Posts by scotsman

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.

scotsman

You really think 'manifest effeminate traits' is referring to fashion?

And not being heteronormative does not equal being gay.

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.

scotsman

For the record Simon I've never described you as homophobic, just lacking empathy for gay people (having empathy for their "rights" sounds rather bizarre) and I think most of this thread still finds you trying to diminish the consequences of the CO outline for JWs that don't fit some heteronormative model.

The CO outline is not as simple as a ban on mini skirts and beards as you must surely realise, trying to hide the way you act is much harder than a wet shave - kids are hideously bullied for not appearing straight, if it was easy to switch off the 'manifestation of effeminate traits', most would have done 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.

scotsman

The gayest threads are still always the longest, we win at everything.

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.

scotsman

Cofty, you're obviously rather narrow minded and need to get out of the Borders a bit more.

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.

scotsman

A confusion likely to be exploited by some elders Cofty

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.

scotsman

Simon this has been the main place for me to read bigoted comments about gay people and the language permitted by moderators is on a very long leash. On this thread alone someone refers to "faggy" behaviour (ironically they also refer to JWs being like Don Draper, a metrosexual incarnate). I've read similar dregotary words in references to gay issues: are any moderators gay?

This word may not seem offensive or hurtful to you (nor to me when used by my gay friends) but its permitance along with your continued reference to some weird occurrence of gay porn being posted again emphasises to me that you struggle with understanding what homophobia is.

I've never brought it up before as its your board and I accept that the American bias allows free speech to take precedence over (horror of horrors) political correctness, but as you're trying to diminish the consequences of this CO outline I thought it worth mentioning.

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.

scotsman

I remember when AA Gill published an article in the Sunday Time in the early 2000s in which he "came out" as a metrosexual. I had about a dozen JWs, including my sister in law, tell me that it described me. I knew I was gay and while it might have also been a coded way of them telling me that they also thought I was gay there was also a sense of relief that they could pigeonhole me as not quite "normal" but acceptable. Shortly afterwards this metrosexual was appointed an elder.

Tight pants weren't an issue back then but clearly my... style, would now not only disqualify me from being an elder but also a publisher and that's a fairly major change for the minority of gender non conforming JWs that there are. This will result in some deeply humiliating scenarios for the non practising, genuinely believing, gay JWs that will only deepen their sense of guilt and shame but not necessarily open their eyes to the TATT. It makes a cruel existence that bit crueller.

Simon may not like me saying this but over the years I've been on this message board he's never struck me as particularly empathetic to gay JWS or ex JWS and that may be why he doesn't 'get' that this is an issue. He doesn't have to, many don't.

It's not a club or workplace with a dress code Simon, it's a cult that's just gotten nastier for some of the people trapped in it.

12

A Chance to Win a Lot of Money?

by The Searcher in

the u.k. is having a national referendum in 2017, to decide whether to remain in the european union or to abandon it.. in view of the total impotence and absence of agreement of eu governments to handle mass migration to mainland europe, my bet would be for a landslide vote to leave the e.u.

- if the referendum was held within the next 6-9 months.

will things get better before 2017?