Skirts for Men: Why More Men Should Wear Them

[ScotL]

I got no problem discussing the passage but honestly, it took me finding a MIS website to learn it. And I’ve been to a lot of church and bible studies.

That only goes to show that your congregation followed the teachings of the New Testament and not the Old. The reason you likely ran into the concept here at a site dedicated to Men In Skirts is that the passage is used against us more frequently than we'd like, and it's wielded as a weapon; thus, we tend to be rather sensitive on the matter. Compounding matters, is the tendency for the thing to be wielded by zealots and zealot wannabes who tend to be ineducable and who will not listen to reason, and that creates other problems. Fred accurately called out the "type" who wield the thing.

Like this cafe says the biggest detractor to us wearing skirts is just us, I think the people who fixate on that passage when everyone else just don’t know it, are the people on this cafe. I think it best to forget about it like most do.

It's not a matter of "fixating on the passage", it's just that an awareness of it will help prepare the individual for what he'll almost inevitably receive at some point in his tenure from a hard-core zealot. The awareness will help the individual decide what to do in the heat of the moment.

Indeed, for the most part, men are their own worst enemies in this, and that's whether their wives/SOs are "on-side" or not. We do not open our eyes to possibilities because we're not used to it after being constrained for so long -- and that's one of the mentalities we're fighting with. And grappling with an internal problem usually causes guys a major problem.

Best not to assume. My congregation was old school. Means Old Testament was taught. A lot. We were also taught though what the Old Testament was. Because other passages from the Old Testament like cutting the temple hairs resulting in getting smote and the ok to own slaves but only from neighboring countries needed an explanation.

Just like this phrase. It’s not from the big guy. My favorite comeback to people throwing biblical phrases in my face to ask them to explain the context. Most can’t because they are just repeating something someone told them without them actually reading it or studying it.

And this passage is money if you ask me. Saying men should not dress like women at a time when men were dressed like modern women is perfect. Have them explain that one to me and defend it. You can’t. Letting them keep yammering on and on about it and they’ll be ultimately flummoxed. Especially as you ask them to give more details.

But don’t put them down or act smug. The moment you call them zealots or put down their religion, you lose the argument.

It’s not easy, but preaching tolerance even in the face of those who abuse you is a winning strategy.

[Dust]

Hmm... The "Christ never wore pants" argument. I've thrown it around before. Never really got into it with a Bible thumping protestant, however.

I remember someone (now a Catholic priest) say in a talk on how to read the Bible, to simply skip over Leviticus, since it was the instructions for the Levite priests (i.e. not us). What I took away from that talk (among other unrelated things) is that the Old Testament rules land in three (fuzzy, somewhat overlapping) categories:

Some of the early rules laid down in the Bible are supposed to be for everyone, like the Ten Commandments. Basic stuff. Honor God and neighbor. No lying, murder, etc.

Then a lot of nitty gritty rules for staying out of trouble and how to settle disputes. If you wrong someone, repay extra, even if it's not four-fold. Go ahead and rescue an animal on the Sabbath. The principles are good, even if we aren't going to keep it to the letter. Christ Himself made this point a lot.

Then the stuff that really doesn't apply anymore. Like the dietary restrictions, and blood sacrifices in the temple that were clearly eliminated in the New Testament. Much of this was explicitly eliminated, primarily in Acts.

Deuteronomy 22-5 might land in that second category (the principles are there, but don't take it to the letter) in my mind at least.* Then what are we supposed to take from it?

Some say it was to keep people out of pagan rituals that involved cross-dressing. Got it, no pagan rituals.

Some say it was about staying out of sexual trouble. Got it, no kinky stuff.

You could even see it as no drag or no trying to pass as the opposite sex. That's not what most of us do here.

But if someone tries to make it mean no skirts, or anything from the women's isle at the store, the arguments are easy:

Kilts are for men. More men's skirts are becoming available. No prohibition there. (Also, see the above mentioned clothing for men in biblical times here.)

Can women then not wear men's stuff? No one but the most reactionary groups say this. I know women who nearly exclusively wear skirts and dresses, no pants in their closet, who think nothing of wearing male marketed shirts or socks. Even undershirts (is that opposite-sex underwear?!?).

