Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: rogertheshrubber ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 10:24AM

I was never one to take my own temple garments very seriously. I grew up in FL, and we never kept the house very cool, so as a kid I usually just hung out in boxers at home. My DS would always frown and say someday I would have to wear garments.

After going through the temple, I found as many reasons NOT to wear my garments as I could, including

1. I was playing sports, or was planning, at some point in the next 24 hours, to maybe play sports,

2. I was doing "manual labor," (which, I could rationalize, included scrubbing the floors or pushing an automatic mower) and didn't want to mess up the "holy" clothes,

3. I was having sex with my wife, planning to have sex with my wife, or hoping against hope that sometime in the next 72 hours my wife would give into my begging and have sex with me,

OR

4. It was just too damn hot.

I was aware that this mentality was not in line with the church, but after going shirtless most of my life, I just couldn't get into the habit of double-layering when doing so was uncomfortable.

But I was lucky enough to be a man.

My now-ex-wife is the youngest child from a storied pioneer clan. She didn't have it so easy. In fact she had (and has) it downright awful.

Her approach was to catch little tips from her older sisters about how to make her garments less conspicous, and to find out when she could get away with not wearing them without condemnation. Her sisters even provided her with some 30 year old garments that were extra short, telling her she was lucky to have them because you cannot find them in that size anymore.

LDS women have the worst luck in underwear! The fabrics are flimsy. They are uncomfortable, tight in the wrong places, awkwardly sized (do they fit ANYONE?!), and don't fit underneath anything but the most conservative, long clothing! Whereas mine looked just like boxer-briefs and a t-shirt (with inconspicuous magic signs), my ex had to wear pioneer granny panties and a Shakespearean blouse, complete with tell-tale lace linning that made her stick out like a sore thumb in any situation where she was changing clothes around others.

Now tell me, why MUST the women's garment be 75 years behind fashion, when men's appear almost normal?

This says so much about what I believe are the dynamics of the church. Women learn, and then perpetuate, ass-backwards modes of living that MARK them as belonging to the fold in each and every aspect of their existence. They must "belong" to the church in a much more intrusive and soul-crushing way. I think women's garments are just one example of taht.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: nwmcare ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 11:00AM

My convert sister and her friends all bottlefed their babies because it was impossible to be discrete in those garments and because by the time you left the room, got undressed, fed the baby, cleaned up, dressed and got back it was time to feed baby again . . . and keep an eye on the house, the other kids or try cooking and cleaning during the aforementioned process? God forbid someone should come to the door!

And that's just childcare. How about throwing in some desert heat? the spills and clothing changes that go with doing'women's chores'? fitting into uniforms (for working moms)? I could go on . . .

Inequality is the polite way of saying it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2011 11:01AM by nwmcare.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rogertheshrubber ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 11:03AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rogertheshrubber ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 11:52AM

The civil rights era Supreme Court cases, where Jim Crow laws were banned as "badges of slavery." After reading your description of the LDS mother's role at home, I think maybe I should have stuck with the Court's language.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Reinventing Grace (not logged in AKA Rgnli) ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 08:54PM

I find this unjust.

Men get to have sexy skin tight jammies that look hot in bed, bending over at the office, in the locker room, while women get the saggy baggy frumpies.

To correct this, it's time for a return to the one-piecers for men. Stock them in 3 sizes only. Make those slits come up extra far in back to weird out co-workers when you bend over. And to let your basketball buddies know you're in a cult whenever the see you climbing in and out if them in the locker room.

Onesies for men. It's the only equitable solution. Let's all write to the producing bishopric today and tell them The Time Has Come!

RG

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rogertheshrubber ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 11:35PM

But funny nonetheless. :)

I still remember my dad's one pieces. They were freaking hilarious.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: vasalissasdoll ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 11:52AM

I had a never-mo friend ask me about the garments once. I told her, and sent her a link to a picture. This woman does Civil War reenactment(North), with her spouse and kids...and was shocked by what I showed her. She asked me whether they've always looked that way, and I told her no, they used to be long and one piece.

