- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Question Abound: Speaking as a woman, garments make interest in sex at allpretty difficult. Feeling fat, frumpy and unattractive isn’t exactly a recipe for desire. Some women find that they need to forego them hours in advance to even become interested or receptive to sex. There’s a reason we used to call them “passion killers” at BYU. Followup question: do leaders see that as a bug or a feature? I might have worded my response a bit inaccurately in an attempt to avoid being explicit. I do what I can to avoid “defiling” the garment, but the reason I don’t wear them during any kind of sexual activity has nothing to do with defiling them. It is all about not letting them get in the way of any sexual activity – even situations like extended flirtation, foreplay, wanting to wake up and cuddle without them, etc. Garments are not conducive to healthy sexual activity ***for me and my wife***, so we are more liberal than many other members about when we don’t wear them.
My intent simply was to say that there are plenty of legitimate reasons not to wear the garment constantly, night and day, and that not wearing them at times you feel are fine is honoring and following the actual covenant you make in the temple.
For example, some people have body image issues that are increased to harmful levels by wearing the garment. In those cases, I will never argue with or criticize anyone who puts it on at some point to show respect for the symbolism and immediately removes it to remain healthy. I refuse to criticize and argue about it, frankly, because it is none of my business. It is between each person and God.
That also is why I recommend answering “Yes” and nothing more to the question. It is none of the interviewer’s business exactly how you wear it.
QuestionAbound wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
I never wear it during any kind of sexual activity…
This is such a personal question, but I have honestly never considered that wearing garments during “any kind” of sexual activity could be defiling them. Like, this is a brand new thought to me and I’m super intrigued. I’m all about trying new things as I work through all of this, so…do you really take them off before “any” activity? Does your wife do the same?
I mean, I get that we need to work according to our conscience, but maybe you’ve found an idea that may help me (and others?).
Thanks!
One of those little things I found interesting in
The Next Mormons, How Millennials Are Changing the Church”about wearing garments:
75% of the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers (those born before 1964 and counted together) believe it is OK to remove garments for sex. Only 51% per Millennials believed that.
:wtf: Honestly I’m not sure if there was something wrong with the way that question was asked or understood but it’s absolutely crazy. I can’t imagine my son & DIL even thinking that it was not OK. Of course I also know they remove their garments for exercise, manual labor, very hot days, etc.FWIW, generally Millennials had a much more relaxed to taking off garments. The only other scenario where Millennials were more stringent was illness.(see table page 65)
Hawk mentioned the new garment material (stretch cotton with the “ventilated” side panel). I have only tried the top and won’t try the bottoms because I think they would be too constricting and may cause a “swampiness” (something this Grinch can’t stand in the least). I generally like the top because it is mostly comfortable, the crew neck is lower than the extremely high crew neck of other garments, the sleeves are shorter, there is no tag, and the marks are printed and not sewn. The biggest downside of the top: like the nylon mesh (which those in Utah seem to think are great in hot weather), they are abysmal on the triple H days in the northeast (hazy, hot, humid). Those latter days are the most likely reason I remove my garments (previous post excepted). FWIW, my own preference for our summer climate is Dri Lux. My questions is, if they can change the style of the new garment material, why can’t they do it with the other materials?
Regarding “defiling” the garment, I have a slightly different take on that than Curtis. When I was on my mission, since I had bought my garments without much experience wearing them, I had a real variety of them, some of which were just terrible choices for me, but it was what I had, and there were no temples in the country I served in. Some of the garments I had were the cotton/poly that they (for some unfathomable reason) had put a band of elastic around the leg bottom in. It gave me welts wherever it touched my bare leg. I am allergic to medical tape, latex, and apparently raw elastic rubbing against my skin. To remedy this, I took a pair of scissors and snipped the lace / elastic band on each leg so it wouldn’t rub against my skin. My companion gasped when she saw it. “Hermana! You’re defiling your garments!” she said in shock. “No,” I replied. “THEY are defiling me!” Then I showed her the welts.
