Deuteronomy 22:5

Is that a man or woman? I'm so confused...

Today, for your listening enjoyment is Randy King expounding for us the doctrine of women sans pants.

[audio:http://www.stufffundieslike.com/audio/britchesonwomen.mp3]

Sorry to disappoint Randy, but a little research would have revealed that if you go back in history the pants “controversy” was addressed as far back as 13 November 866, when Pope Nicholas I wrote to King Boris I of Bulgaria in response to a question about whether Bulgarian women should wear dresses instead of trousers:

‘Whether you or your women wear or do not wear trousers neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue’ (‘sive vos, sive feminae vestrae, sive deponatis, sive induatis femoralia, nec saluti officit, nec ad virtutum vestrarum proficit incrementum‘ – Patrologia Latina, CXIX, 1002;).

Which, of course, only goes to demonstrate the complete moral bankruptcy of the Roman Catholic Church.

81 thoughts on “Deuteronomy 22:5”

  1. @Ben I know what you mean! Sometimes you just want to ask them, “Are you sure it’s the woman wearing pants’ fault? Or could it possibly be that you’re so sex-deprived that everything relates back to sex for you?”

  2. @Rob
    What do you mean by concern for the environment not litering? political activism?
    For AIDS do mean AIDS awareness? Is AIDS predominantly among peopke who are either really promiscuous or did not know someone they were with had it ? They(fundies) are not going to say use protection before you fornicate. What diseases are you talking about? Some people are poor because of the lives they live. My IFB church did used to have a food pantry we don’t any more I forget what happened ther so I’d have to get back to you on that. I don’t think its because we just said “we don’t care about poor people!” Alot of times some people would just come looking for a hand out. What diseases are you talking about?

  3. “@Ben I know what you mean! Sometimes you just want to ask them, “Are you sure it’s the woman wearing pants’ fault? Or could it possibly be that you’re so sex-deprived that everything relates back to sex for you?””

    LOL, yeah, I should have added that it also seems like Fundy men are also portrayed as complete perverts! Ok, some of them actually are, but that’s beside the point.

  4. So, being in the military, think they’ll still support me? I couldn’t find a camo skirt in the clothing issue. Because climbing over high obstacles in skirts would definitely be more modest.

    1. When my oldest daughter was in a fundy elementary school, she begged me to go on her school field trip with her – hiking. And, yep, we had to wear skirts. The men were hiking behind us so that they could catch us if we fell. Yep, that was definitely modest! I’m sure they *caught* glimpses of more than just our ankles.

  5. I really think that having to wear pants is a bigger deterrent to most fundy women joining the military than anything else.

    Although I’m not sure why. I work with the military and I think I can vouch for the fact that ACU’s are about the least attractive garment in the universe. 🙂

  6. I grew up in a skirts-only school and my home church believes the same way. I personally see no Biblical reason for it and think it’s ridiculous, a pointless thing to focus on. Why not focus on more important issues like building Christian character and such rather than how a person appears? Modesty is important, but not to the point where church ladies who wear pants get judgmental stares from some of the others for darkening the doors of the church wearing the forbidden garment. Any man who lusts after a woman wearing pants would have trouble going to the grocery store, Wal-Mart, or even on visitation. Ridiculous and unrealistic.

  7. haha wow, I pushed play on it and after the first few seconds of the pastor reading the verse my wife piped up from the other room and said “wow, just hearing that verse read makes bile rise in my throat.” heh…she was raised in a heavy kjvo church in Rockford, IL and heard that verse preached on often to guilt all the females. tragic.

  8. One of my favorite moments at Maranatha was the time Dr. Weniger announced in chapel that he would allow girls to wear pants on campus for the week because it was so cold, and he said he didn’t want to hear any objections based on “an obscure verse in Deuteronomy.” There were gasps all over the gymnatorium. (That’s the first time I’ve used that word since I’ve left MBBC.)

  9. @Phil: My IFB church did used to have a food pantry we don’t any more I forget what happened ther so I’d have to get back to you on that. I don’t think its because we just said “we don’t care about poor people!” Alot of times some people would just come looking for a hand out.

    That is a big problem in my opinion. Fundy churches decide who “deserves” help from a food pantry and who is “just looking for a hand out.” What is wrong with people looking for a hand out? Should the church be the judge or should it be left up to God?

    I suspect that the real reason that many IFBx churches have closed their food pantry is because they don’t want to “share” with non-members.

    I think these verses apply (Matthew 25: 41-46):

    Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    Of course, that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong!

