Men wearing tights - the objections - IV
by Geraden
It is some time since I posted on the subject of religious and moral objections to wearing tights. However someone wrote to me recently:
Just thought I'd send you these verses from the New Testament which imply men wearing pantyhose/tights isn't a good idea. They don't seem to be in the objections part of the blog.[1] Corinthians 6, verses 9 and 10, and Galatians 5, verses 19 to 21
I'm a christian and like wearing pantyhose, but these verses scare me somewhat.
I'd be interested in your comments
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next
This post is really addressed to those who share the conservative-evangelical Christian view, that the Bible is the infallible word of God. For them it is important to understand and follow the teachings of Scripture.First of all it must be said that nowhere does the Bible give a clear prohibition, "a man shall not wear tights". Religious objections are therefore based on deductions from what the Bible does say, and from deductions from those deductions.
It is true that I did not include the above references from I Corinthians and Galatians in my earlier articles, and I will try to explain why. I started with Deuteronomy 5:22. What we have there is (or appears to be) a general prohibition against wearing a garment of the opposite sex. In contrast, the New Testament passages, I Corinthians 6:9 and Galatians 5:19, do not mention any kind of clothing, much less do they prohibit the wearing of anything.
I Cor 6:9 deals with types of people (those who cannot inherit the Kingdom of God) while Gal 5:19 deals with certain behaviours: those that are described as fruits of the flesh.
From the point of view of the evangelical Christian, for these to amount to a binding prohibition against man wearing tights, the following would have to be true:
- a man wearing tights comes within the definition of one or more of the behaviours in question
- and, in the case of I Cor 6:19, the exercise of one of the behaviours in question, even on a once-only basis, impresses a particular character upon a person, so as to exclude that person from inheritorship of the Kingdom of God.
If we look at the words used, however, the matter is far from clear. Taking Gal 5:19 first - the relevant words are 'uncleanness' and 'lasciviousness'. It is not immediately obvious why the wearing of tights would constitute either uncleanness or lasciviousness, when considered on its own apart from any question of motive.
I Cor 6:19 mentions, as one of the non-inheritors of the Kingdom of God, the 'effeminates'. In the original Greek, the word 'effeminates' is the masculine plural adjective 'malakoi', so we can be sure it applies to the male sex and we are probably safe in assuming also that it excludes the female sex. But what does it mean? And is it the case that a man wearing tights automatically fits into this category?
The word 'malakoi' means literally 'soft men'. The most probable meaning in this context is 'pretty boys', catamites, male prostitutes. It is surely significant that 'malakoi' comes in the list between 'moicoi' (aduterers) and '¢rsenokoitai' ('liers with men' i.e. those who use the services of the effeminates). Clearly 'malakoi' means something much more serious than the wearing of a particular garment.
Personally I think that none of these biblical verses condemns the wearing of tights by a man, considered apart from the reasons why he wears them.
From the standpoint of pastoral theology I would say however that there are two things that Christians need to guard against in this context. One is living on the level of the flesh, and the other is idolatry. Wearing of tights could be associated with either of these: whether or not in any particular case it is so associated, is for the individual's conscience to decide.
So to my correspondent I would say, Do not be scared about what you are wearing! However, if your conscience tells you either that wearing tights ties you to life on the level of the flesh to the exclusion of Life in the Spirit, or that your attitude towards tights amounts to idolatry, then maybe you should consider changing your wearing habits.
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next
If you would like to comment on this entry, please click on the 'Comments' link below.
Interestingly, I have also recently given this some thought! The
Deuteronomy text is clearly against cross-dressing, but we today are not
Jews under the Old Testament law, though we shouldn't lessen the force of
it because of this.
In the verses mentioned, the premise for the wearing of tights by a man
being sinful is that they are a 'woman's garment and make the man
'effeminate'. However, history shows us that tights were not exclusive to
the female gender, so that logic falters for me at the first hurdle.
I scratch my head.....
Even if we don't think so.....Every part of our life is
controlled.....Especially Fashion....
Antrimman - I don't think tights (or long hair for that matter!) is a
salvation issue unless it is something a person who has got a 'thing' about
is absolutely unwilling to give up.
Hi Bankman, you're taking me into territory I haven't ventured into before,
simply because tights for me are an inconsequential part of everyday life.
My wife doesn't have a problem, it isn't promoted to the forefront of
conversation, it just really doesn't matter. When I came across Geraden's
blog (by chance), I knew that most men don't wear tights (through
convention), but was nonetheless surprised that it was such an issue for
those that do and that the issue would be such a focus for their
introspection and self-justification against society's norms.
As others have mentioned, what's considered conventional clothing for men
and for women varies both across cultures and in a single culture over
time. The obvious example for us is that in the past (such as the time of
Shakespeare) tights were conventional clothing for men. That indicates to
me that the basic act of wearing a given article of clothing is neutral.
Whether wearing the clothing is sinful or not depends entirely on the
person's motivation behind wearing it. For example, suppose I wear tights
as part of a costume for a Rennaisance Faire, or as an actor in a play,
just considering tights as an expected part of the costume. That seems
entirely harmless to me. Suppose a man carefully dresses to look as much
as possible like a women, including tights and paying close attention to
every detail of his appearance. Even that can be harmless if all he had in
mind was trying to win the prize for best costume at a Halloween party. On
the other hand, if he were dressing that way before going to bar, with the
hope he could deceive some men into thinking he was a woman, that would be
sinful. But it would be sinful not due to the clothing itself, but due to
the intent to deceive. Some Biblical scholars think the passage in
Deuteronomy refers to that kind of dressing. In my opinion, as long as
your motives are pure, clothing and other aspects of your appearance would
not be sinful.
As the guy who started this thread I have studied these scriptures further
and have come to similar conclusions.
It seems to me that in the time that these verses were written ( In
Corinth), sexual practices such as homosexuality and sodomy were a big
issue and most probably why these verses came about.
Since I don't wear tights to attract men for sex (either passive or active)
and still very much like a man when wearing them, I can't see how what I'm
doing is any different from how women have confused the difference between
the sexes e.g by having short hair, wearing men's style clothing,
leadership in churches ( the list goes on). Yet nothing has been said
about how this is un-biblical and sinful.
The fundamentalists who object to this can and will take scripture out of
its original context to suit which box they want to put you in, all the
while saying that we all put God in a box.
Maybe the needless guilt and shame that society puts on us because we don't
fit in their box is just as sinful as what they think we're doing...
Avatars
These are some of the contributors to this blog:
