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.
Not surprised, Simon, but outraged that such a subjective thing could actually be used to deny participation in field service.
Refusing to allow people to participate in field service is actually a new thing. It is a signal of ever-tightening 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.
Yes, LUHE, I do have other reasons in mind. I'm afraid that elders might give the 'metrosexual' excuse to those they believe are gay.
And, true, organizations can provide interpretation for 'metrosexual,' but they haven't done that. They've used the vague term 'metrosexual' without clarification. To me this smacks of the same stuff as the word 'brazen;' a vague excuse to discipline someone they don't like.
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.
I'm not saying that freedom of expression is absolute.
What I am saying is that 'metrosexual' is a very subjective idea and leaves a lot open to interpretation. This makes it really easy to target and persecute a person for other reasons.
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.
LUHE, what kind of haircut or clothing are you referring to that might be deemed metrosexual by a school? A haircut like David Beckham? A designer shirt? Male students with manicures?
Just exactly how do you forbid the 'metrosexual look?'
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.
Yes, Cofty, but whose definition of the word 'extreme?'
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.
