No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scotsman

  I remember when AA Gill published an article in the Sunday Time in the early 2000s in which he "came out" as a metrosexual. I had about a dozen JWs, including my sister in law, tell me that it described me. I knew I was gay and while it might have also been a coded way of them telling me that they also thought I was gay there was also a sense of relief that they could pigeonhole me as not quite "normal" but acceptable. Shortly afterwards this metrosexual was appointed an elder.

  Tight pants weren't an issue back then but clearly my... style, would now not only disqualify me from being an elder but also a publisher and that's a fairly major change for the minority of gender non conforming JWs that there are. This will result in some deeply humiliating scenarios for the non practising, genuinely believing, gay JWs that will only deepen their sense of guilt and shame but not necessarily open their eyes to the TATT. It makes a cruel existence that bit crueller.

  Simon may not like me saying this but over the years I've been on this message board he's never struck me as particularly empathetic to gay JWS or ex JWS and that may be why he doesn't 'get' that this is an issue. He doesn't have to, many don't.

  It's not a club or workplace with a dress code Simon, it's a cult that's just gotten nastier for some of the people trapped in it.
• 

  Simon

  How can it be "unbalanced" to bring attention to what is essentially a human rights issue?

  What? Are we going to be writing to the UN next or starting a petition?

  "Oh the humanity, my church group has a downer on immodest clothing. Help, help I'm being repressed."
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  what kind of haircut or clothing are you referring to that might be deemed metrosexual by a school? - good question, and I don't know. I'd imagine it would be anything deemed metrosexual that is taken to an extreme. Pupils might be given some latitude if they don't take the p1ss. For instance, when I was at school, crew cuts were allowed but only as short as a 'number 2'. If a pupil took the guard off the clippers, thus shaving the hair even shorter, he would be sent home if he dared show up at school with it.

  Just exactly how do you forbid the 'metrosexual look?' - schools, like other organizations, can give people warnings and exclusions. There might be informal discussions about not taking things to extremes. Freedom of expression isn't absolute.
• 

  Simon

  he's never struck me as particularly empathetic to gay JWS or ex JWS

  I am empathetic to the rights of people to be treated equally, whatever their orientation. We've had a few incidents over the years where people think that should mean they should get to post graphic descriptions of sex acts or images in completely unrelated topics which I am not at all sympathetic to whether it is gay or straight. It is not lacking empathy to clamp down on that but it's unfair to make that into being a gay issue.

  Unless you have something specific you can point to which is valid then that simply seems like an insinuation with nothing to back it up which is poor form IMO.
• 

  Simon

  WTBTS "extreme behavior": A female leading a field service group without a head-covering while a baptized male is present.

  That seems to be a fairly common part of Judaeo-Christian belief systems. When we label something as part of their extreme cult behavior that many other people also believe and follow it weakens the claim somewhat don't you think?
• 

  Simon

  For instance, when I was at school, crew cuts were allowed but only as short as a 'number 2'

  Yeah, our school had rules for haircuts and wearing the uniform properly. Drainpipe trousers were a no - tight pants before their time.

  Little did I know I was actually in an extreme cult .. apparently.
• 

  Saltheart Foamfollower

  As far as I can tell so far I'm the only one here, who has sat through this at a c/o visit.

  I have a couple of points to make on this : All of this is not from an Awake! article, it is from an outline only delivered to elders and hence at the same level of authority as the shepherding textbook. Even ministerial servants have no idea that they are being examined now for an offence they aren't aware of. Also, the emphasis, which I assume was directed by the branch, was definitely on the behaviour and traits of individuals and not their clothing - as has been mentioned that has already been written about extensively by the borg and is not really too unusual. The ultimate sanction - withdrawing the right to go in field service - is unprecedented as far as I (and other elders who I've asked) can tell.

  Just to add to the confusion, based on past experience there wont be a follow up official letter, it will just be left to memory (and so in practice mostly ignored)

  BTW, great that the only place this is being properly debated is here - wish it would happen in congregations.

  SF
  
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  I'm not saying that freedom of expression is absolute.

  What I am saying is that 'metrosexual' is a very subjective idea and leaves a lot open to interpretation. This makes it really easy to target and persecute a person for other reasons.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I remember when AA Gill published an article in the Sunday Time in the early 2000s in which he "came out" as a metrosexual - really?! This sounds like self-indulgent nonsense to me.

  I knew several brothers (heterosexual) that spent more money on clothes and more time on their appearance than JW sisters did. We used to jokingly call these brothers 'tarts'.
• 

  Axelspeed

  The ultimate sanction - withdrawing the right to go in field service - is unprecedented as far as I (and other elders who I've asked) can tell.
  

  I totally agree. Withdrawing the right to be a publisher is unprecedented to me and in the past has only been reserved for persons who were disfellowshipped. Witnessing is what defines the individual as a JW. This sanction is like a shadow judicial action that fits somewhere between a disfellowshipping and a marking...without even a judicial committee meeting or chance to appeal.
  

  Also, I can't see how they can't follow this up with another letter at a later date for clarification. This is reminiscent of the confusion behind the "no oral sex" thing years ago.