skirtcafe.org

phathack wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:30 am https://www.howstodo.com/skirts-for-men/

Hadn’t seen this one before. But I reject the premise that the Bible is against today’s men wearing skirts.

“The clothing worn in Biblical times was very different from what we wear today. Both men and women wore a loose, woolen, robe-like cloak or mantle as an outer garment. It was fastened at the waist with a belt or sash. A tunic or coat, a long piece of cloth, leather or haircloth with holes for arms and head, was worn under the cloak.”

The world is rife with people misunderstanding any text and turning it around to support their agenda. The clothing choices of men vs women during the times the Old Testament was reportedly written makes anyone who uses this as a reason men shouldn’t wear a skirt today farcical.

Hard to argue against men wearing skirts when men were wearing dresses then.

Who cares what is quoted from the bible? I’d just ignore anyone who quoted chapters from its pages in an attempt to influence me. It’s a work of fiction in my view. There are of course other views, which individuals have as much right to hold, in spite of what one may think of these views.

A positive article on the whole.

(Edited so that the first para states “these views” rather than “them” - to clear up any misunderstanding)

Ray wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:51 pm Who cares what is quoted from the bible? I’d just ignore anyone who quoted chapters from its pages in an attempt to influence me. It’s a work of fiction in my view.

I think you missed my point. People are using a historical text written at a time when men wore skirts/dresses to argue men shouldn’t wear skirts/dresses. That’s irony. Questioning the legitimacy of the text takes this conversation off topic.

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:04 pmPeople are using a historical text written at a time when men wore skirts/dresses to argue men shouldn’t wear skirts/dresses. That’s irony. Questioning the legitimacy of the text takes this conversation off topic.

Lambasting Deuteronomy is very much on-target, and the more people that get educated that they're using obsolete doctrine from a bad translation of an extended parable the better. It's gotten tiresome that that particular cudgel hasn't been ripped from their hands and place where the sun don't shine. And a cudgel it is, and it's one only applied to men.

Worse, it's especially irrelevant if one does not have to be a member of that particular religion.

The Old Testament was not written for modern man or for those who were not of the Hebrew line.

The New Testament was written more for modern man but has been bastardized worse than the Old Testament to keep man in his place.

And as per usual your mileage may vary!

( This is not here to start a religious argument but just to provoke thought. )

crfriend wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:28 pm

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:04 pmPeople are using a historical text written at a time when men wore skirts/dresses to argue men shouldn’t wear skirts/dresses. That’s irony. Questioning the legitimacy of the text takes this conversation off topic.

Lambasting Deuteronomy is very much on-target, and the more people that get educated that they're using obsolete doctrine from a bad translation of an extended parable the better. It's gotten tiresome that that particular cudgel hasn't been ripped from their hands and place where the sun don't shine. And a cudgel it is, and it's one only applied to men.

Worse, it's especially irrelevant if one does not have to be a member of that particular religion.

I believe this cafe should focus on men who want to wear skirts as a man and not insult someone’s religion because you don’t agree with them.

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:23 pmI believe this cafe should focus on men who want to wear skirts as a man and not insult someone’s religion because you don’t agree with them.

It is not about putting down a particular religion at all. It's about putting aside outdated doctrine that was based on faulty translation from the original language into English. It's also about finally (hopefully) putting away a weapon that the ignorant wield against men -- and men alone. It's never wielded against women. Let's do away with the double-standard and the obsolescence.

crfriend wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:28 pm
Lambasting Deuteronomy is very much on-target, and the more people that get educated that they're using obsolete doctrine from a bad translation of an extended parable the better. It's gotten tiresome that that particular cudgel hasn't been ripped from their hands and place where the sun don't shine. And a cudgel it is, and it's one only applied to men.

I agree about the doctrine and translation. However, conservative groups still use it to say women should not wear trousers. This includes some Pentecostal groups and some Mennonite (my branch) and some Amish groups. At least they are being less sexist in their application.

