just when i think i’ve reconciled the issue, something else comes back to haunt me
quote from Thomas aquinas
“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; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Dt. 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive.”
last time i posted this, the responses i got were the is you did it to cross dress, then it would be sin but his writing suggests otherwise. it has a more serious tone. seems like, if you have a really good reason to do it, then it might not be a sin but if you just wanted to do it because you liked the clothes or for every day use, then it’s not ok.
on the other hand, even in the middle ages, there are certain garments that both sexes wore such as surcoats, doublets, hose etC
but the one thing women didn’t wear ofr a long time are pants, they wore them before christenization, or in nonchristian societies or now after the 1900s starting with the war and then slowly came in to more use. how do we explain this kind of gradual change and why was it not acceptable before but is now? and he says it is in itself sinful, which is more confusing because clothes are just pieces of fabric which shouldn’t be sinful for anyone to wear.