Cane Caldo and the Natural Law of Pants

Cane Caldo nails it in But Pants Aren’t in the Bible!

The fundamental issue of restricting men’s clothes from women is about whether or not it is acceptable for men (the heads of society) to exclude women. And the answer from everyone (but most egregiously from Christians) is: “No.”

These comments about women’s pants in Asia, or Roman men’s robes, are totally wrongheaded. Whether legs are wrapped versus draped, and which for whom, is a subjective decision of a society. However, subjective does not mean irrelevant, or unimportant. It means we should use our freedom to orient towards the good, the true, and the beautiful. That orientation is more important than whether or not we can suss out the Natural Law of Pants and Robes.[1] The search for the science of pants is a silly distraction used by the perverse and libertine to discredit and mock sound cultural standards and further the destruction of good order. They are like so-called environmentalists who uproot gardens so that weeds may flourish “naturally”.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cane Caldo. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Cane Caldo and the Natural Law of Pants

  1. Embracing Reality says:

    Precisely, men have become weak. Too many men in our society are either passive and allow women to run over them or they worship women. Women are put on pedestals by men either because men worship women’s sexuality or worship women’s perceived moral superiority.

  2. Pingback: Cane Caldo and the Natural Law of Pants | @the_arv

  3. I always thought of it as a motive thing. If you’re wearing pants because they’re practical and they are cut to fit your body shape, fine. If you are aping or emulating the opposite sex you have a bad motive and are evidently a twisted freak. Cross-dressing used to be like aposematism, warning of the nominally sane from contact with them, now it’s freak celebration.

  4. Boxer says:

    I was following that argument closely and agreed. That part of sex (i.e. customs and clothings) may well be a social construct; but it’s clearly important in the text that men look like men, and women like women, however the custom is constructed.

  5. Dalrock says:

    @GIL

    I always thought of it as a motive thing. If you’re wearing pants because they’re practical and they are cut to fit your body shape, fine. If you are aping or emulating the opposite sex you have a bad motive and are evidently a twisted freak.

    Motive matters, but beware the rationalization you are inviting if you don’t define a standard. After all, none of the women wearing yoga pants are doing so for sexual attention. Try to find a woman that admits otherwise, even to herself. They are all wearing them because they are comfortable and practical, even the ones who are getting plastic surgery so they can more proudly show off the shape of their labia in public.

    The objection to any restriction on women really is a feminist objection. Feminists don’t delude themselves on this point. Only Christians do.

  6. Bruce says:

    Cane is top notch.

  7. They are all wearing them because they are comfortable and practical, even the ones who are getting plastic surgery so they can more proudly show off the shape of their labia in public.

    Their frame is always going to obscure their motives. That’s what they do and it’s why the red-pill was so important. Watching what they do, not what they say. There is literally nothing I can do about their faulty motives besides point them out where I can and reject them. I see this garbage moving into the Church I attend and wonder when the pushback comes. AMOG shaming?

  8. Damn Crackers says:

    If you tear down the Western Patriarchy, you won’t get a feminist paradise. You’ll get an Eastern Patriarchy of the Muhammed, Genghis Khan, and Mao variety.

  9. Gunner Q says:

    God is Laughing @ 11:46 am:
    “I see this garbage moving into the Church I attend and wonder when the pushback comes.”

    Start the pushback yourself by asking church leaders how they implement female head coverings (1 Cor. 11:5). The Bible requires them as a sign of submission. Most Churchians will refuse to enforce them because they aren’t “currently culturally appropriate”. But then, how do their women demonstrate submission?

    By being a ‘servant leader’ in the pulpit….

  10. @ Gunnar Q, church leadership studiously avoids me. I guess I give off a certain vibe.

    Being an irregular attender and not participating in any of their (leadership) home groups isn’t helping. That and my hatred of dispensationalism put me on the outskirts of polite conversation (they’re end-times eschatologically neutral). I hate ANY fawning over feminists or Judaism about equally.