I guess what I mean by that is that we are made in the image of God. Do we believe that or not? Doesn’t our health matter? Doesn’t our emotional and sexual health matter? Doesn’t our comfort matter?
I predict garments will be eliminated from everyday wear within 10 years. It will all be a moot point then. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not sure where Hawk and I disagree. I don’t think what she did defiled her garment in any way. I twist things. It is not a nervous habit; it simply is something I do without thinking when my hands are not occupied and I have material within reach to twist. Sometimes, I find myself twisting border/edge material on the garment. I don’t see that as defiling in any way, since there is nothing that makes it unnecessarily “filthy” or “valueless” about it.
My action is not necessary or healthy in any way, like Hawk’s action. I would find it harder to defend mine convincingly than hers to an orthodox member, if I was forced to do so. However, I don’t worry about defending either action, since I think there is nothing important to defend in either situation. To me, neither is defiling the garment in any way.
The garment was made for us, not us for the garment.
Old Timer wrote:
…The garment was made for us, not us for the garment.
Curt, can you explain this further? I’ve heard it before. But, I’m not sure what it means.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Question Abound: Speaking as a woman, garments make interest in sexat allpretty difficult. Feeling fat, frumpy and unattractive isn’t exactly a recipe for desire. Some women find that they need to forego them hours in advance to even become interested or receptive to sex. There’s a reason we used to call them “passion killers” at BYU.
And for me…I would rather hide behind clothing (of any kind) instead of letting my bellies hang out for my husband to see.
😆 I guess G’s keep me covered. ha!
PLUS, it helps to have
somethingon in case a kid knocks at the door or barges in during cuddle time. :wtf: To Curt’s comments, gotcha!!Roy wrote:
From what I know of Curt, he is a man of moderation. Therefore, there could be extremes to:1) Go to great lengths to keep the garment on in some form during sexual activity.
2) Remove the garment before any sexual activity to prevent defiling it – to include foreplay, flirtation, and caressing.
Both of these scenarios are just strange and impractical. I imagine that Curt is somewhere in the middle – as are the rest of us who use garments. I know that he would advocate personal judgement and what feels right and appropriate for you. It would be highly inappropriate for anyone (church leader or random people from the internet) to try and tell you what you should be wearing or not during sexual activity. “Teach correct principles and let them govern themselves.”
Excellent, excellent examples and summary.
And this is why I come here for discussions. I don’t contribute much, but I do learn a lot. At least…you all give me things to think about in a new way.
:thumbup: Minyan Man wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
…The garment was made for us, not us for the garment.
Curt, can you explain this further? I’ve heard it before. But, I’m not sure what it means.
Curt is modifying the scripture that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, meaning that human needs trump rules (that are presumably designed for humans or at least human society).Exactly. When the Sabbath becomes more important than people, it has lost its meaning. The same is true of the garment. It should serve us; we shouldn’t be burdened by legalistic rules about its use. “Wear it throughout your life, and don’t defile it,” is good enough.
Old Timer wrote:
Exactly.When the Sabbath becomes more important than people, it has lost its meaning. The same is true of the garment. It should serve us; we shouldn’t be burdened by legalistic rules about its use. “Wear it throughout your life, and don’t defile it,” is good enough.
:thumbup: :thumbup: DarkJedi: Quote:75% of the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers (those born before 1964 and counted together) believe it is OK to remove garments for sex. Only 51% per Millennials believed that.
:wtf: Honestly I’m not sure if there was something wrong with the way that question was asked or understood but it’s absolutely crazy.I saw that in the book, too, and my first reaction was WHAT???? But my current theory is that those Millenials they asked who are NOT endowed were making assumptions due to how controlling and intrusive the believe the Church is, that they would assume that those who are endowed are “required” to keep them on during sex. I mean, if so, no wonder they aren’t endowed!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.