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.
How are yoga pants any more sexy than any other pants? Because you can see the outline of her bum? Can't you see that in any other type of pants as well?
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!"
Clothing "modesty" is a social construct and not objectively true at all.
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.
So, we, who have more in depth appreciation of the negative controlling aspects of the organization shouldn't speak of these things in this forum which is specifically for us because a JW lurker might be "stumbled?"
Because that's what your argument seems to amount to.
Should we just pm each other about this particular issue?
With all due respect, I just truly do not understand your pov.
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.
Simon, gym teachers do wear them outside of an exercise setting. They walk around the school with them on. They wear them out in public on their way to and from school!
I would have never in a million years thought that yoga pants were immodest until Watchtower arbitrarily stated that they were.
It's about control.
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.
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.
It's cool, Oub.
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.
Hey, Oub, the quote you attributed to me was actually Simon's.
And when I said that those things were not actually immodest, I was replying to Simon's postualting that JWs would object to Ex's because we were promoting immodest dress, not your post which ended up being directly above mine.
Posts have been coming fast and furious, so it's been a little confusing.
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.
The OP never mentioned women in spandex. It referred to ToMo's tight pants comment which was about men's slim-fit suits. Women don't wear pants in service, anyhow, so I don't feel like women in spandex was part of this issue of denying people going in service.
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.
Except those things aren't really immodest. The tight pants spoken of are just a slimmer cut, especially around the lower leg, not immodest. Colorful socks are not immodest. "Effeminate" mannerisms, whatever that means, are not immodest.
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.'
i was looking at a list of methods used by abusive spouses to manipulate and control their "domain" and was struck by how similar the mentality is to the governing body's approach to the flock.
obviously not everything on the list applies as there is no sexual component in the congregation and there is no physical contact, but the similarities were shocking.. http://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/domestic-violence-and-abuse.htm.
abusers use a variety of tactics to manipulate you and exert their power:.
Mad, I don't think the point is to focus on the intensity of abuse. Your experience sounds pretty horrific and may objectively be "worse."
What's truly interesting about this post is the idea that the tactics used are similar. The Watchtower as abuser and the member as codependent is a useful way to conceptualize cult involvement that is ultimately not in the member's best interest. So, why do they stay even as they suffer? The OP is suggesting that we can gain more insight into that reason by comparing abusive / codependent relationships since there is much that we do know about those kind of relationships as studied in the domestic sphere.
i was looking at a list of methods used by abusive spouses to manipulate and control their "domain" and was struck by how similar the mentality is to the governing body's approach to the flock.
obviously not everything on the list applies as there is no sexual component in the congregation and there is no physical contact, but the similarities were shocking.. http://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/domestic-violence-and-abuse.htm.
abusers use a variety of tactics to manipulate you and exert their power:.
Mad Irishman, looking at your empty post above, I see you changed your mind about your post.
And, that's a good thing. Thinking before you speak is always smart.