  11. I’ve also noted a shift from “seeker-sensitivity” to controversy aversion in a lot of the groups I’ve been seeing. “Let’s just focus on Jesus” is becoming the core of the new siege mentality.

  12. Gunner Q says:

    @ God is Laughing,
    “@ Gunnar Q, church leadership studiously avoids me. I guess I give off a certain vibe. … I’ve also noted a shift from “seeker-sensitivity” to controversy aversion in a lot of the groups I’ve been seeing. “Let’s just focus on Jesus” is becoming the core of the new siege mentality.”

    Excellent, you’ve already started the pushback in your area! Never mind me, you’re already doing fine.

  13. 9767 says:

    So, is it OK for women to wear pants or not in your opinion? We all know the bible forbids crossdressing.

  14. Stryker7200 says:

    God is Laughing – interesting on the dispensationalist aspect. I have to wonder where most manosphere Christians are in eschatology. I was raised in dispensationalist teachings but am now post-mil.

  15. Dispensationalism, the eschatology of cuckolds. Cuz God’s got to man up and marry that sl@t.

  16. Griffon says:

    Stryker, that’s an interesting question. I’m a partial (in contrast to hyper) preterist.
    All, New Testament modesty is generally concerned with financial rather than sexual displays. I suspect that sexual displays were not that much of a problem then.

  17. earlthomas786 says:

    The fundamental issue of restricting men’s clothes from women is about whether or not it is acceptable for men (the heads of society) to exclude women. And the answer from everyone (but most egregiously from Christians) is: “No.”

    This is when the whole ‘oppression of women’ has gone too far. To even hint at excluding a woman from anything but especially if the exclusion is from something evil that’s the ammo the rebellious feminists need to scream ‘male oppression’.

  18. thedeti says:

    9767:

    What I take from this is that if a society, guided by the considerations of good order determined by the men of that society, says it’s not appropriate for women to wear pants, then it’s not appropriate for women to wear pants. It’s more a cultural proscription than it is a legal one. I suppose it could be a legal imperative, but it’s really more geared to culture, daily life, and determinations of social mores than it is to whether it should or should not be legal for women or girls to wear pants.

    Or if a husband decides his wife and daughters should not wear pants, for whatever reason, then they should not wear pants.

  19. Pingback: Cane Caldo and the Natural Law of Pants | Reaction Times

  20. thedeti says:

    It’s really quite similar, I think, to the old laws that criminalized fornication, adultery, and sodomy, and the heart balm tort of alienation of affections. (This last tort allowed betrayed spouses to sue the people their spouses cheated with for money damages. Only a few states still have this tort, but almost no lawsuits are brought under them, because they are very hard to prove and usually not worth the money.)

    The crimes of fornication, adultery and sodomy were rarely prosecuted in American society even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, though nearly every state had them on the books. Everyone knew there were at least some people doing these things, but they were almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and more and more people saw little point to prosecuting them. It was a cultural statement more than a legal one. It was a statement of “these things are improper, inappropriate, and inconsistent with an ordered society, and we strongly disapprove of them because of the disruption and moral decay they cause.”

    Same thing here. Regulations of and restrictions on female (and male) attire are much more cultural than legal.

  21. rachel says:

    My husband gets frustrated with the seeker sensitive approach. If every service is aimed at unbelievers then the building up of the saints is neglected and the church weakened. The whole tone is somewhat apologetic. My husband comes from a culture where every man is consulted on a community decision and every man was expected to preach. In his mid teens he was told, not asked, he was to take his turn preaching. Not everyone continued to preach but every man was expected to be able to do so. Visiting men were offered the pulpit. Only once did the elder take over because the guy was talking rot. No one worried that that was rude though, it was just dealt with. That approach was formed by their culture but I think it had benefits. When all the men are active in the church, they drive it. Sunday morning was for believers with zero adjustment for any unbelievers who might be present. – and all the women wore dresses/skirts to church even if they didn’t later on the day. They considered it respectful.