Then she sent me a picture of the drawers and chemise she wears when she's in full dress, and they are essentially the same thing. A chemise was the light top layer that was worn close to the skin under a corset, so that the oils from your body didn't damage such an expensive item. The only difference between the drawers and garment bottoms is that they are made of unstretchable cotton cloth, and so gathered at the knee instead of tight-fitting, to allow more freedom of movement then non-stretchy fabrics would have allowed.

All they did 75 years ago was change it to what a non-Mormon grandmother of their era would have worn.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: vasalissasdoll ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 12:07PM

Almost makes me wish I'd kept some to do historic reenactment in...but not quite. Especially the bottoms.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rogertheshrubber ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 12:16PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: nwmcare ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 12:19PM

Is there a difference in cost and fabrics, or is it all standard? When Sis visited and her garmies came through the wash they were sweat-stained, yellowed and of man-made fabric that had little or no give.

When I asked my mom about the propriety of giving her a couple of 'new' sets as a gift (thinking the stains and yellowing meant 'old'), she said that no, the garments got that way within just a few washes due to the type of fabric and skin oils, sweat, etc.

So are they available in cotton? Are those synthetic kind cheapies that those young and poverty stricken teen aged brides wear?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: vasalissasdoll ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 01:03PM

They're all over-priced, and cost the same. Last I cared, they were available in cotton, cotton-poly blend, and synthetic.

The cotton looks like crap after a few washings. It also rips easily, and the bottoms bunch horribly under pantyhose.

Many women go for the synthetic, because they claim it's cooler(doesn't breathe at all, but feels silky). It's also easier to "adjust" without doing so "on purpose"(against the rules). I hated the synthetic...had them purchased for me by a well-meaning family member, and they made my boobs fall out of my bra, and led to a long run of yeast infections until I figured out what was going on and wised up.

Also, you aren't allowed to get rid of the horrible, itchy lace they trim the women's garments in.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bubbleboy ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 01:40PM

When I last bought garments (about 10 months ago), there were a LOT of different kinds; probably 7 or 8 different fabric types. Some of which come out a lot shorter than others :)

One things remains the same though: the women's garments definitely all suck. My still-Mormon wife hates how they fit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 01:16PM

dressing modestly and nobody seems to care thae regular clothing for women come in five or six types of sizes and the garment comes in ..maybe ..two. Women don't come in two sizes!
The only point of the garment for women is to control how the women dress. That is it in a nut shell. Keep them covered up as much as possible. Those darn women tempt men! Can't have that!!!!

It's easier to make garments for men as they follow the standard sizes more easily.

Of course, women and men wear the same garment of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood! In that sense they are equal.

I had problems with the fabrics for women and when I finally found one that didn't irritate my skin (Bemberg-Rayon), it was discontinued.

They are, of course, totally unnecessary, a kind of Mosiac law from the Old Testament, which if anyone pays any attention to the doctrine, Jesus Christ came to replace (fulfill.) So, in essence, they are totally out of compliance with the teachings of Christ and need to be discontinued. Maybe someday they will realize that the garment is totally unnecessary.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Pil-Latté ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 01:59PM

Nope. I do not.

Those things are wrong on so many levels. They are ugly. They are unflattering. They are impossible to nurse a baby with (I nursed all of my kids and it was miserable). And forget about the once a month issue.

I was the first out of Hubby and I to shed them. I was ready to...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: WickedTwin ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 02:12PM

I am 5' 2" tall... the "petite" length still touched the top of my kneecap when new and after a few washes and they got all stretched out, they drooped to the middle of my kneecap. My friends of average height could wear above-the-knee skirts, and taller ones, mid-thigh. I was stuck with calf-length or longer which just made me look shorter.There were zero shorts I could wear.

The shorter synthetic ones (they used to call dri-silque) had no knee lace and rolled up under my pants leaving a worse than lace line there.

