do you think men should wear pants?

[Leetastic]

Guys can have good lookin' legs, too.

SKIRTS FOR EVERYONE.

[Bethany Shepard]

*snorts* Umm...are you sure you want to make that statement? :/

umm ya..*snorts* are you sure you wanted to say that to me?

Whoa... Back down, Missy...

-----------

I found this verse in Deuteronomy:

~Deuteronomy 22:5~

"A woman must not wear men's clothes, nor a man wear womens clothes, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."



Now, I don't think this is a conversation that can be debated. God convicts different people in different matters. Some conservative and some less conservative.

~1 Corinthians 10:23-24~

"Everything is permissible"-but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"-but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

[Striped Leopard]

Who defines what men's and women's clothes are?

[Metal15]

Who defines what men's and women's clothes are?

Good question.


It's also odd to think about, because we were never meant to wear clothes anyway...

[Renae]

I think a lot of it has to do with this fact: not only are the body's of men and women created differently, but also males and females are wired (internally) in different ways.
I think it is very narrow minded of someone to say that men and women both have legs and therefore they should follow the same rules in modesty and dress. This argument has only one major premise and is not using correct logic.

Like I said men and women have different forms (yes...even in legs. Lots of things involve muscle. If men had the same leg muscle and form as women do, they would be as weak as we are and not able to do many of the things they are able to do). However I shall not go into detail on this because if you choose to be ignorant to this fact, that remains and will always remain your problem.

Moving on to the difference in the inside wiring of males and females. Picture this (or maybe you shouldn't ) : If a girl in some super duper tight pants walks down the street, she will attract the eyes of almost all the males walking down the same street and will cause them to sin as they look lustfully at her. However...if a man walks down a street wearing pants that are just as tight as they were on said woman, what would naturally follow (and I say naturally because there can be exceptions due to some thwarted minds) he will not cause any person to sin by making them look lustfully at him and his legs. The only thing that would happen in this case would be the wierdoutisation of the on lookers.

My point: Though I am all together FOR PANTS ( I love love love them, and wear them to soo many activities) I do not think that this question should ever be used to further the universal acceptation of women wearing pants.

[Eleventh Doctor]

If men had the same leg muscle and form as women do, they would be as weak as we are and not able to do many of the things they are able to do). However I shall not go into detail on this because if you choose to be ignorant to this fact, that remains and will always remain your problem.

And if you choose to go around spreading ignorant stereotypes about gender that will always be your problem.

You're honestly saying women don't lust after men's bodies? (Except in odd cases)

[Renae]

And if you choose to go around spreading ignorant stereotypes about gender that will always be your problem.

You're honestly saying women don't lust after men's bodies? (Except in odd cases)

Ok, I am basing my judgments after the way I work. Maybe that's not right the right way to do it (as I might be the odd ball out of all human beings), but I have NEVER lusted after a guy due to the fact that he was wearing pants or because of the tightness of the pants. Maybe this has happened to you, and in that case I should change my argument, agreed.


However, please don't twist my words. I did not "honestly say that women don't lust after men's bodies." Not once in my entire post.

[sing]

And if you choose to go around spreading ignorant stereotypes about gender that will always be your problem.

You're honestly saying women don't lust after men's bodies? (Except in odd cases)

Ok, I am basing my judgments after the way I work. Maybe that's not right the right way to do it (as I might be the odd ball out of all human beings), but I have NEVER lusted after a guy due to the fact that he was wearing pants or because of the tightness of the pants. Maybe this has happened to you, and in that case I should change my argument, agreed.


However, please don't twist my words. I did not "honestly say that women don't lust after men's bodies." Not once in my entire post.

Renae, i have agreed with almost everything you have said. And think about this peoples, Most people if they saw a guy wearing a skirt, well umm they would think that guy was Well um well um well um.......................You know...............g...........a...............y.............

Plus Oliver, have you ever worn a dress? I mean guys would not be able to do their work very well in a dress....

[Eleventh Doctor]

Most people if they saw a guy wearing a skirt, well umm they would think that guy was Well um well um well um.......................You know...............g...........a...............y.............

Totally gay

Plus Oliver, have you ever worn a dress? I mean guys would not be able to do their work very well in a dress....

Yeah I mean look to history, men have always worn pants and never worn anything else. They've never worn tunics or robes while doing hard work.

However, please don't twist my words. I did not "honestly say that women don't lust after men's bodies." Not once in my entire post.

he will not cause any person to sin by making them look lustfully at him and his legs.