  10. I do not exacly know who came for food. We did not have some sign that said food pantry. It may have been mainly through our bus kid’ families that came or church family if they needed it. We did not close it down because people just wanted a hand out- Maybe I was not being clear enough it was not like there was a line of people and some saying “No not you. You just want a hand out or, your not loking for a hand out here’s your food. I do not remember why we do not have one any more anymore . I still have to ask. I have only been in this state for five years and for most of that I was a teenager so I was not paying attention- all I knew was that we had a food pantry and now I know we don’t. I don’t even know how often some came looking for food. Jesus did not want people following him just because he fed them(John6:26) . By itself the verse you quoted makes it sound like someone gets to go to heaven just because he feeds the poor.If your church or ain’t feedin the poor or don’t have a food pantry or soup kitchen you aint right with God and yer goin to hell!We know we have past from death to life because we feed the poor- II Hesistations 1:12. I know that there are verses like James1:27{ What does that verse mean any way?All you have to do is go on visitation and visit the afflicted widows and fatherless? 🙂 } I was not trying to say my church based who deserved it. Just because someone feeds the poor or expresses concern over people not giving to the poor does not mean they do. It could be a show. This is something I’ll have to look at more closely.

  11. Men are men and women are women. If a woman wants to wear pants, let her. If a man wants to wear a kilt, let him. If a man wants to pretend like he’s a woman, or if a woman wants to pretend like she’s a man, then stand up for all that is good and decent in this world!

    The ancients, notably Plato and Aristotle, drew a distinction between nomos, or human law, and physis, natural law. Pants, following the fashion of Man’s creation, fall under the category of nomos. I believe the Roman Catholic doctrine on this to be correct. When a woman wears pants, she is not today making a statement that she should be treated or works like a man. Today, women wear pants, and it has become acceptable in modern culture.
    Perhaps one could credit this change to the Feminist movement, which I believe attempts to remove the natural distinction between men and women. Nevertheless, and I say this with respect to all feminists (I am not trying to cheat them), feminism is on its way out, and my generation prefers traditional views about men and women. If society returns to a more traditional concept of gender roles, however they are defined, then the women-in-pants trend may disappear. My mother, who grew up in the 1960s, today voiced the opinion that the man should bring home the bacon.
    Many good things grew out of women entering the workforce, but many difficulties also emerged, most notably that sexual tactics emerged in all sorts of fields where sexual tactics do not belong. Each situation faces unique problems, and I will not declare that things were perfect before women started working. Nevertheless, the old system carried a natural and logical division that made woman the mistress of the home and man the master of the workforce. Yes, women live longer today, and yes, they are equal to men in all respects except sex, in which, as we all can agree, they are markedly different. But these arguments against the natural division of labor fall fruitless. More women than men prefer to work in day-care centers, teach elementary school students, and work with children in general. Men prefer the hard jobs that carry swift deadlines and involve a great deal of problem-solving. Sure, these generalizations break down, but they stand as generalizations nonetheless. In our free market economy, some jobs naturally fall to women and some to men. This division, I argue, marks the tacit acknowledgement that, despite feminism and the widespread women’s wearing of pants, men and women still realize that they are different and want to do different things. I argue that this division is good, and especially so, since it was chosen by free individuals.
    I have no problem with women working at what were once considered “men’s jobs,” as long as they do not intend to do away with the distinction between men and women. If they want to do so, I think they should have the ability to make that choice. But I also think that certain jobs are more fulfilling to either sex, and that women will naturally pick certain jobs that men would not touch, and vice versa. We live in a different epoch, but we are still human. There is a distinction, a very important distinction, between men and women. When either side tries to break that, they are in the wrong. But to extend that principle, and declare that every woman who decides to wear pants is trying to break the distinction between men and women lacks a solid foundation. Men are men and women are women. If a woman wants to wear pants, let her. If a man wants to wear a kilt, let him. If a man wants to pretend like he’s a woman, or if a woman wants to pretend like she’s a man, then stand up for all that is good and decent in this world!

  12. One “no pants for women” church had a rule that visiting girl’s basketball teams couldn’t wear warm-up pants in the stands after their game but permitted them to sit in the stands in their game shorts. I’m still trying to figure that one out.

  13. I have a friend who is going more and more fundy by the day, who told me proudly that she had just finished getting rid of all of her pants and her daughter’s pants, because they were immodest. I asked why and she said, of course, they show the crotch. I asked, “Don’t they show the guy’s crotch too? In fact, if I’m not mistaken, a guy has a little more to hide down there than a woman does, doesn’t he? I mean, a woman’s “goodies” are all tucked up inside, so what exactly are we hiding? In fact, it would actually be more modest for a man to wear a skirt than for a woman, wouldn’t it?” She was speechless!