I got advice for that time of the month, to put a liner on the inside of the garments and a pair of panties over the outside to make it snug!!! Would it kill someone to let us have normal underwear at least one time per month?!?

That time of the month, nursing babies, how about going to the doctor for an emergency and they see that? (I embarrassingly had to have emergency surgery).

Inequality, indeed...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rogertheshrubber ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 02:24PM

I had forgotten about my ex having to double layer every month. Awful.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: vasalissasdoll ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 04:31PM

My SIL does this, too.

She rushes to assure anyone that accidentally sees a gap when she bends over that she's wearing her garments, but on her period....I'd think just letting them guess would be better.

Gah...garments and jeans. Anything lower then right under your ribs and you end up with a garment muffin-top.

I actually broke the rules and started wearing granny panties under my garments when on my period...it was so much nicer that it was the straw that broke the camel's back, and I just got rid of them all together at that point. Drove my spouse crazy for the first little bit because the only time I wore "sexy" underwear(that sexy? really?) was when I was bleeding.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: adoylelb ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 02:36PM

Threads like this remind me of how fortunate I am that I got out without having to wear those ugly things. I've already got sensory issues where I have to wear cotton underwear and cut the tags out of my clothing, so the thought of lace next to the skin makes me itch just thinking about it.

One thing that has happened anyway is that I refuse to wear white underwear, even if it's cotton and tagless because it reminds me too much of the Morg as those garmies only come in white if you're not in the military.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Queen of Denial ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 08:49PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Stormy ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 08:59PM

White underwear...so boring...color lots of color..do happy never to wear garments..don't know you did it.

stormy

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Anubis ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 05:08PM

Stop your britchen, The brothern provided nursing G-'s that have holes for pulling your boob through at a cost of course.

My mother was one of the first to test the new design (two piece) when they were still one piece. She said it was 100 times better than having to climb through the butt hole....

I can also see why guys have porn issues in Mormondom. Once my wife took of the G's and started wearing victoria's Secrets it was like I had discovered a new land...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rogertheshrubber ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 06:37PM

Hillarious story, though. So embarasssing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tristan-Powerslave ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 07:01PM

My mom wears the absolute thinest mesh garments, always has, & still they seems so too thick & hideous even though they don't show through her clothes.

I'm also glad that I've never had to wear them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: littlekiwi ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 07:12PM

I remember going through the Temple to get my endowments and putting those awful things on for the first time. It was worse when hubby and I got back to the motel afterwards and I actually saw myself in the mirror for the first time wearing them. I cried. A lot. They were hot, uncomfortable, tight in all the wrong places, and I felt U.G.L.Y.!

I was never very good at wearing them. I did to start with, because I was afraid people might notice if I wasn't wearing them, but then common sense kicked in and I asked myself, "Why should I wear these stupid things anyway? Why should I need some outward reminder of my commitment to Christ? And besides, who in their right mind would choose to wear TWO layers of clothing during the hottest summer months? And WHO CARES what other people think!" I found them totally ridiculous and so gave up wearing them. Best thing I ever did.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Laban's Head forgot her password ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 07:24PM

I always said -- The same person who created woman could NOT have designed garments. Horrible, horrible things. Hated --- REALLY HATED - - them even when I was TBM.

Finally figured out that if I wore my bra underneath the garmie top, "the girls" would stay where they belonged instead of sliding out of the bra cups. When my then-teenaged-YW- brainwashed-daughter saw she hit the roof and told me how wrong it was.

I told her that when God started wearing a bra we could talk about it!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rogertheshrubber ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 07:26PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: emanon ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 07:37PM

I hated the damn things but wore them faithfully, except I wore regular underwear underneath the bottoms during that time of the month. The g's are incredibly uncomfortable. There was no regret in getting rid of those things, and DH was excited when I stopped wearing them.

