by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
What I am saying is that 'metrosexual' is a very subjective idea and leaves a lot open to interpretation - agreed, and it's the organization (school, church,) that makes the interpretations.
This makes it really easy to target and persecute a person for other reasons - do you have any other reasons in mind?
The ultimate sanction - withdrawing the right to go in field service - is unprecedented as far as I (and other elders who I've asked) can tell.
Wasn't that always the case for people considered to be in "poor standing"?
Maybe it varied by congregation or circuit.
The term is vague. Metrosexual can simply be a guy who takes care of his appearance & hygiene. It can also include people who look like Bronies (if you don't know what a brony is... Google it lol).
i always identified as metro because I took great care in putting outfits together. I was and still am a big GQ enthusiast. And I always got compliments. Great ties, fantastic knots, silk or linen suits, collar stays, cuff links, modest silver bracelet, nice watch, creed cologne, and aveda skin products. I looked, smelled and felt great. Hell, I even use a cuticle trimmer so my hands don't look busted up. Compare that to the balled up & faded polyester walmart suits most window washing elders wore, I think I represented the bOrg much better! I think it's safe to say that ToMo3 wants everyone to look like him: pear-shaped and frumpy.
so, if they're going to crack down on "metrosexuals," I'd begin with multiple rings! That's something I never did, but the GB really likes that bling.
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.
The term is vague - I don't think it is.
"A young, urban, heterosexual male with liberal political views, an interest in fashion, and a refined sense of taste"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/metrosexual
The ultimate sanction - withdrawing the right to go in field service - is unprecedented as far as I (and other elders who I've asked) can tell.
Wasn't that always the case for people considered to be in "poor standing"? Maybe it varied by congregation or circuit.
Simon, below is my understanding... I am copying it from a post I made in another thread so that I don't have to re-type.
"I have never heard of this policy before in my time as a JW, and so it's a first as far as I know. You could always be a publisher, and it was often the first step on the road to baptism for a new person. You could continue on as a publisher in an unbaptized state for awhile, and just be classified as an unbaptized publisher.
However, as a baptized witness JWs were always expected to always engage in some form of publishing or have a share in the ministry every month, even if only an hour a month. Even if a person was on judicial reproof or restrictions and couldn't comment or have parts in the meetings, they could (and were expected to) always preach. This was actually many times used as a gauge of their progress to full spiritual recovery.
Only disfellowshipped persons did not qualify for the ministry, so this to me is quasi putting these persons in a similar light... almost disfellowshiped-lite, or another form of judicial punishment."
For those who were JWS back in the 1960's when mini skirts were popular, the WTS came out lashing about woman wearing these skirts as well. They too were deemed inappropriate attire .
Again modesty was stressed , mini skirts of days past might very be the Yoga pants of today.
My guess is this new mandate will create a watchful eye onto the young ones in the congregations as to is wearing Yoga pants or who is wearing any tight fitting pants as it were, male or female.
Is there some confusion here between gay and effeminate?
Simon: Sorry for replying so late.. I took an afternoon nap.
This directive trivializes their ministry: Up to now, there was no official reason why someone would remain a JW and yet not be allowed to participate to the ministry. Hence, participating in the ministry was a fundamental right for which JWs fought all over the world, serving prison terms and some with their very life!
That is why I made the comparison to the pedophiles as even those never lost their right to go door to door. Yes, the ministry was a fundamental right taken away from no one!
That is, until they brought up that directive. Now, if you don’t act or dress properly, you can loose that "fundamental" right and yet, remain a JW!
You could dress like a model JW for the ministry, fit for a picture in the watchtower. And yet, they could withhold that right and say: "When we saw you at the restaurant, me and my wife, we thought you looked a little gay".
So, the ministry is not fundamental anymore. This is a big deal. Huge deal. Worthy of a lot of attention.