You stand by this statement? Because to me, that seems to be saying that men don't cause lustful thoughts. Which is just untrue.

[Renae]

You stand by this statement? Because to me, that seems to be saying that men don't cause lustful thoughts. Which is just untrue.

Like I said in my previous post that addressed this question (not sure if you actually caught that post or are purposefully ignoring it..however I shall repeat myself for your sake).
I would not be caused to sin by looking lustfully at a man wearing pants (tight or not).

he will not cause any person to sin by making them look lustfully at him and his legs.

men don't cause lustful thoughts.

Reading both these sentences over and over... I still can not see why you think they are they same thing. I said that in a natural case (judging by myself), a woman would not be caused to lust after a man because (and only because) of his pants and/or their tightness. You think I am saying that a man cannot in any case cause a woman to lust. Please show me where you find this in my quote.

[Metal15]

Just to clarify, Renae, you're saying that you yourself don't lust after dudes with tight pants, but you're not saying that women in general don't lust after men with tight pants, right?

[Renae]

Just to clarify, Renae, you're saying that you yourself don't lust after dudes with tight pants, but you're not saying that women in general don't lust after men with tight pants, right?

Ok, so I thought (when I wrote that post) that is was women in general, because was basing that off of myself, however I'm starting to think that it might be otherwise. Maybe it is just me

[Eleventh Doctor]

I think you have a great deal of self restraint but having talked to other women I would say that is not the general case. Look at our advertising and popular culture, a pleasing male form can be just as lustful as a pleasing female form. So if the argument is that pants by their very nature generate lust then men should not wear them either. But unless we want to go around wearing burkas, both genders need to learn self restraint instead of placing all the blame on the opposite gender for tempting them.

[Oliver]

I think a lot of it has to do with this fact: not only are the body's of men and women created differently, but also males and females are wired (internally) in different ways.
I think it is very narrow minded of someone to say that men and women both have legs and therefore they should follow the same rules in modesty and dress. This argument has only one major premise and is not using correct logic.

Like I said men and women have different forms (yes...even in legs. Lots of things involve muscle. If men had the same leg muscle and form as women do, they would be as weak as we are and not able to do many of the things they are able to do). However I shall not go into detail on this because if you choose to be ignorant to this fact, that remains and will always remain your problem.

Moving on to the difference in the inside wiring of males and females. Picture this (or maybe you shouldn't ) : If a girl in some super duper tight pants walks down the street, she will attract the eyes of almost all the males walking down the same street and will cause them to sin as they look lustfully at her. However...if a man walks down a street wearing pants that are just as tight as they were on said woman, what would naturally follow (and I say naturally because there can be exceptions due to some thwarted minds) he will not cause any person to sin by making them look lustfully at him and his legs. The only thing that would happen in this case would be the wierdoutisation of the on lookers.

My point: Though I am all together FOR PANTS ( I love love love them, and wear them to soo many activities) I do not think that this question should ever be used to further the universal acceptation of women wearing pants.

thank you for saying that about me, Renae...
@Sing, women work too.
@doctor, that last thing you said..I TOTALLY AGREE!

[Doll]

Just wanted to note something I've noticed..first off, there is a difference between tight pants, and modest pants.

I don't feel that tight pants are appropriate, on guys or girls. However, pants that are not super tight, I believe are modest and fine and both guys and gals.

And I also think kilts look cool.

[Renae]

I think you have a great deal of self restraint but having talked to other women I would say that is not the general case. Look at our advertising and popular culture, a pleasing male form can be just as lustful as a pleasing female form. So if the argument is that pants by their very nature generate lust then men should not wear them either. But unless we want to go around wearing burkas, both genders need to learn self restraint instead of placing all the blame on the opposite gender for tempting them.

You say I have a great deal of self restraint, but the very reason why I assumed (wrongly, agreed) that women do not lust after men because of their pants was because it takes absolutely NO restraint for me not to do so. Does that make sense?

[gabbygirl17]

In the Bible it says if a male put on a woman's garment its a sin...I can't remember where it's found..

[Eleventh Doctor]

If you would read over the comments in this thread you would see that we're discussing what makes something a male or female garment. Why are pants a male garment? Why are skirts or dresses a female garment?

[Leetastic]

Not to mention that was the old Levitical Law... really people. If we're using that as a basis for women not wearing pants, or 'men's clothing', why do we not still ceremonially wash ourselves before a meal?

[The Old Judge]

Well, you are supposed to wash your hands before you eat...