  22. We sang a “song” the other day about, I kid you not, “the sharks that guard His shore”. (Hipster Lyrics TM).

    I told my wife that those lyrics were the sharks that guarded His shore, because I was having a hard time thinking about God after hearing that sung. I teased the senior pastor about the cheese during worship and he’s avoided me since (I just wished we could jump those sharks).

  23. Gunner Q says:

    9767 @ 1:11 pm:
    “So, is it OK for women to wear pants or not in your opinion? We all know the bible forbids crossdressing.”

    It’s not about anybody’s opinion. In the West, men wear pants and women wear dresses/skirts. This didn’t change until the onset of second-wave feminism. Not a coincidence.

    First-wave was red dresses. Look at the group photos of corporate leadership when women were first breaking the “glass ceiling”. They wore bright red dresses to stand out amid the sea of black & white suits. Once enough women came in that the attention-whoring was diluted, they started aping the (sexy) men as competition set in by wearing pants as if they belonged in the male spaces.

    Now in third-wave, competition for sexy men has accelerated to the point where women wear mens’ pants so tight that you can map their crotch topography. If unchecked, it’ll soon reach the point where young women go bottomless in public to attract Alphas while carrying cattle prods to punish any Betas who notice, like rutting scorpions. Meanwhile, post-Wall women will dress in burqas muumuus because they can’t compete anymore. World War 3 will be a catfight between the Bitchy Nakeds and the Pillsburys.

    Nothing about women wearing pants is an innocent change of fashion. It was first about envying men and then about showcasing their bodies in sexual competition with each other.

  24. Philalethes says:

    Some years back I read that among the Pueblo peoples of the American Southwest (some 20 of them survive, speaking several different unrelated languages but with a common culture – sorta like Europe), in some communities the men would do the weaving, while in others the women would do it – and in both cases the other sex was not allowed to touch the craft. Clearly, it was not about who was better at weaving (though there are certainly some occupations more suited to one sex or the other), but about establishing separate territories for the two sexes, so they will have goods and services to exchange. Which is how you construct a sustainable social order (including the two most dangerous animals on the planet).

  25. rachel says:

    I’ve always thought that it was a matter of being appropriate to the situation though, as Gunner points out, the correlation between feminism and changes in fashion is there.
    I used to teach in an African village and always wore dresses because it would have been scandalous not to. I wore jeans/shorts when I went to the capital and nobody batted an eyelid.
    One missionary I knew led a church in a rural area and the young women asked him if they could begin to wear jeans as some of the women in the village were. He said they couldn’t, not because there was anything wrong with wearing jeans per se but because it was still considered unladylike by many and it would be a stumbling block to people if church ladies were not above reproach.

    Incidentally, our eldest daughter recently started college (senior high equivalent) after being home schooled her whole life. The other day she commented that the girls at college didn’t seem to be as pretty as the young women in church and she couldn’t objectively figure out why because they dressed in a similar manner and realistically they were as pretty as each other. She thought it strange that she even noticed a difference. I could only suggest that purity shows but it makes you wonder.

  26. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    OT (although, in the second photo of her, she is wearing pants):

    Christine Keeler of the Profumo affair dies at 75.

    [For those of you who don’t remember, here’s all about The Profumo Affair.]

    Anyway, my actual reason for posting is: if any of you ever doubted the reality of The Wall, just compare photo #1 in the article, to photo #2. Uh-hunh.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  27. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Sorry, WP’s comm-box editor ate the link: … here’s all about The Profumo Affair.

  28. Looked at another way. Maybe women should avoid activities where wearing pants is practical.

  29. “We all know the bible forbids crossdressing.”

    The New Testament overrules the Old Testament. Anything anti-Christian in the Old Testament can be burned in a furnace. If you’re relying on Old Testament doctrines, they can be discarded if there is any reason whatsoever in the New Testament to discard them. There might well be something in the New Testament that forbids cross-dressing. If you want to argue from the New Testament then the debate can be nontrivial.

    And, incidentally, pants were known to ancient peoples who rode on horseback, such as the Persians.

  30. Hmm says:

    OT but fun:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/05/eating-meat-promotes-toxic-masculinity-academic-journal-says.html

    I linked to the Foxnews article because the abstract they link is too full of SJW jargon.

