- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote:
I’m really appreciating the insights provided by you all. It’s very nice to hear a woman’s perspective.
Dax, I agree that for the most part garments follow the more contemporary undergarments for men. Maybe there wasn’t such a pronounced divide between garments and regular women’s underwear back when garments were first designed. The world of fashion changed considerably over the last few centuries whereas the garment changed very little by comparison.
The problem is they weren’t designed. They were just typical long underwear that had marks cut into or sewn in with “turkey red” (whatever that is). Over time the sleeves were shortened, the button on the trap door removed, and finally changed to two pieces, tops and bottoms. The sacred part is the marks, not the style, but nobody asked me.
Quote:The sacred part is the marks, not the style, but nobody asked me.
In an earlier thread on this same topic I suggested and still stand by the idea that some other item could be used as the symbolism, a medallion, tie-tack, CTR ring-thing. It is used as a reminder. That’s it’s point. I would love to know how many people put on their daily LDS underwear and give any glancing thought to the symbols. In my case, the garment and symbols mean more when I am not using them as daily underwear. I don’t mind them, but I find that putting them on after not having them on for a stretch does make them more meaningful. I won’t go so far as to say I love them, though. Can’t do that.
Joni wrote:The real problem is that LDS women have so many aspects of their spiritual, personal, and sexual lives controlled by a group of elderly men they’ve never met.
OK, snowflake, I hate to break it to you, but I’m not a woman, nor was I LDS for the first 35 years of my life. Guess what; I have to wear things I don’t always care for because of people I’ve never met. Short of finding some way to live from mid June through at least late September in a nudist colony, that’s not going to change either. Deal with it or don’t; that is the choice we’re given, but playing the “I’m dominated by old men” victim card gets old before you finish saying it.
NightSG wrote:Deal with it or don’t; that is the choice we’re given, but playing the “I’m dominated by old men” victim card gets old before you finish saying it.
Which is exactly why I said that it doesn’t matter to me if it’s my twin sister telling me that I don’t love God if I don’t want to wear garments all the time.
Of course we could “not deal with it” and leave the church. But we’re trying to navigate a way to stay.
(Snowflake??? Come on….)
NightSG wrote:Joni wrote:The real problem is that LDS women have so many aspects of their spiritual, personal, and sexual lives controlled by a group of elderly men they’ve never met.
OK, snowflake, I hate to break it to you, but I’m not a woman, nor was I LDS for the first 35 years of my life. Guess what; I have to wear things I don’t always care for because of people I’ve never met. Short of finding some way to live from mid June through at least late September in a nudist colony, that’s not going to change either. Deal with it or don’t; that is the choice we’re given, but playing the “I’m dominated by old men” victim card gets old before you finish saying it.
I’m not really sure of the tone here as sometimes the written word comes out differently than we might expect. So before I take it the way I am taking it, are you sure I’m hearing what you’re saying NightSG?
NightSG….. Oh buttercup aren’t you so precious and adorable when you, a lds man, call out a lds woman for playing the “victim card” when she expresses frustration at being asked to wear men’s undergarments by the only people in authority, other lds men. Lets just look past that she will be threatened with the loss of her temple recommend or potential salvation if she chooses not to comply with wearing men’s underwear due to oh I don’t know physical and psychological issues. But no you are correct, she should just accept her yeast infections, eating disorders, depression, pregnancy and nursing problems with grace and not complain about men not understanding since obviously lds guys “get hot in the summer as well”. Wow things are so much clearer now for me. Thank heavens you were able to call women out on victim hood. I will learn to love my men’s underwear and all of the discomfort it brings thanks to your insightful post. That being said I hope one day if the tables are turned and lds men are asked to wear women’s bra and panties at all times that you will follow your own advice since as you said “we all have a choice”. Well kind of unless you want to stay sealed to your family or see your kids get married, other than that we do have a choice. Happy future nudist colony to you if that’s what you choose, at least we know you won’t be a melting snowflake.
This is why we moderate here and don’t allow personal insults – from either side of a middle line. This has been a good discussion. Let’s not make it be closed.
NightSG wrote:Short of finding some way to live from mid June through at least late September in a nudist colony, that’s not going to change either.
A small point but colonies are for lepers, it’s nudist resort or camp. Take it from me, I know these things.
🙂 Careful, Dax. Don’t feed the trolls. mom3 wrote:It is used as a reminder. That’s it’s point. I would love to know how many people put on their daily LDS underwear and give any glancing thought to the symbols. In my case, the garment and symbols mean more when I am not using them as daily underwear. I don’t mind them, but I find that putting them on after not having them on for a stretch does make them more meaningful.
mom3, I wouldn’t agree that less frequent = more richness or more quality. While it can, it is not always true. To make a comparison, fasting on the first of the month can force people to try to be more spiritual, whereas they should have a desire to fast not be told to fast. But you can still make fast sundays meaningful and there is value in the discipline. For me, the trick is to accept that not every fast sunday will be AMAZING, and not limit my fasting to just fast sundays. But when I do fast, try to make it worthwhile so it is not just starving myself. Same with garments and the proper meaning with markings and reminders.
I think it is OK to accept reality, and times I’m not feeling a purpose behind fasting, or I just forget to do it, that’s ok. I’ll try again another time. Trying is the key.
Joni,
I see no problem with complaining about style or comfort. There is nothing sacred about those. Honestly saying a woman doesn’t like it does not mean that woman isn’t faithful. Just means she is honest. I like what mom3 said about the meaning…which has nothing to do with style or comfort.
As Elder Holland taught:
Quote:But as one adviser to teenage girls said: “You can’t live your life worrying that the world is staring at you. When you let people’s opinions make you self-conscious you give away your power. … The key to feeling [confident] is to always listen to your inner self—[the real you.]” And in the kingdom of God, the real you is “more precious than rubies.”
This applies to what the people inside the church think of you and what the real you thinks about what you must or must not do with garments, IMO.
I saw a post on my FB newsfeed but wasn’t able to read it at the time about the church doing resizing for women? Is this old news? I remember that was a complaint when I wore them, if I wore the size they suggested they were 3 times too big. Does anyone know anything about this at all? Tatiana – I think that one makes the rounds every couple of years. That and the story of the GA’s voting to rescind the garment, and two wives went right out to buy new normal underwear, only to find out that the entire quorum had not been in town when the decision was made, when the two voted, the rescinding didn’t occur. (This one has become a folk lore legend in my mind). No these babies are here to stay.
The sizing numbering system was changed fairly recently. I know because my wife told me about it.
They’ve made several changes recently, some good some bad, but mostly they have started to solicit input with each garment purchase. I think there is interest in resolving some of the issues finally. And yet, the core issue will remain, that garments bear no resemblance to any kind of women’s undergarment. ^^^ Bingo! You can’t “fix/modify” what boils down to men’s underwear to work with women’s bodies!! We have such different needs! So so frustrating that underwear is the only area the genders are the “same” in this church. It should be the one place they are different! Dax wrote:So so frustrating that
underwear is the only area the genders are the “same” in this church. It should be the one place they are different!
Interesting point. That said, if they decided to ordain women tomorrow I’m still going to wear garments on terms that preserve my femininity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.