Another TR and Garment Issue/Question

[hawkgrrrl]

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?

[Cadence]

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

[Curt Sunshine]

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.

[Minyan Man]

...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.

[QuestionAbound]

Question Abound: Speaking as a woman, garments make interest in sex at all pretty 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 something on in case a kid knocks at the door or barges in during cuddle time.

To Curt's comments, gotcha!!

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.

[hawkgrrrl]

...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).

[Curt Sunshine]

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.

[Kipper]

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.

[hawkgrrrl]

DarkJedi:

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. 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!