  31. earlthomas786 says:

    As ridiculous as the meat eating claim goes…it made me wonder if they subconsciously know that God gave humans authority over animals. So this is their way to try to ‘stick it to the Patriarchy’.

    And if God gave humans a hierarchy over animals…perhaps there’s a hierarchy in humans, like husband over wife, parents over children, leaders over subordinates, etc. Perhaps they are freaking out over that.

  32. 7817 says:

    This is an error:

    “The New Testament overrules the Old Testament. Anything anti-Christian in the Old Testament can be burned in a furnace.”

    It is one book. Pitting it against itself is foolish. The Old explains the New, and the New explains the Old.

    Marcion also did not like the Old Testament.

  33. Jason says:

    Jesus quoted the prophets, the Torah, made references frequently to The Law, and spoke of Adam. The Old Testament matters

  34. Oscar says:

    @ gaikokumaniakku
    on December 5, 2017 at 6:34 pm

    “The New Testament overrules the Old Testament. Anything anti-Christian in the Old Testament can be burned in a furnace.”

    Can you quote one New Testament scripture that “overrules” the Old Testament prohibition against cross dressing?

  35. Mntngt says:

    A bit OT for this thread but keeping with the general theme..
    18 year old Christian girl choose motherhood over “career”
    http://mailchi.mp/0aca6a24f366/born-with-a-purpose-3045385?e=b0417ef581
    not sure how to make link active

    I do see the odd sign of hope in the youth of to day. My own granddaughter for example, a very smart and capable, good looker (crew boss at 17 at Starbucks + does front desk at family business ) has an anti-feminist rant that is just hilarious, really believes that men in today’s world are getting the short end of the stick. She actually stated a while back in a conversation with her mother that given the present situation in the marriage/mating game that she would seriously consider an arranged marriage,figuring her elders would do her best

  36. Rollory says:

    (OT for this thread, my apologies)
    Dalrock – I would email this to you but I don’t see an email address anywhere on the site. Vox Day made a post that I expect will provide a fair amount of material for you to comment on:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/12/that-red-dot.html

    Between your post “Scaring away the competition” and the “only real man in the room” category, you’ve already covered the post itself and a fair number of commenter responses, but it might be worth touching on it again.

    I think Vox honestly hasn’t considered your angle yet, but I might be wrong about that.

  37. Spike says:

    One of Cane’s contributors in the link had it right: The guide for clothing is masculinity, femininity and modesty.
    Decades ago, Francis Schaeffer wrote a book called “The Great Evangelical Disaster”. In it, he outlined the onset of liberalism and he traced it to the time when ….blue jeans began being worn to church.
    I didn’t take him seriously beyond this point, but now I see that he had foreseen exactly this situation: when ANY standards get relaxed, the line you draw under them becomes the new bargaining position the next day.The next day you do encounter, a standard ”…used by the perverse and libertine to discredit and mock sound cultural standards and further the destruction of good order. Female clergy does exactly this, as many of your readers have shown.
    Re evangelical feminist fawning, I’d have to agree. Since going Married Red Pill I have attended a gender panel at my church to hammer out church policy on men and women’s roles. What I find is that comprehensive study of passages such as 1 Cor 11: 5 ensue, along with precise ”torture” of Biblical Greek, only to come up with….what feminists have been saying all along. For every passage, every time.
    Of course. How could the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Patriarchs – all of them – get it so wrong for so long????!!

  38. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    gaikokumaniakku :pants were known to ancient peoples who rode on horseback, such as the Persians.

    Funny coincidence. I just today read that ancient Persians invented high-heeled shoes, because it made it easier for riders to use stirrups.

    So it seems that high-heels were originally worn only by men.

  39. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Yac-Yac, I see that Christine Keeler did not age well. Only a man with properly fitted wife goggles could find her attractive in 2013.

  40. Splashman says:

    Back when Deuteronomy was written, Israelite men and women wore roughly the same sort of clothing (undergarment + shawl or cloak), but with differences (such as length, sleeves, and color) that made apparent the sex of the wearer.

