Posts by Oubliette

30

The Bible can help JWs to stop judging homosexuals. Try this method.

by DATA-DOG in

i ask, "did god cause evil?

god did it!

whether they answer with #1 or #2, you've got them.

Oubliette

Cofty: As a JW I would have said that either homosexuality is a choice or that some people have a tendency towards being gay but are free not to act on that.

Yes, but now--as has been discussed at length on another thread--the WTBTS is ramping up to try to change the behaviors of individuals in the congregation that are even perceived as being non-practicing gays (NPG).

Back to the OP, Data-dog, your logic is flawed because you assume that JWs follow the BIble. They do not. The Bible is merely a prop. Loyal JWs follow whatever the GB/WTBTS tell them to follow.

Let's review: It's a cult!

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

The only change is they want to extend this to now include people who only look or act gay

Point.

And if you've every known anyone like this, you know they cannot change their behavior, mannerisms or speech. It's simply not possible. It's part of who they are.

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

The topic is "No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official". What do you think it's about - being gay?

Actually, I that is what I think it's about.

Have you not read the new CO's outline that started this discussion?

The first sentence of the section under discussion reads: "'The spirit of the world' is leading people to blur the distinction between the genders as never before."

Although the outline does specifically mention the metrosexual style and tight-fitting pants, it is obviously NOT doing so in reference to straight men.

On the contrary, the outline subsequently focuses on "effeminate traits … in one's bearing, body language and manner of speech" referring to such as "gender-blurring characteristics."

This is only superficially dealing with outward appearances. It is indeed an attack on the behaviors and identity of individuals who may or may not be gay, but are perceived to be by intrusive, overzealous elders who have now been given permission to go on a crusade against anyone that dresses, acts or talks in a way they don't like.

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

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.

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

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 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 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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!