Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: QUESTION FASHION Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 91 03:35:34 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA Lines: 23 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gibbons@csn.org (Hugh Gibbons) writes: >The interesting question is what the standards should be when styles >are changing. A century ago, women never wore pants (with the >exception of George Sand :-)). But the style has changed, and now >women wear pants quite regularly. At what point did the style change... The passage in question doesn't make any mention of styles. It is a prohibition against cross-dressing (for the purpose of looking like a member of the opposite sex) which was considered a sexual perversion. Who is to judge the purpose of cross-dressing? I don't wear dresses, but if I did it would be for humor, not for the purpose of looking like a member of the opposite sex. When women wore pants, and were criticized by people quoting just the passage in question, they weren't doing so in order to look like men, they were doing so in order to wear more comfortable clothes (and other reasons as well). The definition of which clothes make a person look like which sex is precisely a matter of fashion and style. -mib