    It seems to me that the situation today is very similar. Except on a sports field, it’s not often I see women wearing items of clothing that a man would wear. For instance, women’s jeans have designs on the pockets, tops are fitted or have frilly necklines, and no masculine male would be caught dead in 3/4 sleeves.

    That said, I have taught my daughters that it makes no sense to lessen their feminine charms by wearing clothing similiar to men’s. Vive la difference!

  41. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Vive la difference!

    It just occurred to me. Isn’t that phrase homophobic? I wonder how soon before people decide that it is, and ban it as “hate speech”?

    I actually heard several years ago that the words “husband” and “wife” were homophobic hate speech, because those words imply heteronormativity.

    But that was before gays started calling themselves husband and husband. I guess once they stole those words, it was no longer hate speech.

  42. Opus says:

    I little expected that the death of Christine Keeler (and in the same hospital where my baby brother was born) would attract the attention of this blog. I once represented her son. I much liked the Lloyd-Webber musical on the subject but I fear that it would be of too marginal interest – it has many obscure references even for the English – to reach Broadway. As I recall, in the musical, Miss Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davis largely wore slacks as was the fashion at the time.

    The idea that Profumo could have said anything to Keeler which she might profitably have related to her other lover the Soviet Naval Attache strikes me as delusional. Keeler aged poorly; Rice-Davies remained hot and as she in one of her memorable phrases explained ‘rose to respectability’.

  43. Heidi says:

    This is OT, but I’ve never understood the reasoning behind these kinds of articles. This essentially says, “Watch out! Our fertility rates are going to fall as low as Europe’s rates!” and also “We need to make having a family easier, like it is in Europe!”

    http://theweek.com/articles/741265/beware-baby-bust

  44. Hose_B says:

    You guys are getting bogged down on legalities. The scripture is about spirit. Men should not present as women and women should not present as men, no matter how envious the peahen is of the peacock.
    When we bog down on legalities such as “are jeans for men or women” we lose sight of the actual meaning.

    This concept came up with my kids regarding governmental regulations (in this case gun regulation) and how the ATF will ban something, and manufacturers will change the design just enough to get around the legislation, ATF re-regulates, manufacturers redesign, et cetera ad tedium.
    Pants, overalls, kilts, robes, you can play all the legalistic games you want. The legalistic games just prove a lack of spirit.

  45. Jason says:

    I’ve had this debate plenty of times…….

    I made a mention during our Corps Council Meeting once that I really don’t like teenage girls wearing “flip-flops” and “pajama bottoms” to Holiness on Sunday. I “undersatnd” the concept and reality of “come as you are” however, girl been coming to church for three years now, and she’s growing into a very attractive young woman, and she’s still wearing this on Sundays.

    I of course was called a “legalist” and “was I the one with a problem that I had to get over?” and the usual “how dare you judge a girl about how she dresses, you don’t know her heart”

    Pointing this out would make “mom” accountable of course, and we never fault a “mother” in the church for any choice she makes.

    Yet at the same time, I hear “this is God’s House, and we have to show Him respect, and if you were a guest in someone’s house, wouldn’t you have some manners?”

    Depends on who the guest is today 😉

    I do believe in come as you are, but if you are growing, learning repentance, changing yourself for His kingdom, and after years you’re at square one still? Some gentle, and real talk should be happening.

  46. Gunner Q says:

    gaikokumaniakku @ 6:34 pm:
    “And, incidentally, pants were known to ancient peoples who rode on horseback, such as the Persians.”

    So in ancient Persia, women wore pants that today in America would be considered male clothing, therefore women can always in every culture wear pants and we aren’t allowed to consider it male clothing?

    That’s like saying if I wear a kilt in a gay bar then everybody there had better understand I’m actually celebrating my ancestral culture from a different continent and shouldn’t consider it a sexual come-on. Where have I heard this reasoning before?

    “The problem isn’t me, it’s everybody around me! Cultural appropriation!”