And for the questioning lurkers, I promise, the g's have no magical powers. I'm still okay after 9 years of not wearing magic undies!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Rebeckah ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 07:41PM

And she's still kicking! :D

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: NeverMo in CA ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 08:25PM

The bra has to be worn OVER the garments? And even during menstruation, the panties have to be worn over the garments?

I don't get it...if it's mainly about "modesty," wouldn't just as much skin be covered regardless of whether the garments were worn over or under the regular underwear? Is there a reason the garments have to be right next to the skin?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: vasalissasdoll ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 08:33PM

You promise in the temple to keep them closest to your body. It has to do with the temple covenants.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: January ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 08:39PM

Yes, the garments get yellowed after only a few wearings. Soaking in Oxyclean helps, but they always look yucky.

I found that I could pull the waist of the bottoms all the way up to my bra -- I hated that they didn't sell bottoms with a lower "hipster" type waist, they were so uncomfortable.

Nursing tops are the WORST! After one wash, the holes over your nipples curl up and don't really close. After I had my first child, I remember putting on nursing garments and maternity bottoms right after getting home from the hospital. I looked at my misshapen, soft, stretched-out stomach and sore breasts from nursing and the ugly underwear and just cried. I felt like crap, I looked even worse. I love my kids and love having and nursing my babies, but I'm glad I don't have to do it with garments any more!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: cl2 ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 09:03PM

story I have. When my twins were about 1 year old, my ex had to have hernia surgery. My sister was going to babysit them. We got there really early and my BIL was sleeping on the couch. He was on his stomach with the flap wide open on his Gs.

Yes--men's garments are much nicer than women's. I thought my ex looked kind of sexy in them. Women's are SOOOOOOOOOOOO UGLY and they don't last. They are about as useless as pantyhose in terms of longevity, but pantyhose look better. They just make you feel butt ugly.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: imaworkinonit ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 09:31PM

1) At "that time of month"

2) In a very hot climate

3) When nursing (at least my mother advised me that it was okay to wear the nursing bra UNDER the garments . . . whether or not that was actually Kosher, I took her word for it. She was a temple worker for many years, so I think she knew).

4) UNDER pantyhose

5) and sometimes ALL of the above.


I never realized how they limited choices of clothing until I stopped wearing them. I still dress very conservatively, but I have choices.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tristan-Powerslave ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 09:45PM

They're designed & manufactured this way so those that wear them need to purchase more & more. It's a rip-off plain & simple that makes the Cult more money.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: cludgie ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 10:08PM

I think in 1963, back when men's and women's garments were pretty much the same, the proposal to make the women's garments more "feminine" (ha!--like they could be feminine!) cause some of the GAs a lot of heartburn. Of course, they don't "speak with one voice" as they like to say they do, and unlike what they say, they take a vote like everyone else in the world. Lacy women's garments were apparently narrowly voted in.

As far as wearing extra underwear when a woman had her period, at least DW would wear them beneath because you couldn't bloody well wear them successfully over that butt flap. Later she did the same with the one-piece. Besides, ruining the garment was a damn site more expensive than ruining easily replaceable undies.

I had several American and German friends who were married to German women when I was active in a German stake, and they all claimed that women wearing bras on top of the garment was an American thing, that German women wore them under the garment.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: orphan ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 10:37PM

All these posts about women and garments really show us what a bunch of nuts these men that run the church really are.
My ex wife used to wear my garments because they were more comfortable than hers. We were both about the same size so she wore my jeans also.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: exmollymo ( )
Date: May 18, 2011 10:53PM

When I decided to stop wearing my G's, I had to buy panties because I didn't have any. I was so scared that a ward member might see me shopping in that department. Also, it took me about 2 hours to find the right kind. I tried on all kinds (over my g's) and I made a point to not buy any white ones. I bought a little bit of everything in a lot of fun colors.

My TBM hubby cried when he saw that I was out of the G's, but he was very "excited" over the black lace thong the next night. Also, now that I am free of those horrible things, I sleep so much better.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.