Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Advocacy for men wearing skirts and Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4749
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by STEVIE »

Jim wrote: Sun Apr 27, 2025 11:10 am The value of this thread is for those who do have confidence in the authority of scripture. Without a proper understanding of the verse, they may feel conflicted over wearing skirts or dresses.
Valid point Jim.
However, I'd make a suggestion.
Re-title the thread and drop the reference to this particular verse.
My reasoning being that most comments point toward it never being quoted at them as a reason not to wear a skirt or dress.
The implication is that the majority of the faithful, whether they are troubled skirt wearers or just regular members of a congregation who have "confidence in the authority of scripture without any understanding"
New title could be something like "Faith, Scripture and Men in Skirts".
Advantage is that those without faith are not in a place to be critical and anyone struggling in this manner will know where knowledgeable help and guidance is available.
Steve.
Susie
Distinguished Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2024 7:45 pm

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by Susie »

I had a discussion about this with Stevie today.

I'm thinking about it from the point of view of someone who is dipping their toe in the skirting arena and has either heard the sentiment or been given chapter and verse.

I think if you were googling for guidance, it would be very helpful to come across a discussion from like-minded people who can provide reassurance and a different perspective.

On the differing translations - how is it translated into a language other than English, whether that is via English or straight from the original?
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 7277
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lake Goodwin, Washington
Contact:

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by moonshadow »

crfriend wrote: Sun Apr 27, 2025 5:13 pm Philosophically, I do not like shutting down civil discourse -- but sometimes the "needle just never moves" and rehashing the same old arguments never bears results. There's precious little new thinking on the matter, and different translations from the KJB get routinely trashed. Similarly, arguments about the applicability of the passage in the context of modern society go unnoticed and unheeded. If somebody has drawn new thought and new perspectives from the discussion, good (!), but overall there seems to be no real motion on changing attitudes and thinking. Which, given what we're being subjected to now, is not entirely surprising.
That's fair, but my assessment on this thread has been that there has been little theological debate and argument. Mostly among the religious [Christian] members, it's been discussion about how they have reconciled their skirt wearing with their faith. It seems to be the non-religious members that are taking the biggest issue with the thread.

My argument is that perhaps these non-religious members should just focus on other threads more of their interest rather than raining down on this one.

Consider that while many of the long standing Christian members here (Jim, John, etc) have more or less come to peace with this matter [of men wearing skirts], many newcomers to the forum may be only on the first few steps on that journey.

These newcomers may be in those first few steps of the process of deconstructing a lifetime of thou-shall-nots, and only just now exploring the idea of wearing the clothes they feel truly express how they are. How will it bode with these new members if they can not freely have open discussion with some of the "old hands" here?

I can understand that many members here don't want to forsake their faith just to wear a skirt, and yet there are nagging verses like the one this thread is about that appears to be an obstacle to overcome. Threads like this can help newcomers and more seasoned members alike navigate this issue.

Furthermore, if as many here suggest, we are going into hard religious "neo-con" territory (American Taliban, etc) as a society, then I'd argue these kind of discussions are more important that ever. Like it or not, religion isn't going anywhere, it's been around since the dawn of civilization and will likely be around for a long time into the future. We as a people need to be free to explore this complex matter and how it works into our modern lives. Shutting down the conversation just creates another warring tribe that we can't interact with. It doesn't build bridges, it builds walls and further reinforces echo chambers on both sides, religious and non-religious alike.

I humbly ask the mod team to let this topic stand (provided it stays civil), and also humbly ask those who are bothered by the discussion, to do the gentlemanly thing and gracefully bow out of this particular thread.
User avatar
Mugs-n-such
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:23 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by Mugs-n-such »

moonshadow wrote: Sun Apr 27, 2025 3:51 pm There have been several requests to lock this thread, and to be frank, these requests are bothersome.

The thread has not flamed, it's not called anyone out, it has remained a respectful discussion over how a passage in a book that millions upon millions of people read to help guide their lives. Those who would seek to shut down a civil discussion simply on the grounds that they just don't want their eyes or ears (assuming it was a real world discussion) are no different than the hyper-religious people who are always trying to restrict speech and pass laws to curtail secular conversations and activities. It's two sides of the same coin! It goes to show there are religious fanatics (those who simply can not bear the thought of secular discussion), and anti-religious fanatics (those who simply can not bear the thought of religious discussion).

They [the anti-religious among us] will rant about a school board removing book from school promoting a boy who likes to wear dresses, while at the same time trying to have a conversation shut down about how the religious can somehow square their desire to wear "that which partaineth to the opposite sex" with their beliefs.

We tell people who are bothered by our skirt wearing to look the other way. Well, pardon the pun, but I think a few members of this thread should practice what they preach, and when confronted by a thread about religion and how it ties into men in skirts (the theme of this forum), perhaps they should look the other way if they simply can not bear the thought.