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:23 pm

crfriend wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:28 pm

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:04 pmPeople are using a historical text written at a time when men wore skirts/dresses to argue men shouldn’t wear skirts/dresses. That’s irony. Questioning the legitimacy of the text takes this conversation off topic.

Lambasting Deuteronomy is very much on-target, and the more people that get educated that they're using obsolete doctrine from a bad translation of an extended parable the better. It's gotten tiresome that that particular cudgel hasn't been ripped from their hands and place where the sun don't shine. And a cudgel it is, and it's one only applied to men.

Worse, it's especially irrelevant if one does not have to be a member of that particular religion.

I believe this cafe should focus on men who want to wear skirts as a man and not insult someone’s religion because you don’t agree with them.

If "someone's" entire religion revolves around outdated, superstitious doctrine, they should re-evaluate their belief system. Said religion's doctrine is being thrown at us, so disparaging it is fair game. It's actively trying to make these harder for us. Not just MiS, but humanity as a whole.

Jim wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:48 pmI agree about the doctrine and translation. However, conservative groups still use it to say women should not wear trousers. This includes some Pentecostal groups and some Mennonite (my branch) and some Amish groups. At least they are being less sexist in their application.

This is absolutely fair game for debate, and one question immediately comes to mind and that's "Are the naysayers (in terms of the female population) "conservatives" or "reactionaries"? (There's a profound difference.) Personally, I've not heard one whit of criticism of what women clothe themselves in come in for any serious criticism in the past 40 years, but that may be a reflection of where I live.

If Deuteronomy 22:5 is considered "current and relevant", then why not make public lapidation the punishment for adultery? (I've used Old Testament doctrine in defence of that sentiment more than a few times, much to the horror of folks around me.) "In for a penny, in for a pound", as the old saying goes. One does not get to cherry-pick. One bite of the apple is as good as the whole thing.

I think we as a group should NOT debate religion. This is a hot topic that no one will win and will detract from discussing men wearing skirts.

I think a group that simultaneously requests tolerance from society for our belief that men wear whatever they please and is intolerant to others religious beliefs is painfully ironic and disappointing.

TSH wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:56 pm

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:23 pm

crfriend wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:28 pm
Lambasting Deuteronomy is very much on-target, and the more people that get educated that they're using obsolete doctrine from a bad translation of an extended parable the better. It's gotten tiresome that that particular cudgel hasn't been ripped from their hands and place where the sun don't shine. And a cudgel it is, and it's one only applied to men.

Worse, it's especially irrelevant if one does not have to be a member of that particular religion.

I believe this cafe should focus on men who want to wear skirts as a man and not insult someone’s religion because you don’t agree with them.

If "someone's" entire religion revolves around outdated, superstitious doctrine, they should re-evaluate their belief system. Said religion's doctrine is being thrown at us, so disparaging it is fair game. It's actively trying to make these harder for us. Not just MiS, but humanity as a whole.

I think we should rise above disparaging others since we would like others to not disparage us for wearing a skirt.

ScotL wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:21 am

TSH wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:56 pm

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:23 pm

I believe this cafe should focus on men who want to wear skirts as a man and not insult someone’s religion because you don’t agree with them.

If "someone's" entire religion revolves around outdated, superstitious doctrine, they should re-evaluate their belief system. Said religion's doctrine is being thrown at us, so disparaging it is fair game. It's actively trying to make these harder for us. Not just MiS, but humanity as a whole.

I think we should rise above disparaging others since we would like others to not disparage us for wearing a skirt.

That's easier said than done, because non-confrontational people are not exempt from this treatment just because they make an admission to not stoop to the level of reflecting the same attitude back at the instigator(s).

We keep seeing articles like this.

What we're not seeing - not yet anyway - are skirts for men being sold in ordinary clothes shops at affordable prices.

So when they say "skirts for men", they really mean male celebrities and young males who live in affluent metropolitan areas.