of the woman.

If us guys could contain our minds better, less questions about pants would be involved. Modesty is the point.

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

There it is.

You've addressed the subject of modesty and ignored the admonition for a woman not to wear men's clothing.

In our western society men wear pants and ladies wear dresses and skirts.  That split legged thing when I heard it thirty years ago was derogatory.

Watching old movies from the '20s and thirties, Hollywood's most prideful women appeared in movies with the tailored suits.  Bible believing women wore dresses and skirts even while working the fields on farms in all weather for hundreds of years.

Since those fraudulent Egyptian bibles came out and have become widespread, bible doctrine after bible doctrine has been questioned, redefined and discarded so the Burger King Christian can feel good about having Christ "Their Way" and not the Lord's Way.

 

Wayne, AMEN AMEN AMEN Brother!

Edited September 2, 2016 by swathdiver

[Pastor Scott Markle]

In order to answer the issue of the question in the opening post, Biblical, doctrinal integrity compels us to answer the following three questions:

1.  Is it a spiritual abomination for a woman to wear that which is inherently man's wear?  The answer to this question is Biblically easy, since Deuteronomy 22:5 directly declares, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

(Note: Both sides of this declaration should be honestly considered.  Since God's Word indicated that it is equally a spiritual abomination for a woman to "wear that which pertaineth unto a man" and for a man to "put on a woman's garment," then this matter should not be a one sided consideration.  Thus we are moved also to ask -- What is inherently "a woman's garment," such that a man should never put it on?)

2.  Is pants-wear inherently man's wear?

(Note: If one answers to the affirmative, what Biblical evidence might be provided in order to support this answer?  Indeed, wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak negatively concerning a woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?  On the other hand, in those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?)

3.  What exactly is the definition for "pants-wear"?

(Note: A basic English dictionary definition for "pants-wear" would be "an outer garment extending from the waist to the knees or ankles and divided into separate coverings for the legs."  Within this definition culottes, although commonly accepted among Fundamental Baptists for women to wear, are indeed "pants-wear."  In fact, an English dictionary definition for "culottes" would be "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the legs to resemble a skirt."  Furthermore, wearing any form of "pants-wear" under the skirt or for bed clothes would still be wearing "pants-wear."  So then, how absolute and consistent do we believe the declaration of God's Word in Deuteronomy 22:5 actually is?)