  47. Dalrock says:

    @Hose_B

    You guys are getting bogged down on legalities. The scripture is about spirit. Men should not present as women and women should not present as men, no matter how envious the peahen is of the peacock.
    When we bog down on legalities such as “are jeans for men or women” we lose sight of the actual meaning.

    We live in a culture which has normalized cross dressing for women to such a degree that crossdressing really isn’t possible (for women). After decades of normalizing cross dressing for women, the cultural push is now to normalize it for men. Would it be legalistic to oppose these efforts? For example, a few days back someone linked to an article on the growing trend of young men and boys wearing makeup, and teaching both men and women how to properly apply makeup for different effects. Should we ignore these efforts in our culture, lest we be guilty of legalism by even discussing it?

    More to the point, fast forward a few decades and we live in a culture where it is perfectly normal for men to walk down the street in high heels, fish net stockings, and a miniskirt. This wouldn’t be a statement of cross dressing, but a statement of freedom, and moxie. Imagine a society that has been as successful at blinding us to the idea of men crossdressing as we are blind to the idea of women crossdressing. Should Christians in that future world object to the obliteration of the concept for both men and women? Or should they object to the obliteration for men, but not for women (because for women, it would be legalistic to have a cultural distinction in dress)?

  48. Stryker7200 says:

    @Jason – I don’t like the “come as you are” talk these days. It’s just used as an excuse for unbiblical behavior. Same as “Jesus loves me how I am”. Take any responsibility from the individual. Yes we are saved by Grace alone and Faith alone. Doesn’t mean Christ doesn’t require obedience, etc.

    It just stinks of people making excuses to be unbiblical. I hope you can have an impact in your congregation in the future.

  49. Frank K says:

    I made a mention during our Corps Council Meeting once that I really don’t like teenage girls wearing “flip-flops” and “pajama bottoms” to Holiness on Sunday

    I guess these people are unfamiliar with the term “Sunday Best”

    While the dress code at my parish has gone from “Sunday Best” to “Business Casual”, I can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone show up wearing pajamas, though some teens, who clearly look like they got dragged to church, do wear torn jeans, etc,

    It is possible that that those kids (and adults) have nothing better to wear. I attended a “secular” funeral at a very large funeral home in Denver some years ago. The home had several viewing rooms. In the one next to ours I saw people show up in jeans, shorts, T-Shirts, sneakers and flip flops, while we were all very formally dressed (suits and ties for the gents, dresses for the ladies).

    I wondered, if the men attending next door didn’t even have a pair of chinos and a polo shirt to wear. Later, at the funeral home we had a luncheon. I asked one of the servers if people didn’t dress up for funerals any more. She confirmed that was becoming the norm.

  50. Frank K says:

    and also “We need to make having a family easier, like it is in Europe!”

    Since when is it easier to have a family in Europe? Wages are low, taxes and the cost of living are sky high. Oh, they have “free” daycare, so that should make up for the fact that you can’t afford anything else.

    That said, the Hungarian government provides housing purchase grants (up to half the price of a flat) to couples with 3 or more children. But from what I have heard, there are few takers.

  51. Gunner Q says:

    @ Rollory,
    I agree with you about that particular shirt design. Approaching women is hard enough for a non-Alpha these days without being given the thought he’s literally in her father’s crosshairs. Nobody is laughing.

  52. DrTorch says:

    “Come as you are”? Where did that come from? I thought it was “Come with a repentant heart.”

    The parable in Matt 22, specifically vv 11-12 can almost be taken as literal in this instance.

    Come as you are does NOT mean come in your worst clothes. If all you have is rags, then certainly, come in your best rags. But likely these sloppy dressers have more appropriate clothes than their pajama bottoms.

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Frank K: I asked one of the servers if people didn’t dress up for funerals any more. She confirmed that was becoming the norm.

    Forest Lawn cemetery, in Hollywood, has a series of radio ads featuring people talking about their joyous memorial services, tailored just for them.

