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

by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Simon

  Not surprised, Simon, but outraged that such a subjective thing could actually be used to deny participation in field service.

  yeah, I think the marked / poor standing may not have absolved people from Field Service.

  Refusing to allow people to participate in field service is actually a new thing. It is a signal of ever-tightening control.

  It can be sign of tightening grip because of weakening control. the natural reaction of authoritarian regimes is to be stricter. Eventually they may implode and end up with a more hard core but smaller following. Would that be better or worse than a larger more relaxed group?

  Maybe people will start buying clothes to get them out of going door to door ...
• 

  Simon

  So, in that sense, as a symptom of an unhealthy institution, the dress code issue is important.

  I agree. They should be attacked for being a high control, cruel and unloving, hypocritical organization.

  Focusing too much on the message of "tight pants" doesn't do that IMO and the message gets lost
• 

  Simon

  Wow, we're on page 14 of this thread and you still think it's about a dress code.

  The topic is "No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official". What do you think it's about - being gay? I think the WTS already has that as a policy. How would "WTS doesn't allow homosexuality" be a new policy?
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Good point, Simon. A larger more forgiving group versus a smaller more fanatic group.

  I fear for the latter being created and hiding away in the Warwick compound.
• 

  Finkelstein

  GrreatTeacher

  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.

  Whoa there Teacher, I was refused to go out in service because my hair was to long over my ears and I wore bell bottom pants. I was told I wasn't dressed like a model wholesome Christian, I looked too worldly.
  

  It should be realized that the WTS has for a very long time instituted a regulation onto how people should dress and looked, particularly when they were out in service.

  The model of course is formulated upon clean cut wholesomeness, certainly not effeminate or homosexual looking, which to their perception is outwardly sinful and immoral.

  So the WTS elders has purposefully degraded these males and given them a hard time and may have actually socially persuaded them to leave the congregation altogether.
  
• 

  hardtobeme

  Anthony Morris III is gay. He just needs a little push.

  I bet he wears pink speedos... lol
• 

  Oubliette

  The topic is "No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official". What do you think it's about - being gay?

  Actually, I that is what I think it's about.

  Have you not read the new CO's outline that started this discussion?

  The first sentence of the section under discussion reads: "'The spirit of the world' is leading people to blur the distinction between the genders as never before."

  Although the outline does specifically mention the metrosexual style and tight-fitting pants, it is obviously NOT doing so in reference to straight men.

  On the contrary, the outline subsequently focuses on "effeminate traits … in one's bearing, body language and manner of speech" referring to such as "gender-blurring characteristics."

  This is only superficially dealing with outward appearances. It is indeed an attack on the behaviors and identity of individuals who may or may not be gay, but are perceived to be by intrusive, overzealous elders who have now been given permission to go on a crusade against anyone that dresses, acts or talks in a way they don't like.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Thanks for the info, Finkelstein. I didn't know they actually did that.

  So, did you cut your hair and have your pants narrowed?

  Were they then too narrow and therefore become 'tight pants?'

  Exactly what measurement is okay for the pant leg opening?
• 

  Simon

  Actually, I that is what I think it's about. Have you not read the new CO's outline that started this discussion?

  Yes, but they have always been against homosexuality. So why would this be news to anyone?

  The first sentence of the section under discussion reads: "'The spirit of the world' is leading people to blur the distinction between the genders as never before."

  Although the outline does specifically mention the metrosexual style and tight-fitting pants, it is obviously NOT doing so in reference to straight men.

  That is your interpretation - I don't know where you get the "obviously" from. I would suggest that as they already have an absolute and outright ban on homosexuality then anything else they are talking about is exactly what it says - metro-sexual dress.

  What is the distinction between genders? In this case they are talking about dress.

  They now don't what people who appear gay. They already didn't want people who are gay.
• 

  Finkelstein

  The connection that Anthony Morris made about how gays want to see you (us) wear tight clothing.

  reveals the homophobic atmosphere he has and which many other JW men have as well.

  Homosexuality is a egregious sin activated by Satan's influence, so be aware of who you can identify as being gay, their influence may spread causing more sinning of this type, an infliction upon the whole congregation.

  Watch out for men wearing tight pants, this is an assured give away that this individual is possibly involved in such behavior or experimenting..