No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing' (page 7)

minimus

Simon, are you sticking up for the Watchtower's stance on this subject?

I agree that the insane practices of the WTBTS should be exposed. They keep saying and printing ignorant, hateful, and discriminating comments; we expose those comments as best we can. Yes, people leave the WTBTS, sometimes as a result of those comments. Good. Can we hasten that process?

This is really an issue about hating people for who they are. The whole idea of dressing "gay" is a stupid Hollywood/Glee extreme stereotype. There are people who are as queer as the day is long, and you would never know it by looking. Guess what? They even talk like straight people!!! Crazy, right??

Have you ever seen the statue of David? There were lots of good looking people in the past as well, and some looked like that. They fought in horrific battles. They were ass-kicking warriors of the highest degree. They didn't have lisps. They didn't wear rainbow clothing and perform dance recitals. They did however, snuggle up with a fellow warrior at night.

There have always been gay people. You can't profile them. The attempt to do so just demonstrates the ignorance of the WTBTS. This whole issue seems like Tomo's last, desperate attempt at legislation before he leaves office. He's a sad old dinosaur. Let him roar in a futile attempt to stop the gay meteor that is on a collision course with Crotchety Dino-World.

Tomo can see his extinction approaching, but he is powerless to stop it. His roar amounts to a dusty Dino-fart in a hurricane of homo-erotic yumminess!! Knowing he is angry makes me feel awesome!

DD

Simon

are you sticking up for the Watchtower's stance on this subject?

No, I'm saying they are simply behaving like anyone would expect a typical conservative christian group to in this regard and there are much bigger and more important issues.

This is a distraction and also something they can use to dismiss more serious claims as being "just people looking for things to be critical of".

I'd go back to the point I made earlier - could we honestly stand up and make *this* the issue we talk about without being embarrassed? Does it really fly?

Think politics - there are probably discussions going on all the time over whether it's wise and good policy to attack another candidate over something or not.

Well, gym teachers often wear yoga pants. If they were categorically immodest then they would be forbidden

I didn't think it needed the clarification that it was outside of an exercise setting. They wear swimsuits at the pool too ... doesn't make it OK to wear a bikini in front of the math class.

Oubliette

Simon, I respectfully suggest you take another look at the WT outline under discussion.

It is NOT about immodesty per se. It IS about the WT leadership's perceived "gender-blurring" and subsequent stereotyping based on a person's clothing choices and physical mannerisms.

This matters to many of us. Perhaps we are dealing with these issues ourselves and for whatever reason still attend the meetings. Or maybe, as in my case, we have loved family members that are still in the cult and we worry about them being persecuted and judged by self-righteous elders on an ego trip. Directives like this give these elders a false sense of legitimacy to start a witch-hunt, or in this case a "gay-hunt."

DATA-DOG

The Elders don't need any sense of legitimacy added to their ego-centric and myopic world views.

What would Angus Stewart say about this letter/decree from the GB? Why keep it secret? Why not let the Ministerial Servants hear it? If it's from God, just read the letter from the platform or announce it on JW.Borg? Oh, that's right, they know it's wrong. They don't have the spiritual balls to say what they believe in public. They are poor exames of Bible-believing Xians. Real XIANS, like Westboro Baptists have the balls to publicly disclose their hate-filled nonsense. The GB are a cowardly lot.

DD

GrreatTeacher

Simon, gym teachers do wear them outside of an exercise setting. They walk around the school with them on. They wear them out in public on their way to and from school!

I would have never in a million years thought that yoga pants were immodest until Watchtower arbitrarily stated that they were.

It's about control.

Simon

It is NOT about immodesty per se. It IS about the WT leadership's perceived "gender-blurring" and subsequent stereotyping based on a person's clothing choices and physical mannerisms.

Yes, it's about fashion. You are determined to only hear that it's about clothing, then claim it isn't about clothing and now say it's about clothing and mannerisms ... which falls under fashion.