    1. I think for many of us, the issue with this verse is that it is part of the Mosaic law. While many people observe vs. 5, they ignore vs. 8 about building a parapet around your roof, vs. 9 about planting two kinds of seed which defiles your crops, vs. 11 which says not to mix clothes of wool and linen, and vs. 12 which says to make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.
      Why should we obey only vs. 5? Are we under the law or not?

      People may regard this one as special because the verse says that God detests men wearing ladies’ clothing and women wearing men’s, but many Christians realize that we are under grace and apply it to mean that God wants men and women to look distinct but doesn’t specify which actual articles of clothing are exclusively for men and women because this changes culturally.

      I’m not speaking for Darrell, though, just for myself.

    2. You can’t make the case it has anything to do with pants or dresses. Neither existed at the time. You can make the case it’s against cross dressing, you can’t make the case it’s against women wearing women’s clothes (including pants).

  14. http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2012/04/in-world-but-not-of-it2.html

    The Pope was addressing ONLY THEIR style of pants and if you take a very long look at the way they dressed in this above picture, you can see clearly why the Pope said that their style of pants wasn’t going to harm their salvation because it was not immodest! He also tells them to conform though to the Church and that the church teaches only men were to wear pants and that is the churches custom.
    Please take a very long look at the style the Pope was addressing. It does not reveal the rear end and the entire form of the woman’s body because the woman basically is covered by a dress that is below the knee. (which is more modesty/feminine than the pants we have today. Scientist today have said that men look straight up the lines of a woman’s pants (because men are drawn to lines) and they see the woman’s crouch or rear end depending on what side the man sees. The brainwaves of the man showed from seeing a woman in pants the man sees the woman as an object rather than a person. I would have to say that the only words from the Holy See are Cardinal Siri’s on the women who are wearing pants today and they are forbidden because these fashions of today offend our Lord and our Lady and are neither feminine nor modest and they were never meant to be. http://www.catholicmodesty.com/Mens_Dress.html

    http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2012/04/in-world-but-not-of-it2.html

  15. Also this documentary is really good because it shows here that the gays and homosexuals got into the fashion industry to make the female neutral gender, no longer feminine. The gay and homosexuals put women in pants and cut off their hair to make them more boyish to fit their sexual fantasies. Keeping in mind the Church’s notification (earlier above that I posted) on the warning about women wearing men’s clothing. I think today truly femininity has been lost. Also, the media always portraits young girls to wear the tightest jeans possible because the media makes women sexual instead of feminine. Young men and scientist have proven this through brain waves, that when a girl wears tight pants the men look straight up her legs to her rear-end and they see the girl as an object. If a girl wears a pair of loose pants she truly feels like a lesbian though and that is what these girls will tell you, and that is exactly what gays and homosexuals intention for putting girls in men’s pants was to do in the first place, make her more boyish/gender neutral. Women in looser pants also try to act more sophisticated and Mother Angelica says that God didn’t intend for us women to act sophisticated for is not childlike. Femininity today is lost and it was planned by the homosexuals and gays. Please check this out we do need to get back to ladies dressing feminine (ladies in dresses-below the knees-like our real model Mother Mary). Go to about 30:50 to hear the truth that gays wanted to wipe out femininity through women wearing pants. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/time-capsule-mike-wallace-tells-truth-about-homosexuality-in-1967-documenta

  16. Lisa Ann is confused. She can’t tell Scripture from social forces—things which happened way past Bible times, but profoundly affect our beliefs today. Fancy clothes vs plain clothes is no sex difference, “Solomon in all his glory” was a reference to his clothes. Did Jesus understand Deut 22:5? In Luke 7 the centurion is said by Christ to have the greatest faith. A man in a skirt cannot be “abomination” (as long as he’s presenting as a man) else Christ would not have commended him. Deut 22:5 tells women not to pass as men (for purposes of going to war) and men to not pass as women (to avoid going to war). Spend several thousand hours researching clothing history as I have before you pretend to understand clothing and gender. Pants are named for an Italian clown, and are for horseback riding. Modern men wear pleated skirts, petticoats, frilly shoes, embroidery—all presenting as men (Greeks, Bhutanese and Indian Kathakali, British Beefeaters and Ehyptian Tanoura dancers). No sex distinctive clothes exist other than bras and athletic supporters. The garment of male identification is facial hair—not pants. Rome exiled men in pants as political subversives in AD 393 Under Theodosius I, reaffirmed in AD423. Gays did NOT start women wearing pants! Social forces caused it—17 million USA women went into factory work in World War II. Men wore skirts and fancy clothes while presenting as men for 1,000’s of years—they married women and fathered children also—IDIOT! Way more hetero than gay men show interest in wearing a skirt—Scots, Greeks, Albanians, Egyptian dervishes, Polynesians, and men who reasoned pass the current pants mass hypnosis and wear skirts as men not as irrational female impersonators.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.