Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. hebrews_exile.jpgThis 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.

image015.jpgHere 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, Pr. Markle.

 

Before I say anything else, you all should know that I wear skirts almost exclusively (except for skiing and sledding), and I really, really don't like to see ladies in pants. I've got an incredible aversion to pants and don't think the girls in our churches should be wearing them (btw, culottes are pants, too!). I believe them to be immodest. Just putting that out there so no one gets the idea that I'm a feminist who condones pants. :-P

That being said... I really don't think that today, in this culture and time, we can reasonably say that pants are men's garments. That definition is based on a particular time and place in Western history, and doesn't take into account all the myriad others cultures, eras, locations across human history. And no, 50's era American clothing is not somehow more 'godly' because it was American. :-P  Yes, some cultures as they degrade (including ours), start to blend the lines of male vs female clothing, but you can look to multiple cultures - even pagan ones - that clearly delineated dress between the genders. I think when our churches try to hang on (so very desperately) to this argument, we come across to our young people and the world around us as being outdated and oblivious - and all for a extra-Biblical definition. (I really wish it were otherwise - I would love a good chapter and verse to back up not wearing pants!) The only mention in the Bible of bivurcated garments, specifically, has to do with the dress of priests. Yes, priests are men, but not all men are priests. So perhaps Biblically only the pastors should wear pants? But wait... in the New Testament dispensation we are all considered priests, so maybe we can all wear pants.... see how silly it gets? 

We are instructed to a) wear what pertains to our gender and b ) dress modestly. IMO, the modesty argument is the best way to address pants - because a modest skirt will always be more modest than modern pants. Unless, of course, you're skiing or standing on your head.

 

 

On another line of thought... the OP recently commented elsewhere that common sense was a good reason for someone to be excused from something he otherwise felt was a command. If women are not to wear bivurcated garments, ever - well, common sense would have to excuse any of us living where there is snow and freezing temperatures from that anyways. Cause otherwise we'd never be able to stay warm. I am not generally a fan of using pragmatic arguments to prove/disprove the Bible, but thought it was a point worth making (just for the OP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salyan, I realize other cultures don't traditionally wear "western clothes" which is why I said "in our culture". But I think if you're a desert nomad and both sexes wear ankle- length robes then the men should wear the "man robe" .  If you're an woman eskimo, you aught to wear the woman parka. And Canadians......perfectly understandable. :D

Image result for inuit clothes

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

Salyan, I realize other cultures don't traditionally wear "western clothes" which is why I said "in our culture". But I think if you're a desert nomad and both sexes wear ankle- length robes then the men should wear the "man robe" .  If you're an woman eskimo, you aught to wear the woman parka. And Canadians......perfectly understandable. :D

Image result for inuit clothes

You are definitely onto something here. It seems to make sense that the type of decorations on the fabrics or ornamentation determined whether a parka, robe, or burlap sack back in the day was male or female. Based on old sculptures, etc. like the one Mike posted and you just now, it appears decorative fabric and ornamentation was the only real difference and continues to be in most cultures including western culture. Appurtenances also determine male and female then and now. Similar to garments like a man with a necklace or earring(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many cultures are heathen cultures and did not, do not follow, nor care for the things of God.

Mowhawks and tattoos are symbols of rebellion (to God) and have been so for thousands of years.  Does the fact that millions of toddlers are running around with those silly mowhawk chickenhead haircuts being watched by their parents who are covered in tattoos and piercings make them ok for God's people today?

 

Nope, still rebellion.

 

Should a Christian woman engage in an activity that would cause her to dress immodestly or as a man?  Will the Lord wink at a Christian woman who puts on a skin tight wetsuit to go diving or wear those short skirts for playing tennis or the leotard for gymnastics?

Why was it unseemly for a lady to straddle a horse but today it is not? 

Food for thought but as for me and my house, such is sin because the bible tells me so.  I was against culottes and riding skirts but caved in.  Today, our girls volley ball team wears them and my youngest has made the team.  I ain't never seen no man wearing culottes or riding skirts or maybe I'm being hypocritical or maybe just want to please my wife and children?  Lord help me!  

