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

by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  OneFingerSalute

  - Brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up

  Many posters have strayed somewhat from the spirit of what is written in this leaked information, if it is in fact accurate. The above quote shows the entire thrust of the information is all about CONTROL and outward personal appearence, and only minimally about clothing styles.
  

  As I stated in a earlier post a circuit oversneer named Henry Turner was one of the most effeminate acting men I have ever met in the (B)Org. Even most women in the cong. were of the same opinion. Yet considering his upbringing it was understandable that he had those mannerisms and speech habits. So does he have to change his personality? Will he be kicked to the curb? This has little to do with clothing choices and much to do with control. How can people not understand that?
  
• 

  Oubliette

  Data-dog: Disney or Apple or even Starbucks have uniforms and dress codes. The difference is that the aforementioned organizations are not discriminating against gender, or sexual orientation. ... They don't have secret meetings with District Managers, informing them to seek out and pressure homosexuals.

  Exactly!

  What a well-thought out and clearly articulated rant. I loved it!
• 

  Oubliette

  OFS: This has little to do with clothing choices and much to do with control. How can people not understand that?

  Point!
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Where I think that DD has it right is that this letter goes beyond of what people are supposed to look like in the field ministry. It points to what they are in their day to day activities. This is nothing short than high control and abuse.

  Now, a gay who likes to dress like a metro sexual is simply not allowed to fell pretty - EVER. Can you imagine what that is like? To not be allowed to feel good? And can you imagine looking at every little things you do for fear that they will OUT you as a gay?

  That is abuse.

  But again, what infuriates me even more is that they dare to highly control the personal lives of gays, and yet, have no issues letting Mr. Pedophile go door to door. This is absolute none sense.
• 

  BluesBrother

  An oldie like me has to look up what "Metrosexual" means. Do elders know?

  Wikip said:

  Metrosexual is a portmanteau, derived from metropolitan and sexual, coined in 1994 describing a man (especially one living in an urban, post-industrial, capitalist culture) who is especially meticulous about his grooming and appearance, typically spending a significant amount of time and money on shopping as part of this.[1] The neologistic term is popularly thought to describe heterosexual men who adopt fashions and lifestyles stereotypically associated with homosexual men. While the term suggests that a metrosexual is heterosexual, it can be used to refer to anyone with any sexual orientation.[2]

  I also searched Google images for the term. It brought me pics of style icons like David Beckham (recent pics) and Christano Ronaldo ..Hardly wimps ! .... I think a lot of us would like to look like them. Nothing wrong there. ..Hardly Grayson Perry, are they?
  
  
• 

  Simon

  I am all for stopping any and all discrimination but the only way that can happen is to disband religions who are the major sponsors of such discrimination and that just isn't going to happen anytime soon.

  Given that they, like many other US based conservative christian groups, believe that homosexuality is a 'sin' then they are free to have their own rules about it ... and suffer the consequences of people leaving as a result (shouldn't we welcome them making crazy rules that will drive people away?). They also believe in modest dress, especially when people are acting as their representatives on their ministry. Is that really, genuinely such a big deal?

  Dress it up however you want (pun intended) the fact remains that this is an issue only to people who are actively digging to find an issue to be critical about. To most JWs it's simply common sense and part of their beliefs and to any 3rd party they will think you are nuts because religious groups having modesty-dress rules seems perfectly reasonable and normal.

  If any argument relies on being compared to covering up child abuse to be "wrong" then I think that is a weak argument. Asking people to write neatly would be a crime ... when they don't report child abuse. Telling people to make sure their vehicle is well maintained would be a crime ... when they don't report child abuse. Resorting to comparison with child abuse to condemn any policy is rather weak. The real thing to focus on is things like their failure to report child abuse.

  This sort of thing also gives them something to point to when someone raises a genuinely serious issue and a convenient get-out excuse:

  "Well, you've been listening to those haters - look, they even have a go at us for suggesting our young folk should wear modest clothing. They go round looking for issues and making up issues that don't even exist, they invent things ... see"

  I think there is plenty of serious issues to nail them to the stake for without trying to invent lame things that need to tie together multiple issues to be explained why it's wrong.

  And when people start posting images of people in tight pants as has happened umpteen times then it really makes their point for them - they are immodest and out of place for a christian preaching setting.

  Also BTW, saying that gay people can be identified by their clothing shows an ignorance and willingness to accept caricature stereotypes - gay people don't dress 24x7 like they are in a San Francisco gay-pride parade. They don't all shop are Gays-r-us ...
• 

  Oubliette

  To most JWs it's simply common sense and part of their beliefs

  This is simply not true. I had several very active JWs that are not aware of my beliefs about the organization tell me (somewhat sheepishly and in hushed tones) that they were personally and privately disturbed by Anthony Morris' comments about metrosexual dress, yoga pants and colored socks.

  And when people start posting images of people in tight pants as has happened umpteen times then it really makes their point for them - they are immodest and out of place for a christian preaching setting.

  Who posted pictures of people in tight pants while preaching?

  I posted a video (which I noticed you removed) of women wearing yoga pants while exercising or doing other ordinary, every day activities. None of them were engaged in the "Door-to-door ministry."
  

  saying that gay people can be identified by their clothing shows an ignorance and willingness to accept caricature stereotypes

  You are right, except we here didn't make that assumption. This is the assumption implicit in the WT letter.

  THAT is the problem. You got it!
  
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Except those things aren't really immodest. The tight pants spoken of are just a slimmer cut, especially around the lower leg, not immodest. Colorful socks are not immodest. "Effeminate" mannerisms, whatever that means, are not immodest.

  None of these things have anything to do with modesty. They are simply about control. And control is the problem in 'high control religious groups.'
• 

  minimus

  Anybody that would look into Jehovah's witnesses and saw this subject would think that the religion must be a controlling sect. It is a valid point to suggest that this is not trivial. Witnesses really have their individuality curbed and the Organization guides the elders and the flock to judge one another.

  This is just another example of their control as a cult and it's worth noting.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  The reason I am bringing in the pedophiles topic is that I always thought that NOTHING could take away the right to share in the ministry while remaining a JW.

  Up until yesterday, I believed that their ministry was a fundamental right, they acquired that right by fighting for it all over the world. Countless went to jail and many even died for that right!

  You know when you want to prove a point and use extremes to prove it? Well, I would say: Not even pedophiles loose that right! Its fundamental!

  Well, they changed that: It's a fundamental right, but if you look gay... than that's too much. Think about it: You could dress like the model JW for the ministry, fit for a picture in the watchtower. And yet, they could withhold that right and say: "When we saw you at the restaurant, me and my wife, we thought you looked a little gay".
  

  So, with this in mind, my "extreme" example to prove that the ministry is fundamental no longer applies. By outlining the directives in the way that they have done, they are demonstrating that the ministry is not a fundamental right to them.