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, I wasn't going to add anything but thought I'd add a couple of thoughts for you all....

1. You can wear a skirt and be plenty warm in winter... I've done it a million times. You just have to learn how to dress.

2. I've been told that tights were a mans garment first in the Victorian era, and that pants worn alone was actually a womans clothing first in the Asian culture. The man wore the robes, and the women wore the pants. There were missionaries who had to have womens meeting separate because the Chinese woman wouldn't listen to the white woman because she only wore a skirt and they took that to mean she thought herself better than them, so the white woman had to wear pants to talk to them, but wouldn't wear them in front of the men, so they had separate meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
Wow, I wasn't going to add anything but thought I'd add a couple of thoughts for you all....

1. You can wear a skirt and be plenty warm in winter... I've done it a million times. You just have to learn how to dress.

2. I've been told that tights were a mans garment first in the Victorian era, and that pants worn alone was actually a womans clothing first in the Asian culture. The man wore the robes, and the women wore the pants. There were missionaries who had to have womens meeting separate because the Chinese woman wouldn't listen to the white woman because she only wore a skirt and they took that to mean she thought herself better than them, so the white woman had to wear pants to talk to them, but wouldn't wear them in front of the men, so they had separate meeting.



I agree you can be warm even when its -30 with 3 skirts on with furry leggings with slips between each skirt. I still dont think if I were to climb mount Kilimanjaro one day I would only wear a skirt. I think its also not a good idea with downhill skiing unless they are shorter then you need something on underneath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

couple of questions if y'all don't mind

~what do y'all do for swimming?
Even the most modest swimsuit around shows a lot of leg

~do y'all let your girls play w/ Polly Pockets, Barbies or other dolls? Some of them have dresses but a lot of them have pants or shorts. Do you just let them keep the outfits that are dresses?

as far as covering up everything that you don't want "seen or touched", let me tell you, I'd slap the daylights out of some guy if he came up and touched my face! So should I cover my face as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
couple of questions if y'all don't mind

~what do y'all do for swimming?
Even the most modest swimsuit around shows a lot of leg

~do y'all let your girls play w/ Polly Pockets, Barbies or other dolls? Some of them have dresses but a lot of them have pants or shorts. Do you just let them keep the outfits that are dresses?

as far as covering up everything that you don't want "seen or touched", let me tell you, I'd slap the daylights out of some guy if he came up and touched my face! So should I cover my face as well?



We swim either only with immediate family or separate swimming.

I made the clothes for our Barbies. Solved a lot of issues there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I don't see how apparel means what you claim it means. Literally interpreting the Bible' date=' apparel simply means clothing. Modest means orderly. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where a woman is commanded to wear loose, hanging garments.[/quote']

The word for apparel in Greek means that according to some lexicons and studies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


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.


I've been trying to determine whether or not breeches in the Bible are outer clothing or strictly undergarments....frankly, I've just not found any information on it, but you make it sound more likely they were undergarments. If people in the Bible wore no undergarments in general, well, I would suppose that the burden of showing that pants are a man's garment ("that which pertaineth to a man") has to be mostly proved based on the cultural trends of the U.S. clothing industry alone. If that's the case, I would find it very problematic in trying to explain my position to inquisitive family members if I decided to wear dresses 100% of the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I would find it very problematic in trying to explain my position to inquisitive family members if I decided to wear dresses 100% of the time.


Actually it is no problem unless their opinion is more important than the conviction the Lord has laid on your heart. My wife simply states her conviction according to God's Word. She really doesn't get asked much anymore and when she does it leads to a good opportunity to witness. Some people would actually get on me for not wearing shorts when it's hot and humid, and we get a good deal of ribbing when we won't join in on swim parties. We usually leave early if the swimwear is broken out. I certainly don't need to be seeing that, much less my children. The crux of it is, I don't mind being called peculiar for the Lord. We would rather err on the side of caution than be a bad testimony, stumbling block, or bring any kind of discredit to the Lord.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1Peter 2:9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

:goodpost: :amen:

I believe a woman should wear a skirt or dress in public that is modest. I believe a man shouldn't wear shorts either or walk around outside without a shirt. When it comes to life & death situations or extreme situations (Such as being stranded in a desert or trapped on a mountain or skiing) I think survival comes before clothing. Well that probably didn't add anything to the conversation but thats what I believe. (I also believe in seperate swimming/swimming ONLY with IMMEDIATE family.) *Prepares to be argued with*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Actually it is no problem unless their opinion is more important than the conviction the Lord has laid on your heart. My wife simply states her conviction according to God's Word. She really doesn't get asked much anymore and when she does it leads to a good opportunity to witness. Some people would actually get on me for not wearing shorts when it's hot and humid, and we get a good deal of ribbing when we won't join in on swim parties. We usually leave early if the swimwear is broken out. I certainly don't need to be seeing that, much less my children. The crux of it is, I don't mind being called peculiar for the Lord. We would rather err on the side of caution than be a bad testimony, stumbling block, or bring any kind of discredit to the Lord.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1Peter 2:9


If you feel convicted by God's Word on something and can go to the Word and prove it, well, it is concrete. What I thought would be problematic is if the pants issue was based on our U.S. culture alone. What if a person came from another country where both genders wore long tunics? Do you now tell the man he MUST where pants because that is what pertaineth to a man (in our culture), and long flowing apparel belongs on women? Well, at least in the past it did......and what about how things have changed? I have a very intellectually inclined family, these are definitely questions that would come up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
We would rather err on the side of caution than be a bad testimony' date=' stumbling block, or bring any kind of discredit to the Lord.[/quote']

I don't plan on giving up my jeans,(unless at some point I am convicted to do so) but I'd have to say that is the most convincing argument I have heard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
:goodpost::amen:

I believe a woman should wear a skirt or dress in public that is modest. I believe a man shouldn't wear shorts either or walk around outside without a shirt. When it comes to life & death situations or extreme situations (Such as being stranded in a desert or trapped on a mountain or skiing) I think survival comes before clothing. Well that probably didn't add anything to the conversation but thats what I believe. (I also believe in seperate swimming/swimming ONLY with IMMEDIATE family.) *Prepares to be argued with*


:ha Ok, I'm glad you are prepared to be "argued with". :lol: I am not supremely opinionated on this part of the issue, but someone is bound to ask you (therefore you ought to be prepared with an answer)--why is it NOT ok to swim with other people, but it is ok with your family? If you are not "properly" dressed in either circumstance......how is it ok with one and not the other, is what I mean. Or, perhaps you swim fully clothed?? (that would be more proper........if difficult..) :lol:
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...