 

I reckon that I look funny to those rock-n-roll Christians and wonder if the Christian of the Victorian era for example, would think of me as I think of those rock-n-roll Christians?

Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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?)

I like this.

Also, a question... the "garment" in verse 25... was it a 'specific' garment... like 'personal' type of garment? 

Like 'under clothes'?

Just wondering if it is, and if that changes the normal 'view' there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2016 at 10:54 PM, heartstrings said:

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?

1206572119215038269johnny_automatic_NPS_

I agree. Mostly.

But when you look at womans clothing in the store, the difference is clear, in the so-called 'style' of the clothing too.

So it's not just whether it's labeled women's clothing that matters. Women's pants are quite different from men's. And as immodest as they can be, not all are.

Immodest pants are form fitting and alluring to the eyes of a man, who btw has his mind NOT under control of biblical restraint, and those pants do not 'glorify' the proper station of a woman. (*NOT THAT THE WOMAN BEARS NO BLAME*)

The same goes for 'skirts'. A Scottish man wearing a kilt is not alluring at all, yet he is wearing a skirt. And a kilt is much different on a man than a woman's skirt would be on a man.

Take your bathroom emblem above - widen the shoulders on the woman and add a 'cap' and what do you have?

A men's bathroom emblem in Scotland?

It's mostly about our perception.

I have worked with women who are gay. They will sometimes wear men's jeans. And you can see that they are men's jeans.

Men's jeans/pants are obviously differently made in pattern and style.

So the women who are wearing women's pants are not wearing that which pertains to a man.

On 9/2/2016 at 1:15 AM, swathdiver said:

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!

See my above post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother "Swathdiver,"

I present this posting with all due respect and regard for you as a fellow brother in Christ.  I pray that it will be received with the grace in which I intend it.

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 6:59 AM, swathdiver said:

Many cultures are heathen cultures and did not, do not follow, nor care for the things of God.

Mowhawks and tattoos are symbols of rebellion (to God) and have been so for thousands of years.  Does the fact that millions of toddlers are running around with those silly mowhawk chickenhead haircuts being watched by their parents who are covered in tattoos and piercings make them ok for God's people today?

Nope, still rebellion.

Should a Christian woman engage in an activity that would cause her to dress immodestly or as a man?  Will the Lord wink at a Christian woman who puts on a skin tight wetsuit to go diving or wear those short skirts for playing tennis or the leotard for gymnastics?

I fully agree with the principle of this part in your posting above.

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 6:59 AM, swathdiver said:

Why was it unseemly for a lady to straddle a horse but today it is not? 

Food for thought but as for me and my house, such is sin because the bible tells me so.  I was against culottes and riding skirts but caved in.  Today, our girls volley ball team wears them and my youngest has made the team.  I ain't never seen no man wearing culottes or riding skirts or maybe I'm being hypocritical or maybe just want to please my wife and children?  Lord help me!  

I am burdened concerning this part in your posting above.  First, by definition culottes are indeed "pants-wear."  Yet by definition they are also "pants-wear" made specifically for females.  Therefore, we could engage in a discussion concerning whether some "pants-wear" is specifically woman's wear, and not men's wear at all (as per your statement, "I ain't never seen no man wearing culottes or riding skirts."). 

However, such is not the part in your posting that burdens me.  Rather, it is the following statement in your posting that burdens me -- "I was against culottes and riding skirts but caved in."  That statement appears to indicate that your conscience is "against culottes and riding skirts."  Yet it also appears to indicate that you compromised and sinned against your conscience by "caving in" (for whatever reason).  If indeed your conscience has not changed in relation to the subject of culottes and riding skirts, then you are sinning against the Lord your God by sinning against your conscience through "caving in;" "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (See Romans 14:23)  Indeed, Romans 14:23 teaches us that if a believer engages in an activity against which his or her conscience carries doubt, then that believer is "damned" in so engaging; for he or she is engaging in that activity "not of faith."  (Note: As for myself, my conscience does not hold the same position as your conscience appears to hold concerning culottes and riding skirts.)

