Maybe an attempt to be, then surpass men?
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
As the young Scot points out, there were three aspects of the law back then … the eternal moral, the civil of that time, and then the New Covenant of the new era. To my mind, the argument that Moses did not exist as such is irrelevant … someone put in place a series of civil practices and again, it’s not useful to go off on that tangent.
More useful is to ask why that stricture was in place. To my mind, it’s the same stricture as that behind the heebeejeebee in the death cult. First thing springing to mind is that the female backside and thighs are very much male triggers … they know it, we know it. I’m not asking if you agree or not with that rule … I’m saying there is logic behind it.
But there’s a second point which ten years ago might not have smacked us around the chops as it does now, in 2023. People such as Marlene Dietrich and the nazis were well into the perverted … Salon Kitty etc. … so it’s hardly a new idea, plus droolers go on about the fab jabbing days of Greece and Rome … the notion’s pretty much ancient.
Why then should women have not tried to be male? Civil considerations of course … once we start down that path, then we can see where it leads.
Where am I, personally on all this? Not as strict as Deuteronomy … women’s slacks can be modest and still flattering … it’s in the fabric, cut and purpose … the ladies I know … well, we’d hardly wear her clothing, wouldn’t want to anyway.
Before all this cranked up sicko stuff, the whole dress thing was largely self-actualising. I’m wearing long, baggy sports “shorts” … were women to wear such, they do not “accentuate”, let’s say … then I can’t see an issue. It’s not so much the garment as the purpose, the mindset of the woman in question, just as it’s not the ethnicity, it’s the behaviour and how far that’s induced by the culture. Were I to wear Baron Sacha type things … uggghhh, ewwwww! Pass me a paper bag.
This below is pretty strict … I’d need to think more about it.
"More useful is to ask why that stricture was in place." So that the priests could enjoy the pleasure of denying people their pleasures. 'twas ever thus.
ReplyDeleteJH: No argument from me on that. And enjoy small boys.
DeleteDoes God have a sense of humour? If omnipotent, then I would suggest that must be part of the senses bestowed on humanity.
DeleteNow take the biblical saying given earlier, "The woman shall not wear that which pertainath to a man . ...." etc. If God has a sense of humour, and sees the enjoyment that such a change of apparel gives to others , such as pantomime Dames, and female Dandinis, roles which have taken place all over the world, in different racial and social circumstances,why would God consider that an abomination? What God would make.of the current 127, at latest count, different sexes and modes of dress, I have no idea. Perhaps the latest problems in the world is a way in which God has realised humanity was not a good experiment, and is intending to start all over again? If so, it may stop Schwab, Gates, Soros, and Leonardo deCaprisun telling us how to live our lives, while doing what they want to do. Just a thought.
Penseivat
"God's Words' on matters such as dress are quite specifically to the People of God, ie, those middle eastern tribes so designated. The dance of the seven veils would be really off-putting if done by some portly, hairy, bearded Arab type fellow. Is God a choreographer? It is a point very much like the example given in the video of a man in a Tutu. The hot climate sorts are prone to strange sexual behaviours, homosexuality, pederasty and sexual brutality high on the list.. The cold climate men (in particular) folk restrict themselves to flagellation and wearing ladies underwear, unseen beneath their trews.
ReplyDelete