Personally, I've found this thread to be very insightful, and useful in arming one's self with the necessary study when having to confront the issue of us wearing skirts (including myself) in the real world. Though I live in a very non-religious area at the moment, my old home is anything but, and I can tell you first hand that religion does indeed matter to a lot of people. Provided this thread remains civil and calm, I would be disappointed if it were to be shut down simply on the grounds of certain anti-religious members here can't stop clutching their pearls and the mere mention of any kind of religious discussion. To me, that represents heavy handed authoritarianism.
Wonderful! Thanks!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 15165
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by crfriend »

moonshadow wrote: Sun Apr 27, 2025 8:16 pm[... M]y assessment on this thread has been that there has been little theological debate and argument. Mostly among the religious [Christian] members, it's been discussion about how they have reconciled their skirt wearing with their faith. It seems to be the non-religious members that are taking the biggest issue with the thread.
That's likely coloured by the fact that the passage is (1) utterly irrelevant to non-Christians and (2) very frequently quite unpleasantly used as a cudgel for the "faithful" to beat them with.

I gauge the tone of my response to the one shooting the accusation's tone and can range from a reasonable conversation to a complete and utter intellectual shredding of the accuser.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4749
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by STEVIE »

crfriend wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 12:58 pm That's likely coloured by the fact that the passage is (1) utterly irrelevant to non-Christians and (2) very frequently quite unpleasantly used as a cudgel for the "faithful" to beat them with.
Actually Carl that cudgel is used by the faithful on the faithful to keep them in line.
The faithful in the cafe have learnt in spite of this and because they have found acceptance at a personal and congregational level.
I did not and that split me from the church, my own faith is my own business.
All good, but what is solved?
Deuteronomy 22:5 is not religion, it is 33 words among very very much more and of dubious provenance too.
What is wrong in having a thread for Men in Skirts of All Faiths and not just the one that is hung up on those 33 words?
I said to Susie that I wouldn't do this but she knows me better than I do.
Steve.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 7277
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lake Goodwin, Washington
Contact:

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by moonshadow »

STEVIE wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 6:50 pm The faithful in the cafe have learnt in spite of this and because they have found acceptance at a personal and congregational level.
Correct, and now those seasoned members can pass that wisdom and courage onto new members that are on a different part of the path.
User avatar
phathack
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:41 pm
Location: DFW Texas, USA

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by phathack »

I'm sure this has been said a million times on this forum.

The Bible doesn't define what a "man's garment" or a "woman's cloak." is even though it prohibits what some would call cross dressing. In reality its society that defines what is Men's and Women's wear. In the west we tore down those clothing silos decades ago when women began wearing pants, clothing that at the time were considered womens' wear. So here we are almost a century later talking about giving men the option to wear what ever they want just as women do today. The only thing thats really stopping men from enjoying fashion freedom is their fear of being called out for being different than the non playable characters around them.
Woman have Fashion, Men have a Uniform.
A skirt wearer since 2004 and a full time skirt wearer since 2020.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4749
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by STEVIE »

moonshadow wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 9:30 pm Correct, and now those seasoned members can pass that wisdom and courage onto new members that are on a different part of the path.
Sorry Moon, but that's not the point that I am trying to make.
My objections to this thread are not based on any single faith, creed or colour.
The verse itself is not widely used in Christian churches today and Christianity is not the only religion where there is intolerance of men in skirts.
The thread may not have flamed but it certainly has not achieved any agreement either.
We will never expunge the "thirty-three" words, now is the time to consider a new approach?
Steve.
jamie001
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:09 am

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by jamie001 »

Stevie is correct that other religions prohibit men in skirts. For example, Islam does not permit men wearing women's clothing and also men are not permitted to wear any gold jewelry including gold items because they are considered for women only. There are also discussions about men wearing nail polish and makeup and the response is that it is considered to be harem (bad, not permitted) because it is considered to be feminine.
mr seamstress
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2024 4:49 am

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by mr seamstress »

Women been noted being first in wearing pants since the 70's. This represent women still fighting for the right to wear pants.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/0 ... rsial.html
When will we be finished advocating for women’s right to wear pants? Doesn’t men’s right to wear skirts deserve some love after all these centuries? At the Toast, Cooper suggests, “Men’s skirts are in the ‘ridicule’ stage now, just as trousers were on women 150 years ago.”
We got recognize in our effort to change what is men's fashion.

There is those out there saying it is wrong for women to wear pants while quoting scripters.

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%2 ... _women.htm

Unfortunately women refuses to recognize we are out there defending their right to wear pants as we fight to be recognize the right to wear anything we choose. We cannot gain unless we also stand up for women also.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4749
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

Post by STEVIE »

phathack wrote: Tue Apr 29, 2025 3:15 am I'm sure this has been said a million times on this forum.
I'm equally sure that it has been more Phatback, and not just on this forum.

Then from Jim
The value of this thread is for those who do have confidence in the authority of scripture. Without a proper understanding of the verse, they may feel conflicted over wearing skirts or dresses.
Fact is that the "Christian" bible does not provide a categorical answer for men wearing skirts, nor are all Christians aware of that.
Christianity is not the absolute truth, it is faith with no more validity than Judaism or Shinto to those who don't subscribe.
Another fact, we can make as many more statements again and be no nearer agreement than at the beginning.
What's more anyone of any faith and struggling over their choices would not find this at all helpful or reassuring, I certainly wouldn't.
Drop the religion, keep the faith is my best suggestion.
Steve.
Post Reply