Brother, I am quite burdened for your spiritual condition before the Lord in this matter and for the spiritual damage that you might be causing against your own conscience.  Oh, how I pray that you might receive this warning with the grace in which it is intended.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this bit of history would be apropos to the discussion. I am quoting the article in full. To give credit, the link is at the end, but just be warned that the article on the link contains a photo that is risque, so I don't recommend opening it. Emphasis by bolding was  part of the article.

"Culottes have made a definitive comeback in the past few seasons, this year in particular. Opinions on them are definitely polarizing- some say the bold look is incredibly chic, others claim it is “aggressively unsexy.” However you feel, it’s safe to say that these pants are comfy, and versatile- definitely the perfect summer staple to combat these past few sweaty months.

This is hardly the pant’s first time in the fashion limelight however. Culottes have a long, tumultuous history, and have gone through a number of changes throughout the years.

So what are culottes?

It’s a bit of a trick question- the answer depends on what point in time you are referring. While today the term refers to women’s wear, its first iteration was as a men’s pant. The word was used as far back as the Renaissance- men of upper class would wear breeches, which in France was translated from English into French as “culottes.”  This early version was nothing like the ones worn today. These pants were fitted, often cut from fine silk, and ended just below the knee with a fastener such as a buckle or button.

At first glance, culottes are simply pants and nothing more. However, the garment has been caught up in scandal since it’s early days. By the late 1700’s the French Revolution culottes, which were frequently worn by the wealthy, became a symbol of the upper class and oppression. So much so, revolutionaries were referred to as “sans culottes” or “without culottes,” referring to their station and opposition to aristocratic ideas. These sans culottes wore trousers instead, creating a stark visual divide between classes and values.

But the French Revolution certainly wasn’t the end of it. The drama surrounding culottes only intensified as they made the transition from a symbol of male wealth into a freeing, feminist garment for women. This version, a skirt split into pants, is much more in line with what we know culottes as today.

Women’s culottes came about in the Victorian era, as women of the time started to become much more active than they had in previous generations. They were participating in activities such as horseback riding, tennis, and especially bicycling. However, the cumbersome skirts of the period were definitely not conducive to sports, or really anything other than sitting while looking pretty.

The bifurcated skirts of the Victorian era were originally created as garments that would give the illusion of wearing a long skirt while enabling women to straddle a horse instead of riding sidesaddle. Ruffles or panels helped to conceal the divide, allowing the wearer to ride horses and bikes properly. The French word “culottes” was borrowed and used to refer to these new women’s pants. Women enjoyed a newfound freedom in the Victorian version of culottes, and fortunately, did not need to endure much social backlash as a result of their sartorial choices. This garments looked enough like a skirt that few made too much of a fuss.

This would eventually change however, because the further the design of culottes moved from that of a traditional skirt, the more contentious the garment became. French designers began experimenting with the idea of divided skirts as they became more of a staple in women’s wardrobes.

However, it was Elsa Schiaparelli who would make the bold move of creating culottes that made no attempt to hide what they really were: pants for women.

In 1931, Schiaparelli caused a scandal during a trip to London to go fabric shopping. The designer wore culottes that were “undisguised by panels or a wraparound skirt.” The Bristish press tore Schiaparelli’s design apart, calling them “manly, with hints of lesbianism.” Though this is a ridiculous insult by today’s standards (in fact, now it could even be considered a compliment) the jabs got worse, even downright hostile. For example, Lili de Alvarez, a professional tennis player, wore a Schiaparelli design at Wimbledon. This outraged reporters at the Daily Mail, who declared that she should be “soundly beaten.” In fact, for a time, there was a French law that expressly forbade women wearing pants unless she was “holding a bicycle handlebar or the reigns of a horse.” Women were arrested in Paris for wearing culottes in public.

Fortunately, this outrage was short-lived, and pants for women became socially acceptable as attitudes and gender roles evolved in the subsequent decades. The wide-legged culottes fell out of fashion in favor of other styles, but, as we know, have recently made a comeback.

While public opinion on modern culottes is not nearly as “passionate” as it was in the 1930’s, its “aggressive” unsexiness is still a point of contention, even today. But looking back through its history, culottes were never meant to be sexy. And perhaps that’s a good thing."

https://startupfashion.com/fashion-archives-history-of-culottes/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 47 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...