GrreatTeacher

Joined

• started 32 topics
• posted 2,671 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by GrreatTeacher

• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Yes, Cofty, but whose definition of the word 'extreme?'
• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  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.
• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  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.
• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  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.
• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Well, gym teachers often wear yoga pants. If they were categorically immodest then they would be forbidden.
• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  It's cool, Oub.
• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  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.
• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  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.
• 
  362

  No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  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.'
• 
  22

  Similarities between the Governing Body and an abusive spouse

  by Zoos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  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.