Jehovah’s Witnesses Formalize “Tight Pants” Rule: No Preaching Unless You Conform to Gender Norms October 17, 2015

Jehovah’s Witnesses Formalize “Tight Pants” Rule: No Preaching Unless You Conform to Gender Norms

Last year, Anthony Morris III, a member of the Jehovah’s Witness Governing Body, explained that homosexuals were designing “tight pants” and “skinny jeans” for their own pleasure. “This is a fact,” he said.

Morris is the same man who said young people shouldn’t pursue higher education because it’ll lead to “spiritual disaster.”

So lots of brilliant advice coming from this guy…

Now, Lloyd Evans points out that Morris has found a way to turn his Tight Pants rant into official JW policy.

According to material distributed to JW leaders, any men who “lean toward effeminate characteristics and grooming habits” and any women who adopt a “masculine haircut or type of dress” should not be allowed to go door-to-door and evangelize.

For all of us, that sounds great, but for Witnesses who really want to evangelize, they’re basically being punished for how they dress and act, even if they’re fully devout. It’s also an indirect slam on gays and lesbians who don’t necessarily fit the stereotypical gender mold.

Evans writes:

Whether someone chooses to wear tight fitting clothes or not, or is inclined to wear their hair in a style reminiscent of the opposite sex, is clearly a personal choice and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are a good person or not. Watchtower’s obsession with appearance demonstrates to any reasonable onlooker that the organization is now primarily concerned with the superficial rather than the spiritual — with the earthly rather than the heavenly.

Despite all this, there are still millions of Witnesses who think they’re being led by people who have a direct line to God. And they’re perfectly willing to shun their own family members who don’t strictly adhere to these rules.

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!