Likewise, the oldest of old school men will loan women their jacket out of chivalry or whatever. Not to mention young girls in their boyfriend's hoodie or whatever. What of this?

Point out the hypocrisy. Ask them to draw a line. Show them that you aren't trying to pass as a woman, but rather trying to expand the male wardrobe. Mixing skirts with menswear helps here. Weird maybe, but hard to call it a smiting offense if that's the route you take.

Fashions change. I remember the trend of men's everything being baggy, and the reaction when closer fitting menswear came back. Men's skirts are a tougher sell than that was, since you can't gradually change pants into a skirt (either it has an inseam or it doesn't).** But there's no reason it can't happen.

And I see no biblical prohibition on being a fashion trend-setter, unless you can call that getting caught up in worldly things. In fact, wearing a skirt publicly seems to require that you stop caring what the world thinks, to some extent. No matter what you believe, obsessing over appearances and what others think can be detrimental.


*Some might argue for the third (tossed out completely), but I'm not sure I'd go that far. Let's give it the benefit of the doubt here, for the argument's sake at least.

**A gradual change of an untucked shirt over pants to a tunic or dress over pants, might be possible, then the pants become tights or shorts... But that will be awhile.

[Coder]

Fashions change. I remember the trend of men's everything being baggy, and the reaction when closer fitting menswear came back. Men's skirts are a tougher sell than that was, since you can't gradually change pants into a skirt (either it has an inseam or it doesn't).** But there's no reason it can't happen.

Just today I was walking into the office and passed by a skinny-jeans-clad male. And it really got me thinking - how long did that transition take? 5 years, 10? I mean - I never really surveyed student's clothing styles, but it sure feels like this started becoming a trend right before COVID, maybe 2 years before? So that puts us around 4/5 years. I don't pay too much attention to men's streetwear - have't been to a department store clothes shopping for over 10 years - never really around the public that much - but there has been a super gradual narrowing of the pants, so to speak. I'm really curious what drives these changes, this one in particular, but others as well. Could we engineer something that would - forced - but organically - cause guys to take up skirts? As I get more and more comfortable in public in skirts I care less and less about this, but it would be nice to be finally free of the worry I still can't shake off.

[crfriend]

Just today I was walking into the office and passed by a skinny-jeans-clad male.

Skinny jeans have been around for decades. My late ex- thought I'd look great in them in the 1990s and bought me a pair even though I asked her to save the money -- and they looked (and felt) horrible. She didn't particularly like the look because they made me look a heck of a lot skinnier than I was, and she noticed how the fabric always made me uncomfortable. (This was years before I took up skirts, mind.)

Needless to say, the experiment was not repeated. Only good ideas, it seems, die off; bad ones linger on into eternity.

Interestingly, a few weekends back I noticed a pair of bell-bottoms on a lithe little youngster in Boston -- and they looked pretty darned good on her, and weren't shredded. What a pleasant throwback to a bygone era!

[geron]

Best not to assume. My congregation was old school. Means Old Testament was taught. A lot. We were also taught though what the Old Testament was. Because other passages from the Old Testament like cutting the temple hairs resulting in getting smote and the ok to own slaves but only from neighboring countries needed an explanation.

Moreover, substantial chunks of the text are of dubious authenticity or have plainly been manufactured for one reason or another over the centuries. For chapters and verses and some fascinating background, see "Beyond Belief: Two Thousand Years of Bad Faith in the Christian Church" by James McDonald (Garnet Publishing, 2011), https://amzn.eu/d/j3U266Z

[ScotL]

Best not to assume. My congregation was old school. Means Old Testament was taught. A lot. We were also taught though what the Old Testament was. Because other passages from the Old Testament like cutting the temple hairs resulting in getting smote and the ok to own slaves but only from neighboring countries needed an explanation.

Moreover, substantial chunks of the text are of dubious authenticity or have plainly been manufactured for one reason or another over the centuries. For chapters and verses and some fascinating background, see "Beyond Belief: Two Thousand Years of Bad Faith in the Christian Church" by James McDonald (Garnet Publishing, 2011), https://amzn.eu/d/j3U266Z

Danish scientist Johannes Fibiger won the 1926 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering what he thought was a cancer-causing parasite—a bold idea that turned out to be phenomenally wrong.

