I find it strange that so many people seem so surprised that a conservative christian group would want their members dressing differently to the general populace.
Wow, we're on page 14 of this thread and you still think it's about a dress code.
Oubliette
JoinedPosts by Oubliette
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin 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
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin 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
I find the idea that anyone would want to attend a church that fundamentally hates who they are puzzling.
One word: Born-in
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin 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 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."
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin 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
GT, yeah, I saw that and fixed it, but apparently after you had already seen it. Sorry.
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin 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
Your post was not removed, it's still there on the topic you posted on.
My mistake. I apologize.
But you are still confusing the point.
You wrote: "When people start posting images of people in tight pants ... it really makes [the WTBTS's] point for them - they are immodest and out of place for a christian preaching setting.
I asked "Who posted pictures of people in tight pants while preaching?"
You haven't answered. Where is that post? I must've missed it.
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin 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
GrreatTeacher: 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.'
Exactly!
This WT letter is not about trying to control people's dress, it's about trying to control their behavior.
Ultimately, it's not critical of their clothes, it is critical of who they are.
-
362
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick inin 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 inin 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 inin 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 inin 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.