Yes, Cofty, but whose definition of the word 'extreme?'
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Finkelstein
It has to realized that Tony Morris has made it his personal agenda to stop or heed woman of the JWS to not wear yoga pants or men to wear tight pants either for that matter.
Is this really a internal problem now with the WTS ?
The WTS. came out years ago about wearing tights could causing rubbing on your genitals causing sexual excitement.
From his viewpoint this kind of dress is sexual provocative and inappropriate for Righteous Christians to wear.
Remember his comment not so long ago about woman wearing yoga pants to what he called Spanx ?
-
Axelspeed
The WTS. has always stressed uniformity in modesty regarding dress and appearance toward its members, as to appeal to the outside general public.
Kind of like a enforced and regulated dress code within a business environment.
I would normally agree with this, and do in general. In this case they kind of lose me when they start talking about "tight pants".
If they want total uniformity, then I say go full steam ahead with those blue and white uniforms recently posted for every JW, along with a visit to a WTS approved tailor for a personal fitting. This way you solve all tight pants and skirt length issues in one swoop. Not sure how you solve the overly effeminate body language of some of the brothers though.
To be fair the letter does emphasise the word extreme.
I've seen some pretty extreme effeminate body language by a few top tier, convention-talk-giving brothers in my time. If I had not known them in a JW setting and known their wife and kids....
just sayin
-
DATA-DOG
WTBTS "extreme behavior":
1) A female leading a field service group without a head-covering while a baptized male is present.
2) An adult male or female allowing another adult of the opposite sex to spend the night on their couch.
3) Talking to an excommunicated family member for reasons deemed unnecessary by the Governing Body.
4) Pursuing any education lasting over 3 years.
5) Reporting the crime of child sexual abuse without having two witnesses to the crime, and without the approval of the Branch.
6) Being offended by the re-appointment of an Elder who is guilty of sexual crimes that occured "some time ago."
DD
-
LoveUniHateExams
I agree with Millie's post - this is turning into one fascinating thread.
I suppose I can see different sides to the argument.
FWIW, here's my two cents:
Firstly, I couldn't care less whether JWs wear tight pants or not, or whether brothers aren't allowed to do the metrosexual look. It's not just conservative Christian groups that crack down on the metrosexual look - if your son goes to school with a haircut or item of clothing that's designated metrosexual, then chances are they'll be sent home.
Secondly, organizations forbidding the metrosexual look isn't evidence of homophobia. Obviously, we know that the WT are homophobic, but this is due to other doctrines/rules. Also, there are gay men that regard outlandish gay styles and the metrosexual look as tacky or naff, and wouldn't be seen dead tarted up like David Beckham.
Most importantly, while banning tight pants can be used as an example of the WT's unhealthy control over members, I feel that priority must be given to more important issues - blood and paedophilia especially.
-
DarioKehl
The CO outline also mentions "bearing." So this includes going after people for their posture, the way they stand, sit & walk--all subjectively determined.
i respectfully disagree with Simon's approach on this. This now gives elders official license directly from headquarters to bully. I had an elder at a former hall who loved going after guys & asking them if they were gay. He had a pet peeve. Now that ToMo3 has made his own personal pet peeves a matter of official doctrinal policy, it's open season on everyone. And the fact they're targeting such a volatile & sensitive topic as gender identity in our progressive age of 2015, they're really going to look out of touch. I'm glad they're making a big deal over this, because it's going to make them look crazy. Unfortunately in the meantime, many loyal dubs are going to experience very damaging bullying.
-
GrreatTeacher
LUHE, what kind of haircut or clothing are you referring to that might be deemed metrosexual by a school? A haircut like David Beckham? A designer shirt? Male students with manicures?
Just exactly how do you forbid the 'metrosexual look?'
-
Finkelstein
Times are indeed changing, even I get caught off guard by how girls or woman are dressing these days.
I'm reminded recently of a teenage girl who was walking down the street who certainly had a feminine curvy frame
but was wearing the tightest pair of Yoga pants I've ever seen.
Not too sure if I would want to see my daughter walking around like that. ???
In the time that TM was going to school it was probably shocking for girls to be even wearing pants at all.
-
DarioKehl
And from my own observations, there's no need for this. I went to international conventions last year & didn't see anyone "faggy" or "butchy." If anything, all the dubs (especially the 20-30s ones) are dressing like Don & Betty Draper. And that actually turns me on more because I love that look! -
Simon
How are yoga pants any more sexy than any other pants? Because you can see the outline of her bum?
Yes.
Can't you see that in any other type of pants as well?
Yes, but not nearly as well - skin-tight is literally just different color skin.
It's skirts and dresses that are actually immodest what with ladies' private parts uncovered and anybody able to take an upskirt shot. As my husband says when I wear a skirt ( nearly never), "Easy access!"
That's a different issue but I agree (well, depending on the type of skirt).
Had a woman have the whole "Marilyn Monroe moment" in front of me in Calgary with a sudden updraft once. I told her I had my eyes shut and didn't see anything ... and "BTW, you have great legs". She seemed OK with that.