Sacrilege and Blasphemy

[Don Johnson] what does it mean to put a woman’s coat?

The coat looked to me what Clint Eastwood wore in Westerns

This

https://media.gq-magazine.co.uk/photos/5ece8b1c3939aa76e28cf7ee/master/…

The red coat is something of a coat-dress that is taken in at the waist for a woman’s physique, and the one that I joked was mixed with a Hefty bag is also designed for a woman—you can tell because the right side goes over the left, where with a men’s coat, the left overlaps the right. It is said to have something to do with men dressing themselves in the Middle Ages, while women were dressed by others.

I guess we can ask reasonably whether the Mosaic prohibition of a man wearing that which pertains to a woman applies, but from my perspective, it’s sufficient to say that it simply does not fit a man’s body. So it fails one of the most basic tests of fashion, IMO.

And back to what I noted earlier, if BJU wants to interact with the fashion world, wonderful, but one of the key things they need to do is to make sure that the garment actually fits the person for whom it’s designed. All too often in secular fashion, I get the impression that the designer really, really did not like the models, and that’s his way of inflicting pain on them.

[Craig Toliver]

Don Johnson wrote:what does it mean to put a woman’s coat?

The coat looked to me what Clint Eastwood wore in Westerns

This

https://media.gq-magazine.co.uk/photos/5ece8b1c3939aa76e28cf7ee/master/w…

only the color is the same. In addition to what Bert noted, there are some tell-tale seams on the top that aren’t found in men’s coats.

Given the comments of the student designer, all I am saying is it raises serious questions.

Sorry to hear that. I knew Dr Cairns and heard him preach in Va. Beach a few times. I have some of his books including “Charriots of God”

Don, it could mean some degree of effeminacy, some rejection of gender stereotypes, or it could mean simply that (this is my best guess) this is what the fashion student found at the resale/thrift shop. Most of what I see does appear to be thrift shop finds with a bit of bling stitched to it, so I don’t know how much we can say from this, since about 90% of what you’ll find in a typical thrift shop is women’s clothing. You’ll see about the same dynamic in most garage sales. I remember seeing one garage sale to benefit a church in Compton CA, where there were literally hundreds of pairs of womens’ shoes, but only two for men.

A key issue„ really„ is that those who want to interact with fashion really need to understand the basics of how a garment is constructed, starting with how to sew straight seams, how to do tucks & set a sleeve, and the like. Once you start to learn the couturer’s and tailor’s art, you’ll be far less likely to mistake a man’s garment for a woman’s and vice versa.

saying “a music form born of irreverence….” does amount to a guilt by association fallacy—you can look it up

If you actually look it up you will see it is probably more of a genetic fallacy (born of) rather than guilt by association (associated with). The point being made was not that it was merely associated with something but that it grew out of it.

Of course, the problem continues to be that these charges of fallacies are thrown around too easily. Referring to association or genesis may be a fallacy but it is not always. It may be the shorthand of a longer argument that is being made (and in fact, in this discussion it usually is).

For instance whether or not the “born of irreverence” is a good argument, I imagine the point is that the music was chosen or developed because it expressed the irreverence in a way that something else did not. In other words, the argument is not that it is bad simply because it was born of irreverence but that it is bad because it expressed that irreverence. That is the argument that must be dealt with. Charging people with fallacies here seems sometimes a way to avoid actual argumentation and evaluation.