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

by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Saltheart Foamfollower

  The following is a quote from the shepherding book chapter 7:

  19. In all cases of judicial reproof, the wrongdoer
  is disqualified from special privileges. These include
  pioneering, offering congregation prayer, and sharing
  in any parts on the Service Meeting until he has
  made further spiritual progress. This also includes
  other congregational assignments that might be given
  to those who are exemplary. In addition, some judicial
  restrictions will be imposed in all cases of judicial
  reproof. Judicial restrictions may include not
  commenting at congregation meetings and not giving
  student talks in the Theocratic Ministry School.
  However, the judicial committee determines what judicial
  restrictions to impose. When the elders inform
  a repentant wrongdoer of restrictions, it would be
  helpful to tell him the date of the next meeting,
  at which his progress will be reviewed. It may be
  discouraging to the repentant wrongdoer if restrictions
  are imposed for a prolonged period of time. It
  would be an exceptional case when many months
  have passed and restrictions have not been gradually
  lifted.

  Restricting field service isn't mentioned but it has definitely been said (probably in c/o meetings with elders) that it is never imposed as a restriction. This would include (in their words not mine) a repentant pedophile (felt sick just typing that). So stopping someone going in field service for even repeated "extreme" feminine behaviour is unprecedented.
  
• 

  cofty

  I have absolutely no issues about being in the company of gay men but men with an exaggerated effeminate manner irritate me intensely. It's feels like they are affecting a stereotype. It comes across as unauthentic and self-obsessed.
• 

  scotsman

  Cofty, you're obviously rather narrow minded and need to get out of the Borders a bit more.
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  Notice how all this animosity about clothing is happening soon after Michele Jackson died.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I feel a bit mean in bringing up the following but feel it should be addressed:

  This word may not seem offensive or hurtful to you (nor to me when used by my gay friends) but its permitance along with your continued reference to some weird occurrence of gay porn being posted again emphasises to me that you struggle with understanding what homophobia is - so, you're ok with your gay friends saying "faggy" when talking to you but you're not ok when a poster uses the same word in this forum?
• 

  cofty

  I have absolutely no issues about being in the company of gay men but men with an exaggerated effeminate manner irritate me intensely. It's feels like they are affecting a stereotype. It comes across as unauthentic and self-obsessed. - Cofty

  Cofty, you're obviously rather narrow minded - Scotsman
  

  Just being honest.

  There is nothing narrow-minded about finding certain personality types irritating. We don't choose what irritates us - it just does.
• 

  Simon

  Simon this has been the main place for me to read bigoted comments about gay people and the language permitted by moderators is on a very long leash. On this thread alone someone refers to "faggy" behaviour (ironically they also refer to JWs being like Don Draper, a metrosexual incarnate). I've read similar dregotary words in references to gay issues: are any moderators gay?

  Really, I find your complaint lacks much detail - tantamount to mud slinging. So ... you want me to delete those comments? Did you alert anyone to them? Did you PM me about the offensive content?

  No, sorry - we don't have any gay / black / disabled / age / gender / every-nationality quota to fill for moderators and I don't think it's necessary.

  This word may not seem offensive or hurtful to you (nor to me when used by my gay friends) but its permitance along with your continued reference to some weird occurrence of gay porn being posted again emphasises to me that you struggle with understanding what homophobia is.

  It was quoted so I read it as "implied insulting attitudes by the elders et al" which I suspect is how the original poster used and intended it. You obviously have a different view or missed that or are just keen to pick up on odd words without acknowledging the context they are used in. It's the same as someone discussing race - the 'n' word can be used in many different contexts, some allowed and some not.

  And please explain how your offensive feelings kick in exactly - if the word is used then you are offended. But if you then find out the poster who used it is gay then magically you are not? Forgive me for thinking your offense is convenient.

  And you think homophobia = not wanting gay porn posted on your site? I think that view does more to damage sympathy than to encourage it.

  I've never brought it up before as its your board and I accept that the American bias allows free speech to take precedence over (horror of horrors) political correctness, but as you're trying to diminish the consequences of this CO outline I thought it worth mentioning.

  Totally out of place and it seems like an excuse to have a go.

  Yes, free speech is preferable to PC idiocy (within reason). People make a big deal of things being deleted and we try not to get to that point by making requests not to post things that are offensive. Of course what offends one person won't offend another - just because you are offended by something doesn't necessarily make it offensive.

  And you wrongly insinuate that I'm "trying to diminish the consequences of the CO outline". Hardly, I'm simply saying that other people are wrongly hyping up the consequences. This is not a new thing, all that changes is the wording - mini-skirts aren't the hot topic now, metro-sexual apparently is so they are addressing that.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  You know, they are implementing that rule, but I am sure this will have to be published in a watchtower soon.

  Here is why: I once told an Elder off; he made a big deal out of something that the WT never wrote about and thus, he was running ahead of the org, being abusive towards me in the process. Then I said I was going to be entertained by what would happen once I complained to the other elders and our CO about it. He stopped pressuring me at once.

  Now that this directive isn't formally published anywhere (COs will simply talk about it... its not even in a BOE letter), I would expect some resistance from the great crowd. :)
• 

  DarioKehl

  Scotsman:

  i put those terms in scare quotes to demonstrate the thought process of anyone enforcing this policy. A quick perusal of my other comments on this thread easily show that this letter is ridiculous.

  additionally, feel free to browse my other postings over the years & you'll realize that I'm bi. Sometimes, we must demonstrate absurdity by being absurd.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  They never prevented anyone from the ministry for wearing mini skirts. They would disfellowship for "brazen conduct" someone like that before taking the right to go door to door.