Newsflash: conservative christian group has dated views on dress and sexuality

This matters to many of us. Perhaps we are dealing with these issues ourselves and for whatever reason still attend the meetings. Or maybe, as in my case, we have loved family members that are still in the cult and we worry about them being persecuted and judged by self-righteous elders on an ego trip. Directives like this give these elders a false sense of legitimacy to start a witch-hunt, or in this case a "gay-hunt."

It depends if you are talking about actual gay people or not. We seem to keep switching the discussion to be about different groups.

Personally, I find the idea that anyone would want to attend a church that fundamentally hates who they are puzzling. Why not find a faith that is more welcoming of who you are?

If it is about the dress ... then whatever the reason for the rules, the fact is they are allowed to make them and the attention given to it is disproportionate.

IMO it shows a lack of balance and an unhealthy obsession with finding the WTS at fault for anything at all, however trivial and it weakens the criticism we lay against them.

While I hate religion in general and wish it would all curl up and die, the fact is people are free to practice it as they see fit within their group. That involves making their own internal rules and having standards whether or not we think they make sense.

Personally I think Muslims insistence that women dress in cloth bags is far more insidious and serious and worthy of battling than simply the style of cut that someone's pants are.

And I think that to onlookers, making a big deal about JW dress code simply floats like a lead balloon. A colleague brought up JWs the other day talking about them letting their kids die over blood. Imagine how well me adding "yes, AND they don't let people wear tight pants !!!" would have gone down - they would have thought I was an idiot and maybe questioned the bad things they had heard about the JWs as being valid.

GrreatTeacher

So, we, who have more in depth appreciation of the negative controlling aspects of the organization shouldn't speak of these things in this forum which is specifically for us because a JW lurker might be "stumbled?"

Because that's what your argument seems to amount to.

Should we just pm each other about this particular issue?

With all due respect, I just truly do not understand your pov.

Axelspeed

I get Simon’s point to a degree i.e. all organizations have a right to define their dress code and outline what they deem as appropriate for their organization, especially so as a religious entity.

However, we all know that this means something much more when it comes to JW control and is not just a benign directive when it comes to the culture of JWs. This is about behavior control on a disturbing level that I would go so far as to say belies a repressed and suppressed insecurity when it comes to the LBGT culture at large. Furthermore, there is nothing specific about this policy, only a nod and wink to act on what looks gay. This is very nebulous and hazy standard that will do nothing more than give license and a big stick to local elders to apply a very ambiguous standard to fit their own bents and leanings, and carry out grudges against people that may not personally like or who they perceive as not living up to their own personal standard of what manhood or womanhood means or looks like.

It is a little like the unwritten the standard I can remember from years ago that only white shirts should be worn by brothers giving talks from the platform, or that full suits and not blazers and slacks… ridiculous I know, but I do remember hearing such things when I was a kid a long time ago. Even now with the beard thing. This though smarts of something a little darker to me.

Simon

I would have never in a million years thought that yoga pants were immodest until Watchtower arbitrarily stated that they were.

Isn't it all about opinion? I don't need the WTS to tell me that a hot girl in yoga pants walking in front of me looks sexy. The WTS opinion on the matter doesn't change how she appears. If I can come to that conclusion then so can they.

We may not think tattoos are bad, others may think they are. The people who own the club make the rules of whether they are allowed.

The real issue that should be highlighted which is being missed is not the "tight pants" part that people are obsessing over, it's the control and the fact that people are not simply free to leave the club when the rules change to become something they don't like. But not every rule or request is high control or unfair just because it's a rule and we may disagree with it.

This forum, like most internet sites, has rules about what is and isn't allowed. Is every website a cult too? At what point does a simple rule become a cult indicator?

I don't think the rule matters as much as the consequences. If people cannot leave without fear of losing friends and family then THAT is the thing to highlight. The dress policy is something that is in the list of potential triggers for the issue but I think we have a hard time selling "I lost my family because someone said I couldn't wear yoga pants in church" - most people will just think "so don't wear yoga pants - you're in church dummy!!"

We're making it about "tight pants" and it's the wrong thing.

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

Share this