Posts by Oubliette

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

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!

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

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

Point!

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

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!

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

Stephane: They vigorously protect the right of pedophiles to share in the ministry, and, yet, have no issue taking that right away from someone who "looks" gay.

This is a HUGE inconsistency and yet further evidence of how clueless the men running this religion really are.

They have a long history of covering up criminal activity against children, yet they obsess over petty issues such as the cut of a man's coat or the color of his socks.

It is really ridiculous.

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

Would you honestly try to convince a 3rd party that the WTS is an "evil cult" by claiming that the conservative christian religious group was using scriptures about modesty to say people shouldn't wear immodest clothing when doing their ministry?

Of course not.

There is plenty of other evidence this religion is a high-control, authoritarian cult. I'd use that.

But you failed to address my point: these "rules" are not about clothing; they are an ill-conceived attempt at controlling behavior.

I had my own retail business years ago and I had a dress code for my employees. It was very specific. For example: No visible body piercings other than earrings.

This WT letter gives very vague guidelines on what is "appropriate." Again, for example: How "tight" is too tight?

This kind of language is a license for power-hungry, homophobic elders to ride roughshod over people they don't like.

When I had my business, I in no way tried to censor, control or otherwise any exert pressure on my employees to conform to my personal standards of what is "appropriate" or not concerning their sexuality or other aspects of their personal life and identity. That was their business, not mine.

This WT letter is an attempt to control exactly those things that should be off-limits.

Again, this is not really about clothing. It is about trying to control behavior.

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

Simon, it's not really about clothing.

It's really about the out of touch men on the Governing Body trying to enforce their antiquated ideas of what is and what is not acceptable on people that possibly have gender and sexual identities issues that do not conform to the overly restrictive beliefs of the cult.

The Governing Body is trying to "solve" complex personal identity issues by mandating a nebulous and ill-defined dress code. And they are attempting to do it by sending vague and not well thought out directives to people in positions of authority that lack any kind of appropriate sensitivity training in dealing with these matters.

Many people's lives are going to be very messed up because some overzealous elders don't like the way they dress, walk or talk.

THAT is worthy of ridicule.

How do you not get that?

72

Have you heard the one about "Back to the Future" Predicting 911??

by EndofMysteries in

when somebody posted this on fb, i was anxious to see how ridiculous it would be, probably worse then the gb prophecies, etc.

after watching the clip, i honestly don't know what to believe.

at the very least it's very entertaining and interesting.

Oubliette

From the disclaimer at the beginning of the short:

Ignotum per ignotius (Latin for "the unknown by the more unknown") refers to an explanation more unfamiliar than the concept which it seeks to explain:
"This film is a perfidious representation of the totality of Back to the Future."

72

Have you heard the one about "Back to the Future" Predicting 911??

by EndofMysteries in

when somebody posted this on fb, i was anxious to see how ridiculous it would be, probably worse then the gb prophecies, etc.

after watching the clip, i honestly don't know what to believe.

at the very least it's very entertaining and interesting.

Oubliette

I want some of whatever that guy was smoking!

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

We should send this book to Tight Pants Tony:

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Oubliette

Simon, I think you're missing the point.

Both the language and the intent of the letter are disturbing for their vagueness.

Who determines what are "effeminate characteristics" and how? What is the standard?

Correspondingly, what is a "masculine hairstyle or type of dress" in reference to women?

Who gets to determine if a man has "effeminate traits" in the "bearing, body language … [or] speech"?

How "tight" it too tight?

How "extreme" is too extreme?

This is just going to encourage the already overly intrusive elders to become even more obsessed over things that frankly should be none of their business.

On the other hand, it is yet even more evidence of the overly critical nature of this cult. It's control freakery on steroids.