skirtcafe.org

I, for one, would never call you an eisegete, partly because I can't pronounce it, but mostly because I have no idea what it means! (And neither has Chambers Dictionary.)

eisegete (plural eisegetes)

A person who places meaning on a text which is not originally or inherently present in the text itself.

From; http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/eisegete

dillon wrote:I suppose it depends on whether you believe it is indeed the word of God or simply the words of men attributed to God. I find a substantial difference between the greater message of the Bible and all the individual condemnations.

I wholeheartedly agree. I've always been rather put off by many of the individual condemnations I've read are in that daunting book. Nevertheless, I've always tended to believe that the overall message of how to live would produce a better world than we have if people would actually live it.

On the first part of that, I have to wonder if some of it may actually be the words of the gods filtered through human misinterpretation, and perhaps even self-serving editors, such that there remains a plot of truth obscured by errors, some of which any half intelligent person ought to be able to see are false, even without being able to see the entire truth laid out for comparison.

I haven't put in the effort to prove this to myself beyond reasonable doubt because it requires enough research into the mechanics of such proof to have let other tasks take precedence, but I do consider it a worthwhile line of study for the future. The heavy lifting has been done already, but big claims require big proof. I think there is a very good chance an attempt to disprove the claim will fail, almost to the point where the likelyhood of failing to disprove the claim is itself a deterrant - because, as exciting as verifying the claim would be, it is still undertaking a task with the expectation of failing.

Heavy stuff, Tor. My brain busies itself with simpler things, nowadays. On biblical interpretation minutiae I pass. The whole thing has been translated so many times and by so many people that it's no bad thing to stick with the version that appeals.

Tom.

I am not well enough versed in the history or clothing of women in that era, but I do wonder if head coverings and veils were typical? I could probably understand the condemnation of men attempting to pass as women and vice versa. It strikes me that in a time where bifurcated garments were unknown, that the inference of the passage might well have been regarding dressing in the garb of the other sex as a form of deception?

In terms of cross-dressing I came across this article about the NUS ( National Union of Students ):

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2 ... -it-doesnt

The beginning part is a bit irrelevant to us but further down the author talks about cross-dressing making some points already made on this site. One is that a female going to work in jeans, flat shoes, a V-neck jumper and no make up is cross-dressing. The other point is that it is really, really difficult to define cross-dressing within a person's perception of gender and sexuality.

Sinned wrote:[...]http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2 ... -it-doesnt

One is that a female going to work in jeans, flat shoes, a V-neck jumper and no make up is cross-dressing. The other point is that it is really, really difficult to define cross-dressing within a person's perception of gender and sexuality.

I read the article and think that the author went off the rails in point 3: "Cross-dressing is always an exploration of queer identity [...]. Not only did she go off the rails, but she upturned the entire train of carriages.

If, as her thesis proposes, all "cross-dressing" is an exploration of queer identity, then what explains the fact that the overwhelming majority of crossdressers are, in fact, straight men who happen to be happy in the role of straight men? What about us lot here who, most of us that is, are perfectly happy to be regular blokes but who prefer skirted styles in preference to trousers? I know that when I opt for a skirt in the morning instead of trousers it doesn't make me "queer" in any way save the original non-slang meaning of the word (and I suppose there's another word we have to cross off the usability list, much like "gay"). What happens if there is no subtext to the act? The author betrays her ignorance in her statements.

Ultimately, one's individual "alignment" matters not a whit unless one is actively "on the hunt" for a sexual relationship. Last week, a potential candidate for employment was brought up, and one of the concerns was that this was a woman who was transgendering into a man. I was rather curt on the topic and merely mentioned that she'd be like most other women in the Western world and the only important thing is that the job gets done. No, I am not a "sensitive New Age guy" ("new age" pronounced in the Penn and Teller way to rhyme with "sewage").

Part of our problem is that what it is to "be a 'man'" has turned into a veritable matchbox where it used to be a boxcar or a steamship. We men are vastly poorer for it, and we're widely to blame for it because we seem to lack the spine to stand up to the pressure.

crfriend wrote:

Sinned wrote:[...]http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2 ... -it-doesnt

If, as her thesis proposes, all "cross-dressing" is an exploration of queer identity, then what explains the fact that the overwhelming majority of crossdressers are, in fact, straight men who happen to be happy in the role of straight men?

This is what happens when you start intellectualizing. There are those who define "queer" as being anything other than what would generally be defined as "normal." In other words, people whose sexual preference, gender presentation, gender identity, and biological sex are all aligned in the way that they "ought" to be. So just as those who defend traditional values would consider a straight man who wears skirts out of preference to be a pervert, there are activists who would consider that same person to be part of the queer universe just because they don't accept normative rules about gender presentation.

The problem, though, is that the word "queer" already has a wider meaning that doesn't quite fit with that perspective.

Me? I have a problem with our compulsion to apply labels to people but that's a whole different discussion. But if you start thinking about how many people there are who don't fit the conventional mold of a person who accepts their biologically assigned sex, prefers to have sex with people of the opposite sex, wears the clothes that are traditionally worn in one's culture by the members of that sex, and is comfortable in the societal role assigned to people of that sex, then you have to come to the conclusion that there are a lot more of us than most people think.

Hello All!

Refering back to the Deut. 22:5 question the prohibition there is in reference to the practice of some to try to pass as a member of the opposite gender in order to participate or avoid participating in military campaignes.

A few months ago there was an excellent thread on the subject of "Christian men wearing skirts " where this subject was quite thoroughly covered and I would like to refer everyone back to it.

In regard to the rule of scripture in our lives I think that if we live according to the first and second greatest comandments (that is to love God with all our heart, mind, and soul. Love our nieghbor as we love ourselves) we will not go far wrong. May I add that expressing that love to God, our nieghbors, and to ourselves will give us quite enough to do. Christ commented when he expressed the greatest commandment that the whole law was dependant upon them. Think about it if you are practicing love for God, others, and yourself you don't have time to judge, condemn, or get angry with others! Yep I know "I love humanity! It's people I can't stand!" Ok I'm steppin' out of the pulpit now. LOL, wink!

Slainte'
Bill & Sir Brinkley the Exubrant!

My point regarding Deut. 22:5 wasn't to claim that crossdressing is sinful, but to point out that at that time, menswear and womenswear were apparently different.

Deuteronomy contains many laws, restrictions, and punishments that current believers deem obsolete and reject. The Jewish people of that time were living in a different world, in a different society, and with different outlooks and prejudices.

"Nowt queerer than fowk", Scots, literally nothing queerer than folk.
The nuance is that it emcompasses all the myriad of variety that is the rich tapestry of life.
It's also all forgiving of alll the imperfections and foibles of being human.
For the rest, Gods, there are times I'm thankful to be a happy non-believer.
Oddly, I feel more cross dressed in trousers than a skirt these days too.
Steve.

Kirbstone wrote:Heavy stuff, Tor. My brain busies itself with simpler things, nowadays. On biblical interpretation minutiae I pass. The whole thing has been translated so many times and by so many people that it's no bad thing to stick with the version that appeals.

Well, if the Bible and controversy surrounding it is too much, you can take any ancient mythical tradition that tickles your fancy. If there is anything to them, they all come from the same root, and keep different aspects more or less intact through the years.