    Memorial services featuring Elvis impersonators, or people dressed as Star Wars characters, or wearing Hawaiian shirts, or disco music, jazz, cats and dogs — whatever best reflected the dearly parted’s loves, passions and hobbies.

    Such funeral services are now called “a celebration of his life.” They’re becoming elaborate, catered affairs, like weddings. It’s like throwing one last, theme party for the dearly departed.

    I’m not sure what it all means. That people can’t admit that this earthly life is over? That the dearly parted is now driving God’s car in the great NASCAR race in the sky?

  54. bdash 77 says:

    what is the difference between cross dressing and being a house husband?
    most workplaces are pushing their male staff to spend time with the kids and support their wife’s career

    men are so weak

  55. Frank K says:

    Such funeral services are now called “a celebration of his life.” They’re becoming elaborate, catered affairs, like weddings. It’s like throwing one last, theme party for the dearly departed.

    It’s what unbelievers do. Since they think that one’s existence ends at death, what else can they do? Celebrate that grandma is destroyed and lost forever?

    I tell unbelievers that if they are right, then after death it’s as if we never existed in the first place, since everything about us is lost and scattered to the four winds. And any mark we might have made on the world will eventually be erased, like a sandcastle on a beach. They hate it when I say that.

    Of course some put on a brave face and say nonsense like “I didn’t exist before I was born, why should I fear non-existence after death?”

  56. Frank K says:

    most workplaces are pushing their male staff to spend time with the kids and support their wife’s career

    FWIW, I have never seen that. All I ever hear is “Work harder, we need even more profit next quarter”. I have never heard upper management say “Don’t work so hard, go and spend more time with your family”.

  57. Hose_B says:

    @Dalrock
    Should we ignore these efforts in our culture, lest we be guilty of legalism by even discussing it?

    No, we shouldn’t ignore these efforts. By the same token, we cannot let the trappings of it BECOME the conversation.
    The discussion is on the attitude of cross dressing. This can be meaningful, but if we get bogged down on what that specifically looks like, we will miss the point.
    Example for you……..would I be cross dressing by wearing a wig? Depends on a lot of factors; what culture, what purpose, etc. English officials wore wigs (and I believe still do?) as did their military officers, etc. however, they were not trying to be women. The wigs were men’s clothing. So the discussion isn’t about whether wigs are for women or men, it’s how the individual is using said item.

    I’ll reference your example before I close: makeup. Every man on tv or movies wears makeup, but it’s very different than using it to accentuate feminine features.

  58. Oscar says:

    @ Stryker7200 says:
    December 6, 2017 at 10:10 am

    “I don’t like the ‘come as you are’ talk these days. It’s just used as an excuse for unbiblical behavior. Same as ‘Jesus loves me how I am’.”

    The saying used to be “Jesus loves you just as you are, and he loves you too much to leave you that way”. Apparently, the second part of that statement got lost somewhere.

    We’re supposed to accept unbelievers as they are. We can’t expect the unregenerate to behave like the regenerate. But we’re also supposed to expect the regenerate to grow in both faith and works, and to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. That’s a process. Those of us who are older in the faith SHOULD look like it. We SHOULD provide an example for new believers to follow.

  59. PuffyJacket says:

    The fundamental issue of restricting men’s clothes from women is about whether or not it is acceptable for men (the heads of society) to exclude women.

    Yep. It’s not simply about women wanting to dress like men. It’s about women wanting to dress like men AND enter male-dominated spaces AND experience the sensation of manly pride; the former just being a proxy argument for the latter. That’s why it’s disappointing to see some take the bait here.

    Female cross-dressing is about the female desire to enter male spaces. Male cross-dressing is about the female desire to mark male spaces as feminine. Together, they operate as a kind of tag-team effort to destroy male spaces all while insisting that they want to do nothing of the sort.

  60. BillyS says:

    I would argue that too much focus on the outward (pants, dresses, head coverings) takes the focus away from what Puffy Jacket notes – the elimination of any male spaces. That is far more detrimental and you are wasting time arguing against outward trapping until you get others in the Church to admit men and different are really different and have different ways God uses them.

