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

I think you are taking it a bit too literally.

I know you're responding to Cappytan and not me, but I think he is right on target as you can see by my response to his post.

BTW, how "literal" is the right amount? This is sounding a lot like the "how tight is too tight?" question raised earlier, illustrating one of the problems with this kind of direction from the WT leadership: it's overly vague and gives elders that are already inclined to wield their authority without any compassion or discretion even more power.

t's not intended as a checklist in that manner.

I disagree. In fact, I believe Hassan does intend it as a checklist in that manner. Note that I was able to add eight more items from Hassan's B.I.T.E. model applying it to just this topic. I've been through this list several times before and noted that virtually every item on his list can be applied to JWs.

But if you disagree, please explain how you think Hassan's model is to be applied to cults?

They are signs, not pokemon.

I have no idea what that means. Care to elucidate?

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

Cappytan: Look at Point number 4 under Behavior Control in Hassan's BITE model:

Great point, but let's take a bigger "bite," shall we?

Behavior Control:

4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles

Let's not forget:

13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think
14. Impose rigid rules and regulations

-

Also add Information Control:

4. Encourage spying on other members
a. Impose a buddy system to monitor and control member
b. Report deviant thoughts, feelings and actions to leadership
c. Ensure that individual behavior is monitored by group

-

And Thought Control:

2. Change person’s … identity

-

And finally, Emotional Control:

4. Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness

56

Today's watchtower: obey us, no matter what

by Tornintwo in

today's watchtower:.

obey us, obey us even when it seems strange, obeying our man made hierarchy equates to obeying god, sacrifice your own interests, work for us, don't be independent, put your own interests aside, obey some more, preach for us, build for us, enjoy it, obey some more, forgive when we are jerks to you and mistreat you, accept your changed assignment even if it seems cruel and doesn't make sense, don't complain if we move you (eg.

) because you might have to move in the new world, remember you are being trained to obey, remember to put your own interests aside, that's the way we are designed to live - it will only make you happy!

Oubliette

"The passing of time should not cause us to lose hope that Kingdom blessings will be realized." - w15 08/15, p. 2

Really? And why the heck not?

It's been over 100 years and counting ....

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.