Is It A Sin?

[picchick]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 4 2004, 12:42 PM'] Picchick, this is not the thread in which to discuss that. I do not really intend to discuss it, but if you create a thread, I will do so. Thank you. God bless. [/quote]
Apologies, Amarkich. I got off track there. I would like to discuss the topic though so I am posting a new thread. Sorry again.

Edited August 5, 2004 by picchick

[amarkich]

My brother was suspended until August 25... for some reason the IP address is completely blocked. I cannot access the forum except by another computer (right now I'm in an office at my church). I won't be able to post any responses to any threads (including this one, unfortunately) until that time (Aug. 25).

[amarkich]

Jeff, thank you for the well-written response. DUst has graciously granted my IP address the ability to post, so I have access to Phatmass again. I apologize that I cannot post a reply now (we went mountain repelling today for the first time, and I am exhausted!), but I would like to leave a clarification on my previous comments regarding the eventual adoption of pants on women. I do not claim that a generic type of clothing (like hats, or shoes, or socks, etc) constitute as cross dressing if they are gradually accepted, especially when they serve a functional purpose as with hats. The fact that men began to wear shoes when working and hunting and that women did not adopt the practice until later does not mean that women are cross dressing by wearing shoes. There is a difference between a specific article of clothing and a generic type of clothing. The proper analogy would be as follows:
pants: men:: dresses: women. If I were to wear a modern dress but had it cut to fit a man and had a masculine symbol on it (my example is always a football), would I be cross dressing? If I am cross dressing, why is a woman not cross dressing who wears pants. Could men likewise popularly adopt the wearing of women's dresses, simply changing the way it is cut and the design on it to a plainer, more masculine format and call it men's clothing? This is the difference between a functional type of clothing gradually being adopted and a specific article gradually being adopted. I will reply to your entire post at my next opportunity (which will most likely be some time Monday afternoon). God bless.

Edited August 8, 2004 by amarkich

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, it seems we are coming closer to our fundamental disagreement.

[quote]pants: men:: dresses: women[/quote]

I believe the logical flaw here is that "pants" are not, in fact, a specific article of clothing, as you describe, but rather an umbrella categorization. To assert the above would be, in my eyes, like asserting the following:

underwear: men:: panties: women

This is obviously flawed because underwear is not a specific article of clothing designated to men and women, but rather, [i]some[/i] underwear is strictly for men, and [i]some[/i] underwear is strictly for women. In the same way, [i]some[/i] pants are strictly for men, and [i]some[/i] pants are strictly for women.

Thus, your analogy makes a logical error, for it [i]begs the question[/i], and you are assuming your conclusion in the statement of the point.


Logical errors aside, I do not agree with your distiction between "functional" and "specific" articles of clothing. If hats were initially worn exclusively by men, then they would have been, at the time, recognised as articles of men's clothing. In the same way, pants may at one time have been understood to be articles of men's clothing. If you wish to use the terms "functionality" and "specific articles" I would say this: Initially, the hat was a specific article of clothing known as to be worn by men, but as time progressed, the universal functionality resulted in the broadening of its use in order for it to be worn by both genders. The same is true for pants.

that was just a quick response, as I know you are still planning on responding in full to my previous post.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Madonna]

Pants are very functional for women. There are some things I cannot do in a dress while retaining my modesty.

I myself wear skirts often. However, I cannot go to the gym in a dress. I cannot play basketball or football in a dress (which may be arguable an "unfeminine" thing to do, considering you used a football as the male symbol. But it is fun and wonderful exercise.) It is hard to babysit small children and be on their level (on the ground) in a dress.

I think women should wear skirts and dresses more often than they do today. However, for functional reasons, it is not practical to wear them all of the time.