Skip to main content

Religion: Is it Written That Women Shall not Wear Trousers? Deut. 22:5


Is it Written That Women Shall not Wear Trousers? Deut. 22:5

It has been a topic of major concern for everybody, mothers, fathers, clergymen and pastors. What exactly does the word of God say about women wearing trousers?

               “ A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”

Now this has been well said. Shall we then try to analyze and be very objective at discerning these things. Yes, we can’t deny the fact that divine order has been given to humans so as to help differentiate sexes by mere sight. The burning desires most girls have these days especially when it concerns what they wear, is  waxing fast. Many Christians still speak vehemently against trousers as though it was what God personally had in mind when he told the Israelites what to wear and what not to wear. I am not sure though, but just maybe it might be trousers He had in mind when he said that, you(the reader) can still let us know. Its even very surprising that Moses didn’t even know what trousers was then. You know why? Both men and women wore flowing robe. And how did I know? Pictures of people in the bible assigned these holy characters those robes. Exactly! Now the question is, if men and women of the Moses’s era  wore robes, how were they able to differentiate which robe was male’s and which was female’s. sure, I think you would need time to process that in your mind

The truth is, our traditions and cultures are very different and  we have different outfit in different tribes.  Some European men especially Scottish men still wear skirts till date. Some roman soldiers still wear the skirt like   war robe , the priests of all orthodox churches are still wearing gown too. Are these men to be indicted for flouting the rules of God? Well, I don’t think so. The culture of Indians already afforded their women trousers,  and as they are now Christians, would they pack their style of trousers and fling over to their men to wear? Lets think about it. We, Africans, had no proper clothing, the white men came with their clothes and we began wearing them. It is only sensible that as the trend is improving we imbibe the changes made, especially when we are sure it won’t mar our decency.

Some puritans would say trousers are untraditional. It is western. Sure it is western. But then what exactly do we wear that isn’t western? So I am sure they would prefer when these ladies would parade the street half naked, wearing only the skimpy wrappers draped around their waist, with the beautiful ure designs on their skin and the jigida worn around their waist. That is so uniquely African. Or don’t you think so?

Then again if you are looking at buba and ukwu George as the African indigenous wears, then I hate to break it to you. We still copied these styles from the white people too and even with the cotton material that were imported during the trans Saharan and trans-Atlantic trades of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries

So, ladies wear ladies’ trousers. I am inclined to believe that such trousers when worn by any guy would burst one’s belly with unquenchable laughter.  Wouldn’t it be easier to differentiate a guy’s trousers and a lady’s own than to differentiate between gown worn by men and women of the olden times.  Let us ponder over this and think carefully before we come screaming stridently in the early morning that women who wear trousers should repent. These days, skirts are becoming styled in very seductive ways that men would easily ogle  women wearing them (the tight fitted short skirt, the long gown with obscene slit ) rather than women who wear decent trousers. Of course trousers can be indecent too depending on the features. It boils down to the motive for wearing what you wear. Do you wear to seduce or you wear to cover?

I have heard some women say they feel more covered wearing trousers than skirts.  These women still look very decent wearing trousers. So now I would like to ask .

What exactly should we preach? Should we preach against trousers or against gross indecency?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to use 'many a' and 'a great deal of' in a sentence. How to pronounce 'impasse'

Good morning KIB  earthlings. Lets get down to brass tacks. Let's look at the use of verbs. Yesterday someone brought a statement to me and enquired if it were correct. 'many a fellow knows the truth' Many a driver ploughs this road daily' 'Many a teacher doesn't know how to  English'. All these sentences are correct. According to Oxford dictionary, Many a: ( formal: always used with a singular noun and a singular verb) means a large number of something. E.g many a young person has experimented with drugs.   So,  don't pluralise anything in the sentence because there is an 'A' already. 'Many a teachers like to flog their students ' is wrong. 'A great deal' How do you use 'a great deal'? A great deal takes a singular verb. E.g A great deal of bananas is planted in the north. 'A great deal' takes a singular verb.  Finally,  the pronunciation of impasse is /'ampa:s/ Not (impas) It's not Enem...

Is it 'off head', 'off hand' 'off pat' or 'by heart'?

I love all the new students in my class. You guys are awesome by the way. 😀😀 Today. I want to give you a better expression for saying that 'you know something very well'. #Offhead? There is nothing like offhead. 'I know it off head' is wrong. #Offhand? What does offhand mean? It mean without previous thought or consideration. Just like saying 'on the spur of moment' , 'immediately', 'spontaneously'. So, do you just know something offhand? No...not at all. You can say something offhand, do anything offhand but then it seems weird to say ' I know the answer offhand'. It is normal 'to say the answer offhand'. Do you get my drift? People don't know anything spontaneously, rather, they  say what they already know, spontaneously. Now to the final expression #HaveSomethingOffPat? It means to know something or be able to do something perfectly; be perfect master of something . So rather tha...