Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Culottes are Men's Clothing


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Wow, has this thread grown over the last day or two! I too, believe the Amish in our area draw more attention walking through a store than anyone except the most scantily clad women do. Maybe that's ok, but it would be no different than a woman wearing the exact same dress in red with big gold, red, purple (and whatever aweful scary color combination you can think of) would. In their effort to be plain and simple as to NOT draw attention to themselves, they stand out--big time, and like it or not, people stare.

Question: It has been said that all women's clothing ought to be LOOSE and FLOWING. Ok, think about a woman dressed in the 1800-1900's. Her dress was indeed long and flowing, but was the top (bodice of the dress) loose? It may well go up her neck, though some did not, but more often than not.........they were "fitted". Even in the picture of the first blue dress/jumper, you can easily make out the form of the womanly shape on top. Where do you draw the line?

Question: About the breeches issue..........did all men indeed in the Bible times where breeches, or was it only the priests? This is not an opinion question.........someone help me find the answer, because I don't know. Were breeches (in the time the Bible was written) EVER worn alone without the robe/tunic?

Question: About undergarments..........what was actually worn during Bible times?

Question: About pants, how do you define what is pants? (I'm thinking in terms of "crotched garments" as someone else put it..........undergarments, thermal underwear, pantyhose, bloomers, leggings, gauchos, culottes, split skirts,snow pants--all of which have leg holes)

You might think this is really stirring the pot, I assure you, it is not what it is intended to be. These are real issues I'd like to find answers for. Am I an all skirts person, no. Do I wear skirts a lot, yes, and not just to church. It is issues like I mentioned above that has not convinced me of all skirts! My girls just went to a retreat recently, they were expected to participate in sledding/outdoor activities, but were not allowed to wear snow pants to protect their legs (with a skirt on underneath), though they were allowed to wear pants underneath their skirts....which of course could be seen if they wiped out and the skirt flew up.......someone please help me with this, because it makes no sense to me. I've only been IFB for 2 years and it just makes no sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I've noticed in other area churches the trend is for the women to wear dresses or tops that expose their shoulders and much of their upper chest and upper back. For the more well-endowed women, these styles often expose much of something else too. Regardless of the length of their skirts or dresses, which are often below knee length, I believe these are not appropriate for church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Wow, has this thread grown over the last day or two! I too, believe the Amish in our area draw more attention walking through a store than anyone except the most scantily clad women do. Maybe that's ok, but it would be no different than a woman wearing the exact same dress in red with big gold, red, purple (and whatever aweful scary color combination you can think of) would. In their effort to be plain and simple as to NOT draw attention to themselves, they stand out--big time, and like it or not, people stare.

Question: It has been said that all women's clothing ought to be LOOSE and FLOWING. Ok, think about a woman dressed in the 1800-1900's. Her dress was indeed long and flowing, but was the top (bodice of the dress) loose? It may well go up her neck, though some did not, but more often than not.........they were "fitted". Even in the picture of the first blue dress/jumper, you can easily make out the form of the womanly shape on top. Where do you draw the line?

Question: About the breeches issue..........did all men indeed in the Bible times where breeches, or was it only the priests? This is not an opinion question.........someone help me find the answer, because I don't know. Were breeches (in the time the Bible was written) EVER worn alone without the robe/tunic?

Question: About undergarments..........what was actually worn during Bible times?

Question: About pants, how do you define what is pants? (I'm thinking in terms of "crotched garments" as someone else put it..........undergarments, thermal underwear, pantyhose, bloomers, leggings, gauchos, culottes, split skirts,snow pants--all of which have leg holes)

You might think this is really stirring the pot, I assure you, it is not what it is intended to be. These are real issues I'd like to find answers for. Am I an all skirts person, no. Do I wear skirts a lot, yes, and not just to church. It is issues like I mentioned above that has not convinced me of all skirts! My girls just went to a retreat recently, they were expected to participate in sledding/outdoor activities, but were not allowed to wear snow pants to protect their legs (with a skirt on underneath), though they were allowed to wear pants underneath their skirts....which of course could be seen if they wiped out and the skirt flew up.......someone please help me with this, because it makes no sense to me. I've only been IFB for 2 years and it just makes no sense!


Breeches, in the Bible, were commanded for the priests alone for the purpose of covering their nakedness. The reason for this is because they stood above the congregation at times and didn't need to be showing their nether regions. Ex. 28:42. They were to go from the loin to the thigh (not the ankle like pants do).

Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:


They were to put them on to perform certain tasks. Lev. 6:10 and 11 show this. He was to put them on and then take them off.

Lev. 6:10 And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
11 And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.


The only time breeches are mentioned in the Bible was in conjunction with Priestly garments. Anyone can read for themselves the only verses that come up in the KJV search:

Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exodus 39:28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen,
Leviticus 6:10 And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
Leviticus 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
Ezekiel 44:18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.