    A discussion of what it means to dress like a man or dress like a woman is worth having, but that will only get people to just take the “don’t force legalism on me” stance rather than really considering things. Few Christians want to think things through.

    Even those here are pretty set in their views. Try getting them to think outside their box will quickly get you many labels rather than a good discussion. We have even eliminated the ability of men (mostly so here) to do that. We have no chance of changing our culture if we can’t handle talking things through with others.

    I expect things in this area will only change when it becomes completely unsustainable. That will be a lousy time for the righteous, but it seems to be the way of life.

  61. bdash 77 says:

    @FrankK
    Maybe at small firms is it not the case
    but Google/Facebook- my friends at Accounting firms – EY etc
    there is a strong push to eliminate differences between male and female
    the more men going home and the more women working in the firm = success

  62. PuffyJacket says:

    @BillyS

    Sounds to me like you’re taking the bait. Feminists wave-away legitimate complaints about female cross-dressing as “just silly legal abstractions”, precisely as a means to shut up anyone wanting separate sex roles for men and women and the exclusion of women from male spaces.

    You are unwittingly making their argument for them.

  63. Gunner Q says:

    Rollory, I went a step further and blogged in your defense.
    https://gunnerq.com/2017/12/06/the-blindness-of-alpha-daddies/

  64. BillyS says:

    Yeah right, PuffyJacket. I have taken the bait. Good way to ignore the point. I am sure others here will agree, but I prefer to stand what I see as right rather than what any group proclaims.

  65. Hose B, many wore wigs and powdered their faces to cover for the fact that they had syphilis. Those “trappings” were an outward manifestation of what was eating them.

  66. Micah says:

    I believe some people have inherently flawed arguments for being opposed to women wearing pants. Never mind issues of women wearing what is perceived as being men’s style of pants or vice versa; let’s just consider women wearing pants at all.

    The principle about men and women dressing modestly according to the sensitivities of the culture in which they find themselves is the only Scriptural one I have seen people refer to. Opponents will of women wearing pants will often point to this, but then bemoan the fact that our present culture is okay with it. It seems to me that a culture’s sensitivities would be what the vast majority of people in said culture feel about something. And in our culture it is, as a whole, acceptable for women to wear pants. It may not have been okay in years past, but it is now. With there being no truly objective, God-given rule about pants, opponents are wrong by virtue of their own argument.

    Essentially, a few are expecting the many to think like them, and to want to go back to the way things were. But why? Why should the many adopt the personal preferences of the few? Unless something in our present culture is specifically, unambiguously prohibited by Scriptures, why do cultural sensitivities of the past matter than more than those of today? After all, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone on here who wants to go back to a culture where it was considered taboo for married couples to have sex just for the pleasure of it and not to have kids, or for married couples to engage in non-vaginal intercourse. Are men weak for letting that cultural change happen?

    Perhaps if separate styles of men’s and women’s pants had been developed when they were first invented, even the people who were alive back then would not have been as perturbed at the idea of women starting to wear them; and perhaps we would not even be debating it to the extent that we do.

  67. Micah says:

    Ironic. I just put forth an inherently flawed argument myself. The Bible defines what is proper in terms of a married couples’ sex life as what a husband and wife agree to, not what the culture as a whole feels about sex. So, it isn’t an apples to apples comparison. However, while it is still a subjective thing, you might could say that it is much more objective in relation to sensitivities about clothes, as it greatly reduces input about what is proper versus what isn’t down to the two and only two people involved. It is much easier for two people to agree than for 2 million, 300 million, or whatever.

    That being said, in addition to homosexuals and unmarried straight people, many states used to have sodomy laws that banned even married people from having non-vaginal intercourse – and some married people were actually imprisoned for it. That, of course, is asinine, as the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid anything outright between husband and wife. Thus, there was no objective reason for people to want a government that imposes its own morality in the marriage bedroom. Marriage is God’s institution, and not even governments have the right to attach their own subjective rules to it. So given the weight of that, I still stand by my question about people wanting to go back to the way things were regarding pants, but not certain attitudes about sex.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s