DeletedUser
And I'm not an Atheist. I'm an Animist. There's a huge difference.
DeletedUser
Just to remind you of that point, Justin. I'm still waiting for an argument other than:
"I didn't say that! I merely implied it!"
Which isn't really an argument at all. It is a tantrum.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
If one was to say they were the same, one might as well say that a jew was a christian, and that a muslim was a jew.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
If you look at the history of America, you will see that women during the 1920s chose to wear pants because they wanted to wear something that was distinctly menswear. Feminists.
DeletedUser
What's your point?
DeletedUser
I hate to disillusion you, Justin, but the history of women wearing trousers is far older and broader than the history of the USA and for the most part it was due to local cultural dress or specific forms of labour, not some political statement. And even in the US, women were wearing trousers before the 1920s: notably, women working in the "wild west".
But more importantly than that, in the time the bible was written and most of the way through the middle ages, pretty much everyone wore some type of tunic or robe: basically what we would consider a dress today. The most common difference between men's and women's clothing during that time was that women's tunics were (sometimes) longer than men's, although amongst the upper classes, men wore full length ones as well. Sexual difference (as well as class & societal roles) was displayed by various accessories and adornments, not by the basic garments themselves.
So if I'm wearing a contemporary, feminine pantsuit, cut for a female body, it has as much sexual distinction from a contemporary man's pantsuit as there was between male & female clothes at the time of Christ.
If you are going to judge what is men's clothing or women's clothing by what people were wearing 1-2 millenia ago, please explain to me why you are not wearing a kaftan.
But more importantly than that, in the time the bible was written and most of the way through the middle ages, pretty much everyone wore some type of tunic or robe: basically what we would consider a dress today. The most common difference between men's and women's clothing during that time was that women's tunics were (sometimes) longer than men's, although amongst the upper classes, men wore full length ones as well. Sexual difference (as well as class & societal roles) was displayed by various accessories and adornments, not by the basic garments themselves.
So if I'm wearing a contemporary, feminine pantsuit, cut for a female body, it has as much sexual distinction from a contemporary man's pantsuit as there was between male & female clothes at the time of Christ.
If you are going to judge what is men's clothing or women's clothing by what people were wearing 1-2 millenia ago, please explain to me why you are not wearing a kaftan.
DeletedUser
@Violette: Knowing Justin, he will now go out and buy one from a costume shop - just to prove you wrong.
@Justin: You are still not saying which culture and which time period dictate what "men's clothes" are. Is it the middle-east of 2,000 years ago? Or is it Western Culture today?
Please explain what happened to the people who lived before clothing was invented. Were they sent to hell?
And if creationism attempts to disprove that there ever was such a time, then that will contradict one of your previous arguments. You said that the Bible has never contradicted Archaeology.
Finally, I think that Feminism - like racial integration and gay rights - was definitely a good thing in the eyes of any god or gods who may exist.
@Justin: You are still not saying which culture and which time period dictate what "men's clothes" are. Is it the middle-east of 2,000 years ago? Or is it Western Culture today?
Please explain what happened to the people who lived before clothing was invented. Were they sent to hell?
And if creationism attempts to disprove that there ever was such a time, then that will contradict one of your previous arguments. You said that the Bible has never contradicted Archaeology.
Finally, I think that Feminism - like racial integration and gay rights - was definitely a good thing in the eyes of any god or gods who may exist.
DeletedUser
I actually did laugh at that.
Obviously clothing styles are cultural. However, in each culture there is to be a difference between men's and women's clothing. You think robes are all the same because you don't wear robes; they're not. Furthermore, men are allowed to gird their shorter robes for work. Women are not allowed to do this. Women are to be modest and discrete. They are to be covered, and their form is not to be revealed. This is for their protection. Pants reveal the form of a woman. They are meant only for a man.
DeletedUser
Not in my culture.
That is to say; the culture in a modern western country.
DeletedUser
No, there isn't. Many cultures do not have different clothes for different sexes. And many more have clothes which can be worn by either sex. Modern Western culture is a good example of this. In saying that trousers are for men only, you are seeking to change cultures to suit you. You are definitely not being true to what the cultures dictate.
Also, suppose there was a culture where trousers were explicitly for women? Would everyone from that culture go to hell?
Where is this new rule written? Are you now writing your own Bible which teaches this?
Protection from what? I'm pretty sure that no rapist will be deterred by a woman wearing a dress. Though that would be fairly amusing.
DeletedUser
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Let's see:
World 6,756,435,338
21:39 GMT (EST+5) Jan 26, 2009 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau population clock.
Yeah, we've pretty much filled the earth and subdued it.
"When agriculture was invented, humans, their livestock, and pets together accounted for less than 0.1% of the total vertebrate biomass on Earth. Today, this group accounts for 98% of the earth's total vertebrate biomass, leaving only 2% for the wild portion."
From Overpopulation.org.
Dominion over every living thing? Yeah, we showed them who's boss.
