A little bit of history

[Fionax]

I was intrigued to read today about a series of books by Thomas Aquinas (c.1225–1274), and although unfinished, "one of the classics of the history of philosophy and one of the most influential works of Western literature." Specifically I was taken by the following answer given by him:

11, 11, q169
Reply to Objection 3: As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure;

I was delighted to discover that cross dressing had such an established history and that it was well known way back then for its pleasurable effects. As they say 'There's nothing new under the sun'

[Foxglove]

I never can remember chapter and verse--maybe I'll look into it some day. But in the Old Testament there's a statement to the effect that "it is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord for a man to put on women's apparel." There wouldn't be a law against something if people weren't doing it. But this OT passage is probably close to two millenia before Aquinas. We know what the oldest profession is. We may also know what the oldest hobby is.

[suzy1]

That’s fascinating Fionax.
I think the first crossdresser was probably a cave man trying on his female mate’s animal skin.


SUZY

[Foxglove]

That’s fascinating Fionax.
I think the first crossdresser was probably a cave man trying on his female mate’s animal skin.

SUZY

And her leopard-skin knickers.

[BLUE ORCHID]

Hi Fionax & Annabelle, Who knows, Adam may have tried on Eve's Fig leaf.

Orchid

[jillleanne]

I was intrigued to read today about a series of books by Thomas Aquinas (c.1225–1274), and although unfinished, "one of the classics of the history of philosophy and one of the most influential works of Western literature." Specifically I was taken by the following answer given by him:

11, 11, q169
Reply to Objection 3: As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure;

I was delighted to discover that cross dressing had such an established history and that it was well known way back then for its pleasurable effects. As they say 'There's nothing new under the sun'

Where does that say 'crossdressing'? Are you sure that is the writers intent? What if it is meant to mean transexuals living full time as women? How do we know?

[Kathy Smith]

After a bit of Googling:

Quoted from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8162017AA0IoQt

The ONLY reference in the Bible to anything even close to crossdressing is found in the OLD testament in Deuteronomy - 22:5 which reads:

"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."

Biblical scholars have determined that the reason for Deuteronomy - 22:5 was to keep women from entering the temple to pray (women weren't allowed into the temple to do such) and to keep men from disguising themselves as women to avoid having to go into battle. It is of utmost importance to note that this passage is in the OLD testament. With Jesus' death, burial and His glorious resurrection the laws of the old testament passed away and those of the NEW testament became effective. Although there are numerous references in the new testament (as well as the old) concerning homosexuality, there is nothing to be found in the new testament which addresses crossdressing in any form. IF we were to adhere to the laws of the old testament, then it follows that we should be in submission to ALL the laws - not just those which serve our own purposes. With that in mind, within the SAME book (Deuteronomy) there are passages which would have to be applicable today just as much as 22:5 would be. Wearing clothing made of mixed fabric types was strictly forbidden. Women cutting their hair was an abomination. This list goes on and on.



Also, from http://www.twopaths.com/faq_dress.htm

"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (NIV, Deuteronomy 22:11)

Again, no one is sure why this would be wrong. It may have been to avoid mixing things that God has created separately (Deuteronomy 22:9-11, Leviticus 19:19). Or, these mixtures may have been related to some idolatrous practice that the Hebrews were forbidden to imitate.

Old Testament rules superseded
It should be noted that Jesus' command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" supersedes Old Testament Law for Christians and frees them from strict observance of Old Testament rules. (Matthew 22:34-40, Romans 8:1-2, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Galatians 5:13-14, James 2:8).



It's nice to think that I won't be going to Hull because of the way I like to dress sometimes! :-)

[TGMarla]

"especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure....

St. Thomas seemed like a reall fun fellow, eh?

[SIZE=1](Sheesh! I'm not inviting him to any of my parties!) [/SIZE]

[Foxglove]

After a bit of Googling:

Quoted from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8162017AA0IoQt

The ONLY reference in the Bible to anything even close to crossdressing is found in the OLD testament in Deuteronomy - 22:5 which reads:

"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."

Biblical scholars have determined that the reason for Deuteronomy - 22:5 was to keep women from entering the temple to pray (women weren't allowed into the temple to do such) and to keep men from disguising themselves as women to avoid having to go into battle. It is of utmost importance to note that this passage is in the OLD testament. With Jesus' death, burial and His glorious resurrection the laws of the old testament passed away and those of the NEW testament became effective. Although there are numerous references in the new testament (as well as the old) concerning homosexuality, there is nothing to be found in the new testament which addresses crossdressing in any form. IF we were to adhere to the laws of the old testament, then it follows that we should be in submission to ALL the laws - not just those which serve our own purposes. With that in mind, within the SAME book (Deuteronomy) there are passages which would have to be applicable today just as much as 22:5 would be. Wearing clothing made of mixed fabric types was strictly forbidden. Women cutting their hair was an abomination. This list goes on and on.

