- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What can women do? Can they change into more suitable, endearing undergarments when there are opportunities for intimacy? There is room for judgment on when to wear them (sports activities, for example). The handbook actually says it is up to the individual member to make the decision about when to wear the garment. If you want sex and physical intimacy on a regular basis, consider extending the time you consider to be foreplay –
to as long as you want to designate– and don’t wear the garment during that time. Maybe that means you won’t wear the garment except for a few minutes here and there to constitute “throughout your life” (which is the actual temple covenant). 
:thumbup: Old-Timer wrote:The handbook actually says it is up to the individual member to make the decision about when to wear the garment.
If you want sex and physical intimacy on a regular basis, consider extending the time you consider to be foreplay –
to as long as you want to designate– and don’t wear the garment during that time. Maybe that means you won’t wear the garment except for a few minutes here and there to constitute “throughout your life” (which is the actual temple covenant). :thumbup: A small point but it’s only an instruction during washing and anointing, not a covenant.
TataniaAvalon wrote:Seriously there’s no way to keep them white. I had an odd conversation with a TBM at my work who’s married and she said she didn’t see the point of lingerie because she would have to wear them over her G’s.
Funny; I never saw the point of lingerie for the same reason I don’t have people re-wrap my presents after I’ve opened them once already.
Old-Timer wrote:If you want sex and physical intimacy on a regular basis, consider extending the time you consider to be foreplay –
to as long as you want to designate– and don’t wear the garment during that time. :thumbup: 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 Don’t take my laughter as belittling the idea, but like many good ideas, this one literally made me laugh out loud.
Logic — if keeping romance alive is important in marriage then every day could be considered foreplay…you might argue that it helps someone be kinder and loving and passionate the sexier they feel, so one should wear more endearing undergarments several days before and after encounters …
You are right, GB. In the temple it is instruction, albeit with a promise. It is not an explicit covenant.
I just wanted to reference the discussion we had on the garments before, and quote wayferer’s response which I think is good food for thought: wayfarer wrote:The instructions in the temple are simply to wear the garment throughout your life. Specific logistical details as to how often or when it is to be worn are not provided in the temple. While “throughout your life” is interpreted (note passive voice) as being day and night, such instructions are not explicitly given in the words of the temple ceremonies. The ‘covenant’ of the garment, the two-way promise is that if you wear it throughout your life, and do not defile it, it will be a shield and protection to you.
‘do not defile it’ is often thought of as treating the garment like a flag: never let it touch the floor, etc., etc. I think whoever put these words out had something else in mind.
”shield and protection’ — the folklore is around ‘magic underwear’ — lots of faith-promoting stories around miraculous saving from bullets, etc. This isn’t a real benefit — but be that as it may.
The garment, to me, is a inward symbol of the temple covenants. Such symbols are common in other religions: sikhs and jews wear sacred underwear of some sort. It’s a symbol of commitment. How and when I wear that symbol is entirely up to me, imo.
Review the entire thread here:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3395 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3395 I think if the garments are causing stress or unrest in a person’s life, it should be evaluated privately by asking one self in prayer:
1) What is the cause of stress or unrest? Why do I feel that way and how can I adjust it so it feels right to me? What can I learn from that about my spirituality?
2) What can I let go of in terms of pressures I thought I needed to do with garments that may actually be tradition or folklore but not directly what I consider as part of my temple covenants as I understand it?
3) Am I more concerned with what others think I should do with garments than what me and my God think I should do and the true purpose of them.
I think we can make more adjustments to make them meaningful in our lives than sometimes we give ourselves permission to do. Personally, I err on the side of comfort and peace in my life. Not in a shallow way, but just practically speaking.
I came across this a few years back and adds support to Ray’s and other’s comments. I’d been reading Devery Anderson’s The Development of LDS Temple Worship 1846-200, and came across this quote by President McKay on page 320. Quote:One letter I dictated was to a woman in answer to her question about the wearing of garments while sunbathing. I said to her: “The wearing of the garment is a personal responsibility, and conditions that justify temporary removal should be determined by each person.” – David O. McKay diary, Feb 1, 1960.
It seems that garment discussions often veer off pretty quickly into sex and intimacy within marriage territory. The focus is on how women can feel “sexy” wearing something so very sexless, when and how to justify not wearing it, etc. But how I feel about garments really has nothing to do with my husband and our sex life. Women should be able to feel feminine single or married, at 21, 91, and every age between. Amen, Ann. A-freaking-men!
I had not considered that Ann. Thanks for giving me something to ponder. Quote:Women should be able to feel feminine single or married, at 21, 91, and every age between.
My 26 year old, unmarried, devoutly LDS daughter is having that very wrestle now. She prayed and fasted and felt a mission wasn’t for her. Now that being single seems more likely she would like to go to the temple, but she has struggled with body image for years – and garments really rattle her. She has given herself a year or so to just let the idea chill. As a mom I wish the church would make a David O. McKay statement, and evict the letter of the law that happens even before the recommend interview. We don’t wear any of the other symbolic clothes outside – we keep them sacred. Let’s do the same with the garment.
That is exactly my desire, mom3. I don’t hold out belief it will happen, but I do take the handbook instruction seriously to allow members to make their own decisions about how to wear and use it.
Ann wrote:The focus is on how women can feel “sexy” wearing something so very sexless, when and how to justify not wearing it, etc.
You’re putting feelz before realz here. A quick trip to People of WalMart will show you tons (literally) of women who
feelsexy because they’re not wearing near enough. Two of the sexiest women I’ve ever met, I’ve only seen without their garments when swimming. (Or when I showed up early to pick one up, but the bathrobe she answered the door in covered more than a trenchcoat.)
I was going to shoot back a response, but I may not be understanding you. What exactly do you mean by feelz before realz? If you’re saying that women without the restrictions that garments put on their wardrobes can end up looking awful, I can’t disagree with you. (You can accomplish the same feat even with garments if you’re determined.) But if you’re saying that how a woman feels in her garments is less important than how the onlooking man perceives her, I completely disagree.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.