"According to various estimates by scientists, every day 35-150 species of life become extinct. Most of these vanishing species are (or were) inhabitants of tropical rain forests. A majority of them are insects or plants, and most remain undiscovered by humans at the time of their extinction."
From Forests.org.
Maybe it's time for a new religion that isn't quite as arrogant and destructive and a little bit more responsible.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Let's see:
World 6,756,435,338
21:39 GMT (EST+5) Jan 26, 2009 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau population clock.
Yeah, we've pretty much filled the earth and subdued it.
"When agriculture was invented, humans, their livestock, and pets together accounted for less than 0.1% of the total vertebrate biomass on Earth. Today, this group accounts for 98% of the earth's total vertebrate biomass, leaving only 2% for the wild portion."
From Overpopulation.org.
Dominion over every living thing? Yeah, we showed them who's boss.
"According to various estimates by scientists, every day 35-150 species of life become extinct. Most of these vanishing species are (or were) inhabitants of tropical rain forests. A majority of them are insects or plants, and most remain undiscovered by humans at the time of their extinction."
From Forests.org.
Maybe it's time for a new religion that isn't quite as arrogant and destructive and a little bit more responsible.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
What I said was, "in each culture there is to be a difference between men's and women's clothing." I did not say that there was a difference; I said there should be one.
No, I'm not being true to modern culture, because its wrong. Feminists changed our culture into what it is now.
Colossians 2:13-14: "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
I never said that you would go to hell for living a life of sin. Heaven is free; God paid for it.
A rapist is encouraged by mini skirts, tight pants, low-cut shirts, and other forms of clothing which emphasize the woman's body. However, I was also referring to the fact that modest clothing protects a woman from unwanted attention. Another point, the Bible says that if you (e.g. a woman in sleazy clothing) cause some one (e.g. a man) to stumble, you are guilty of his sin (e.g. lust) as well.
DeletedUser
Blame the victim. Enlightened attitude. Maybe they should be forced to wear burqas. Of course rape is generally considered to be about violence and power and not sex, so it doesn't matter what the victim is wearing.
DeletedUser
The entire world's population could stand in Jacksonville.
Everyone could live in on a modest piece of land in Texas.
I'll get you guys references for these facts.
Everyone could live in on a modest piece of land in Texas.
I'll get you guys references for these facts.
DeletedUser
No, that is but an excuse. They are encourage by their own sick minds.
A woman should not need to cover her body in fear of sexual assaults.
"Modest clothing" may, or may not protect from unwanted attention. You might as well get raped, or harassed whatever your garments. Context plays a part, clothing alone is not to blame.
Wait, so if a woman dresses a bit sexy, then is raped, she is guilty of the sin of the man?
I really love this "blame the victim" attitude, and as Elmyr points out, rape has little to do with sex.
DeletedUser
Irrelevant. The world's population couldn't survive on the resources on anywhere close to that land. Stand on Zanzibar was a great book though.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
So basically, your God is such an evil-minded sadist that he condemns feminism. Justin, why do you continue to worship him? He's clearly messed up.
What is the big deal about Jesus being crucified? Countless other people have been crucified and gone through equal, perhaps greater, suffering. And they are either remembered as criminals or forgotten altogether.
And finally, it is plain ridiculous to even suggest that clothing has anything to do with sin. If god bases his opinions of people on how they look (ie. how they dress), then he is basically no better than a racist.
DeletedUser
@ Elmyr's image post:
She's wearing purple!
I'm getting so aroused, I can't help myself!
It's her own damn fault for tempting me so!
She's wearing purple!
I'm getting so aroused, I can't help myself!
It's her own damn fault for tempting me so!
DeletedUser
I already noted the difference in legth AND that some men of the same period did wear longer robes which denoted class. I also noted, and you ignored, that the major difference btw men's/women's clothing which denoted sex were accessories and adornments, which still exists to the same extent between men's & women's clothing, pants included, today.
As for cultural difference, this is what the early-ish church had to say to cultures in which women wore trousers...
I hate to tell you this, but radical feminists actually can't take that much credit for this. Yes, some early feminists deliberately wore "men's" clothing but the broadest effect on society was brought about during WWII when there was a labour shortage so women were required to do men's work (and wear appropriate clothes), and a textiles shortage which left many women wearing their husband's clothes.
Modern culture changed because during WWII, everyday women suddenly had access to the broader workforce, and money, and independence and a more visible, valued role in society. This was about women learning their own capacities and what those capacities were worth. It had very little to do with conscious or intellectual feminism. The majority of that came after the fact.
This is culpable ignorance. Rapists and abusers assault women regardless of what they wear (including Muslim women who are covered from head to toe.) There is no way on this earth to make women small enough or invisible enough to be safe from them and suggesting in any way that the onus is on women to prevent assaults just makes you one step closer to the mindset of an abuser. They too, suggest it is a woman's fault.
Incidentally, the vast majority of rapes are carried out by partners and "friends" in private homes, not strangers who see some woman scantily dressed out in the world. When you actually learn something about this subject, you can comment. Until then, I'd prefer you didn't make rapist's arguments for them. We really don't need more men giving other men excuses.