skirtcafe.org

I found this article and think it is rather thought provoking. The author is wrong on so many levels with the points he makes. One must read carefully and you will discover that he actually degrades women probably is oblivious to the fact.

https://cbmw.org/topics/sex/gender-sex- ... 2eQlGAwy4g

This person lost me with his use of scripture in place of facts. Frankly I was not at all interested in reading his archaic ideas.

The article is given within the biblical context. The bible was written in about the 4th century AD. Deutronomy was know as the book of law. You will find a similar frase in the Thora.
The frases as that one shouldn't dress in the garments of the other gender has a reason, even though it was at times also common practise.
Reasons for the frase were the men at specific area's posing as women in order to render services. In addition thereto women were than not tried in case of criminal activities, hence dressing as a woman gave a criminal a chance to get away with his crime. Hence one has to interpret the words to the time when the were written. Same as more present with the #metoo situations. Women who gained their position in the film industry did so by horizontal career planning. Rose Mcgowan was a performer in adult movies before entering the more mainstream movie world. Recently there was a video on how a woman would be seduced. Why have a camera active? Watching the film the woman is rather active and entices the victim. It's also no longer regarded in compliance with the norm of the time when it took place, but with present new norms.

I would like to add a little back story to this article. It was posted on Facebook by a friend of my wife's. Now my wife is a very private person and rarely if ever puts anything on Facebook. This article had her fuming. These are her responses to the article directed to her friend:

" This article completely ignores that women have shattered both biblical references made here. Many people alive today remember when it was not the cultural norm for a woman to wear pants. In fact, in the 1950s and 1960s there were places in the U.S. where a woman could be arrested for wearing pants. Why is it okay for women to change the cultural norm (which the author says is natural and biblical), but not for men? Especially when the cultural norm is everchanging. Those men are still the minority. A man with long hair still gets looks out in public. No one thinks twice about a woman with short hair or wearing jeans. As to whether it looks masculine, there will always be men who don't look particularly masculine and women who don't look particularly feminine no matter what they're wearing. The unspoken double standard, the contradictions, and the ignorance of historical fashion trends in the article (pants for men is a relatively new development in history), destroy his argument for me.

I agree with you that rebellion against the Creator is the real danger, but I don't agree with the author that rebelling against cultural norms of clothing is the same as rebelling against the Creator. Sometimes it's simply what you feel more comfortable in and has absolutely nothing to do with gender or sexual confusion. I rebel against cultural norms every day when I choose to wear something that doesn't show cleavage. Christianity is about rebelling against cultural norms."

I was so proud of her for sticking up for what she passionately believes in and that is people being able to wear what they want.

I think that Deuteronomy was actually written between 1200-1400 BC not 400 AD and as I have mentioned before One of the most powerful armies of the times was the Roman Pretorian Guard whose main battle uniform was a skirt.

"Let women keep silence in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34) in the past meant females could not sing in choirs. So if you wanted sopranos, you had to rely on boys. The only problem is after you trained the boys, in time their voices would change. Solution - what if you could make them into permanent sopranos. Bingo, the creation of castrati.

You have to be careful how you interpret Scripture as it applies to cultural norms.

The author ignores how at one time no too long ago boys wore dresses. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. wore dresses as a boy but grew up to be a normal man.

John

From the article wrote:But this is dishonoring to her little boy’s design, whom God created male. Boys should be discipled to act and dress like boys becoming men, and girls should be discipled to act and dress like girls becoming women. Boys and girls who are encouraged to do otherwise are being taught not only to chafe against the natural order, but to embrace an abomination forbidden by God in His holy revelation.

*face palm*...

Ya'll know where I stand on this load of crap.

Hummm... and when those boys and girls make it to heaven and obtain their spiritual body, I wonder what they'll be allowed to wear then?

oldsalt1 wrote:I think that Deuteronomy was actually written between 1200-1400 BC not 400 AD and as I have mentioned before One of the most powerful armies of the times was the Roman Pretorian Guard whose main battle uniform was a skirt.

The basis for Deutronomy was laid in the period mentioned by you. The name comes from the Greek words Deuteros and Nomos (second name), the second book of law. Before the Greek name it was known in Hebrew as the Devarim in the Thora.
The original (?) text - at least traced further back - came from the Assyrians in the 8th century BC.

I accept the starting assumption of the article, the authority of God and scripture in my life. I wish I could respond to the author publicly, but there is no comment area.

Biblically, one thing that jumps out at me is the author's making a big deal about the word "abomination". The King James Bible uses the same word for violation of the dietary laws, for example eating shellfish.

Sounds like Jim and I share a similar viewpoint; I also have been able to reconcile my religious beliefs with my apparent violation of Deuteronomy 5:22.

I wrote a bit on the subject a few years ago on my blog,
here https://ralphinadress.wordpress.com/200 ... good-book/
and here https://ralphinadress.wordpress.com/201 ... revisited/

Ralph wrote:Sounds like Jim and I share a similar viewpoint; I also have been able to reconcile my religious beliefs with my apparent violation of Deuteronomy 5:22.

I wrote a bit on the subject a few years ago on my blog,
here https://ralphinadress.wordpress.com/200 ... good-book/
and here https://ralphinadress.wordpress.com/201 ... revisited/

I like your blog and share many similar experiences.