Hi, Kathy. OK, this was the verse I was referring to. A couple of points: whatever interpretation Biblical scholars give this verse, individual Christians or churches can always give it their own interpretation and claim God as their authority. Although, I think, Christians just about everywhere will agree that the New Testament superseded OT law, in practice many of them still refer to the OT, especially to things like the Ten Commandments, e.g. The Christians I grew up with did. And so if a Christian wants to point out the verse you quoted as a condemnation of cross-dressing, there are those who wouldn't hesitate to do so. My own parents would roundly condemn cross-dressing. I'm not saying I agree with Christians who refer to the OT. I'm just saying that people can take just about whatever bits they want from the Old or New Testament and claim their interpretation to be authoritative. Your position is consistent, but Christians can vary widely on how to read the Bible.

At any rate, the reason I referred to the verse in question in an earlier post was not to debate the Bible's position on cross-dressing, but merely to give another example of how old references to cross-dressing are.

[Gina X]

Hi Fionax & Annabelle, Who knows, Adam may have tried on Eve's Fig leaf.

Orchid

Did Eve have a leopard skin fig leaf then !! LOL

[Kathy Smith]

Annabelle,
Yes, I understand what you say. I only posted those quotes in full so that others could see them in context. Personally the various interpretations don't bother me in the slightest as I'm not Christian (or anything else). I just saw your comment, remembered that I'd seen something like that before and set off Googling! It does make you wonder how old crossdressing is though, doesn't it? I doubt if it would have got a mention in the OT unless there was already a problem with it at that time. 7th century BCE is quite a while ago!

[Pythos]

So what does this say about women in pants? *snicker*

[Foxglove]

It does make you wonder how old crossdressing is though, doesn't it?

My guess is that the answer Suzy gave above (although tongue in cheek) is probably close to the mark. We have to remember that our species is 100,000 to 200,000 years old, yet recorded history only goes back a few millenia. We don't have much idea what was going on before Homer, Herodotus or the Bible. But as they say, "There's nothing new under the sun," and I myself wouldn't be surprised if CDing doesn't go way back.

Evolution is slow. Do we have any real reason to believe that prehistoric people were so vastly different from us in their instincts? If I had to bet, I'd bet on CDing being very old indeed. I wonder if there were any Austalopithecus CDers.

[DonnaT]

The ONLY reference in the Bible to anything even close to crossdressing is found in the OLD testament in Deuteronomy - 22:5 which reads:

"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."

Or does it really state:

"Never cause or force a warriors Weapon on a woman or weak person; nor clothe a warrior in the mantle (robes?) of a woman or weak person for to YAHVEH, GOD of HOST, disgusting is such that do So. "

http://throughthecracks.org/Deut21_5.html

[Gillian Gigs]

Quote,"especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure". If we didn't get pleasure from sex, in world would have no people in it. If we didn't get pleasure from food, all we would eat is bread. The entire women's clothing industry is geared to this premise of pleasure. Many men derive pleasure from looking at the "goods" in dresses and lingerie. Most of us on this site get pleasure from looking at, as well as wearing what the womens clothing industry is producing. Ever since the first animal skin was sown together, clothes has been important in one way or another. Eat, drink, enjoy life, for that is why it was given to us. And get dressed, no one wants to look at your flabby a$$ either. LOL

[Kathy Smith]

Or does it really state:

"Never cause or force a warriors Weapon on a woman or weak person; nor clothe a warrior in the mantle (robes?) of a woman or weak person for to YAHVEH, GOD of HOST, disgusting is such that do So. "

http://throughthecracks.org/Deut21_5.html

Thanks Donna. I've not seen the original text or that site before. I've known for years that the KJV is a poor translation produced partly for political reasons, but I never knew just how differently it could be read. This gives an interesting interpretation.

[DonnaT]

Thanks, Kathy

If one were to look at Deuteronomy - 22:1-8, they'd notice that 1-4 and 6-8 deal with being kind to others, do no harm. Verse 5, as normally translated just doesn't fit in that grouping. The alternative translation fits a lot better.

[jillleanne]

Just got a text from Wilma Flintstone. Seems Fred has been a steaming desire to wear animal print loin cloths and is asking me what to do about it? I told her to buy him matching shoes and purse( which he has worn on occasion in the past). And thank you Wilma for trusting me to help out Fred.