Other than that, we aren't told what people wore for undergarments back then. Given the priestly garment mentioned above and the fact that my hubby was in the Middle East in the 2nd Gulf War, it can be assumed that the men in general didn't/don't wear underwear at all. Not trying to be gross but that is what dh told me. The Arabs who wear the long white robes for everyday wear didn't wear underwear and they don't have toilets in their shopping malls either - just a hole in the floor with a trough on either side. :eek ANYHOOOOO.... back to something more pleasant...

At that time, both men and women wore robes of different kinds. You will find the words, "robe" and "coat" throughout the Bible. Nowhere that I can find does it say that men wore any kind of "pants" under their robes.


"Pants" mean quite a few different things to different people. Generally, when "pants" are preached against, jeans, casual pants, dress pants, capris, sweat pants in public is what is intended. Some preachers, however, do go so far as to preach against PJ bottoms or even to say that women should not wear any crotched garment at all (how convenient :roll ). Even some women who won't wear pants in public will wear sweat pants, long johns or PJ bottoms at home (which is actually logically inconsistent, IMO. After all, that really isn't a pajama skirt you are wearing).


IMO, men's apparel, women's apparel and modesty become cultural issues in the sense that no one wears the same kinds of clothes that ppl wore 100 years ago except for the Amish. Even men's styles have changed somewhat. The N.T. says that modesty is the key. Of course ppl disagree on what the word modesty means. My Strong's says it means well-ordered and arranged neatly. In this way one would not be drawing attention to themselves by refraining from outlandish clothing and shocking colors. Tight clothing also falls into this category because that would draw attention as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Question: It has been said that all women's clothing ought to be LOOSE and FLOWING. Ok, think about a woman dressed in the 1800-1900's. Her dress was indeed long and flowing, but was the top (bodice of the dress) loose? It may well go up her neck, though some did not, but more often than not.........they were "fitted". Even in the picture of the first blue dress/jumper, you can easily make out the form of the womanly shape on top. Where do you draw the line?


Good point! :thumb Victorian clothing is often used as the example of what modest clothing is, because of the long and flowing skirts that went all the way to the floor, and the high necklines -- but the bodice was unmistakably very form-fitting. I've even seen on Christian web sites which advocate dresses-only for women, pictures of what women used to wear in Jane Austen's time -- and they touted these as being "modest". Please. Have you ever taken a look at the necklines on those dresses? I think they'd even make some women today (and I mean women who care more about fashion than what is modest) blush.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

no one is saying it looks frumpy because the neck line is too high or the bottom is too long. all those gathers at the waist for instance can make some women look like they have put on 100 lbs. I for instance have a waist only 4 in smaller then my hips. if I get things pleated at the waist to fit my waist I am wearing something for someone that is far heavier then I am and it balloons around my hips. there is a difference when its pleated or has an elastic. I think its also the style of shirt under it as well. its really more of a jumper then a dress anyway the A one that is.
if one is wearing a shirt under it does it really then matter what shape the neckline is ? square, V, or half circle? also the shape of the neckline does not mean it has to be low. I like some of the outfits with the collar up the the neck like in the Asian dresses more then whats in the A Jumper. It could be made a little more interesting if the upper part had some pin tucks and false buttons added and the lower part could have a split skirt with an under skirt . one of them could have a pattern. I just find it rather boring to look at the way it is. B is not really to my taste either. Maybe if A was made in a tartan material it would look better and perhaps a cut so it does not have to be pleated so much at the waist, doing it in an A line would help with that or even if the bottom part was a gored it may look more attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
My girls just went to a retreat recently, they were expected to participate in sledding/outdoor activities, but were not allowed to wear snow pants to protect their legs (with a skirt on underneath), though they were allowed to wear pants underneath their skirts....which of course could be seen if they wiped out and the skirt flew up.......someone please help me with this, because it makes no sense to me. I've only been IFB for 2 years and it just makes no sense!



Makes no sense to me either. It is an external holiness rule made so that the powers that be could say to themselves that they are "skirts only" which they aren't really because they did allow the pants, which were seen anyway... :bonK:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


When we are talking about clothing for extreme weather I don't think there is a "men and women" clothing issue involved for the most part. In cases like skiing, the issue is about keeping warm and being able to move well while doing so.

Other than using different colors, it would be difficult to have truly proper winter clothing that is specifically male and specifically female.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

so why is it that when women are trying to look modest the pick 1800's American style clothing. What about some other country or the 1500's for instance? or perhaps the 5th century. I think there are many fashions today that look modest the thing is you have to shop at places like Tabi or other such stores or find them at the second hand stores. I find some of those older styles to be much nicer then the 1800's.. :) maybe the men should start dressing in clothing from the 1800's as well :) I had a dress made for me a long time ago and because there is an elastic in the neck I could pull it and make the neckline fall at my collar bone instead of at the chest where it looks like most are made to fall. I wore it to the medieval fair in Waterloo and had tracts to hand out. Well I think people thought I was part of them. people were grabbing them from my hand and saying thank you, boy did I hand out a lot that day :)

this one covers up to the next and not so boring
med3.jpg
hannoi.jpg
flempic1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...