[geron]

Moreover, substantial chunks of the text are of dubious authenticity or have plainly been manufactured for one reason or another over the centuries. For chapters and verses and some fascinating background, see "Beyond Belief: Two Thousand Years of Bad Faith in the Christian Church" by James McDonald (Garnet Publishing, 2011), https://amzn.eu/d/j3U266Z

Danish scientist Johannes Fibiger won the 1926 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering what he thought was a cancer-causing parasite—a bold idea that turned out to be phenomenally wrong.

...an egregious error which has since been efficiently corrected. And that is a feature of the way science works.

[Midas]

Why is there a discussion of the bible here? I doubt any religious forums will include debates about skirt wearing.

[Jim]

Why is there a discussion of the bible here? I doubt any religious forums will include debates about skirt wearing.

The Bible is an important source of values for much of the population, including myself. If we are discussing what people should do, we need to address the source of their "shoulds".

[ScotL]

Moreover, substantial chunks of the text are of dubious authenticity or have plainly been manufactured for one reason or another over the centuries. For chapters and verses and some fascinating background, see "Beyond Belief: Two Thousand Years of Bad Faith in the Christian Church" by James McDonald (Garnet Publishing, 2011), https://amzn.eu/d/j3U266Z

Danish scientist Johannes Fibiger won the 1926 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering what he thought was a cancer-causing parasite—a bold idea that turned out to be phenomenally wrong.

...an egregious error which has since been efficiently corrected. And that is a feature of the way science works.

As a Hard core scientist, I couldn’t agree more. I’m making the point that things left up to humans, no matter how divine we think they may be, are filled with human error.

But that doesn’t change what’s real.

[ScotL]

Why is there a discussion of the bible here? I doubt any religious forums will include debates about skirt wearing.

The Bible is an important source of values for much of the population, including myself. If we are discussing what people should do, we need to address the source of their "shoulds".

Excellent point Jim. In a world with many different people, accepting the reasons we are different is important

[Dust]

Why is there a discussion of the bible here? I doubt any religious forums will include debates about skirt wearing.

I actually used to post regularly on a rather traditional religious forum, and there were two things that set off hundred page* arguments (so-called "flame wars"). One was tattoos. The other was the wearing of pants (as opposed to skirts) by women. So not that far fetched.

I, of course, would inject discussion of men's skirts, or at least kilts, into such arguments. Not sure it made any difference, but might have planted a seed or two... I did get some discussion going on the subject with a few members, though not that much.


*And yes, the mods there actually let a few of these arguments play out and go for a hundred plus pages... Not posts, mind you, pages of posts.

[STEVIE]

Why is there a discussion of the bible here? I doubt any religious forums will include debates about skirt wearing.

Hi Midas,
Aside from what Dust said, I'd have broadly agreed but "other forums" aren't our concern.
Religious or anything else, there are probably many sites where males wearing skirts would be a taboo subject.
Their mods probably don't need to ban the topic, the membership will do it for themselves.
Your Humanity should not be gauged by any tenets of your particular tenets of faith, garb you choose or anything else.
The test is how Humanely do you look upon other Humans on this woe begotten bit of rock.
Steve

[Ray]

Why is there a discussion of the bible here? I doubt any religious forums will include debates about skirt wearing.

Hi, Midas.

I think it reflects the fact that we have a lot of posters from the USA, a country that tends to be much more religious than Europe, which in turn is rather more religious than the (relatively atheist) UK. That gulf in culture can be quite stark when religion is being discussed (my experience in the UK is that nobody discusses religion, because if you do, you’ll be seen as a bit, well, weird) as it’s just not something we are used to.

I’m okay with it for the most part, although I will interject at times if I disagree with certain “shoulds”, as Jim adroitly pointed out.

[rivegauche]

The problem with the Bible bashers is that they do not stop at following the instructions in it themselves, they insist on imposing these 'rules' on other people. They select the bits that suit their prejudices like everything surrounding what they regard as LGBT so that they can be high-minded about others. They conveniently overlook the requirements for battlements on all houses and the prohibition on mixing fibres. It is all hypocrisy central. If people want to believe in all this stuff - fine - leave the rest of out of it.