Have you ever seen the TV show “What Not To Wear” on TLC? In case you haven’t, it’s a reality-based show starring two fashion experts, Clinton and Stacy, who help people in desperate need of fashion makeovers (these people are nominated by their friends and/or family). The show is great. Clinton and Stacy ambush the nominees in some clever way and then in front of their friends and family – not to mention all the video cameras – they have to commit to take their entire wardrobe to New York (usually for complete disposal) and shop for a new wardrobe following Clinton and Stacy’s fashion rules. If they agree they receive $5,000 to spend on that new wardrobe. To kick off the process, Clinton, Stacy, and the nominee sit down together and watch video footage showcasing all of the nominee’s fashion disasters that was secretly filmed weeks in advance. They do this so the nominees can see how they look like from someone else’s perspective. During this segment of the show Clinton and Stacy try to find out why the nominee makes the clothing choices that they do – what is his/her motivation (or lack of motivation in some cases)? The most commonly heard justifications include comfort, time constraints, and indifference. A lot of times the nominees don’t want to draw attention to themselves due to an underlying issue such as lack of confidence or low self worth.
Clinton and Stacy are truly gifted at helping people. Each fashion rule is tailored specifically for the individual nominees. They work with all body types and their most important rule is finding clothes that correctly fit each body type. Often nominees wear baggy clothing to try to hide their trouble areas, or sometimes they wear clothes that are two sizes too small simply because they want to “fit” in those clothes so badly. As mentioned, Clinton and Stacy’s number one rule is wearing clothes that truly fit the body. The shopping rules are designed to highlight the best features in each person and downplay areas that nominees find troublesome: V-neck shirts are suggested to elongate the neck, pointed shoes are recommended to lengthen the legs, a higher waste is used to conceal the tummy area and give more shape, etc.
After the nominee’s wardrobe has been trashed and the shopping rules have been presented, the nominee is turned loose in New York City to spend their $5,000 alone. Things usually don’t go very well for the nominees. It’s a frustrating process. Then on day two of shopping, Clinton and Stacy help the nominees spend whatever money they have left on a wardrobe that actually follows the rules (they probably return a bunch of stuff from the day before too!). It’s usually around this point of the process that an amazing transformation begins. The nominees start to see themselves in a different light. With the right cut, the right pants, and the right shoes, nominees begin to see their best selves – what was hidden before in the baggy and “comfy” clothes. And they start to feel good about themselves, sometimes for the first time in a really long time.
After shopping, the nominees also get new hairstyles and make-up instructions from professionals. The new make-up and hairstyles, like the new clothes, are tailored to emphasize the nominees’ strengths. The before and after shots are always unbelievable.
At the end of the show there is big reveal, where the nominees get to see themselves for the first time with all of the new elements put together. The hosts and the nominees are always overwhelmed with joy at the outcome. Clinton and Stacy, or course, knew beforehand that with the right clothes, the nominees would look and feel amazing. The nominees leave the experience feeling more confident, attractive, empowered, and they value themselves more than before. No surgical changes are involved in the process. Clinton and Stacy work with what each person has. Finding clothes that fit the body correctly helps bring out a person’s natural beauty – who they really are.
So what does this have to do with Mormonism? Good question. I have written numerous posts about the LDS garment. In some of these posts, I listed troubles with the garment:
Women:
- Short/petite women, due to the length of their garments, have to wear longer shorts compared to taller women.
- While wearing a shirt that has a wider neckline, the garment is often exposed by the collarbone.
- Petite women can’t wear cap sleeves without exposure of the garment because it is wide and slips down on the arm.
- Any time a woman bends down, sits, or squats, the top waistband of the garment, if not more, is exposed.
- Any time a woman reaches for something high, her garment is exposed.
- Pregnant women, whose shirts are more fitting around the middle, unintentionally expose the navel marking in the garment.
- Bigger women will have a bigger waist, and therefore a longer garment length.
- Any form-fitting shirt will reveal the back embroidery of the garment through the shirt.
- Any form-fitting pants will reveal the embroidery of the hemline of the garment (or just the hemline if there is no embroidery).
- Any white dress shirt will reveal the embroidery around the neck and back.
- The garment waistline is so skinny it digs into your skin.
- When a woman wears a knee-length skirt that is not tight fitting she will have garment exposure when she walks.
- Some tops have bigger arm openings causing exposure of the garment.
- The garment waist is so uncomfortably high it has to be pushed and bunched down (or pulled up to the armpits).
- Nursing a baby while wearing garments can be a HUGE pain *new addition to the list
- Nursing garments are one size fits all in the breast area. *new addition to the list
Men:
- Bottoms will crawl up having to pull the garment down almost every time you sit down.
- The garment crawling up can make things uncomfy around the wedding tackle area.
- In wearing a white dress shirt, you can see the markings through the shirt.
- If you are wearing a thin shirt like a golf shirt, you can see the markings through the shirt.
- Short men are left to wear longer shorts or their garments will be exposed at the bottom.
- Bigger men will have a bigger waist and therefore longer length in the garment, usually resulting in exposure.
- The garment bottom hemline appears when wearing most pants, especially when sitting with suit pants.
- Sometimes the sleeve can be exposed when wearing a short sleeve.
Universal complaints:
- Garments do not fit correctly.
- Garments are not comfortable.
- Garments are hot during summer months and in tropical locations.
- Garments are not attractive.
I want to focus this post on a couple of the universal complaints: they do not fit correctly and they are not attractive. When the garment does not fit correctly, some must choose a style of clothing that covers up the garment instead of choosing a style of clothing that fits them correctly.
Some common fashion advice is that proper-fitting underwear helps you feel more confident and is essential for allowing your clothing to hang properly. Confidence is affected by what you wear. If you are self-conscious, then you end up tugging and pulling at your clothing, which conveys discomfort and lack of confidence. In business settings, body language can undermine your credibility and impair your ability to negotiate and collaborate. This is one area in particular that my friend Rachael struggles with because the garment line is so incompatible with most clothing styles, particularly the neckline for females. For men, the neckline in most shirts is pretty standard, and if the garment does happen to show, it just looks like a t-shirt – no big deal. However, for women, necklines are extremely varied and it can be difficult to find shirts that completely cover the garment. Additionally, the neckline is considered an important factor in style and fashion because it contributes to the overall display of the face, and there are specific fashion rules and guidelines for the type of neckline that should be worn by particular body shapes. Even the standard V-neck, which is flattering for most shapes and sizes, often requires a tank top underneath because the neckline of the garment is so high. This results in more layers of clothing, which bulks up the waistline and often results in both discomfort and unflattering clothing lines.
Short women have to buy extra-long shorts while taller women can get away with wearing shorter shorts. The issue here isn’t the tall woman getting away with wearing shorter shorts, it’s the shorter woman having to deal with wearing longer shorts. When shorter women wear longer shorts, it gives the illusion of being even shorter. Usually capris are not recommended for shorter women because it makes them look even shorter. Also, shorter women that have narrow shoulders and a smaller breast size usually end up with ill-fitting tops. They have to wear tops with high necklines and longer sleeves to cover up the garment. This is unfortunate because scoop necks and V-necks elongate the neck resulting in a taller appearance.
After my posts on the LDS garment, I heard a recurring comment: garments don’t make me feel attractive. Can you honestly say that you look or feel attractive when you wear your garments? From what I have gathered, I would say most don’t. Is this a problem? I think it is. Any time your true beauty or true self isn’t expressed or displayed, you are shortchanging yourself and your confidence will be lacking. Some will argue that the purpose of the garment is not to make you feel attractive or sexy. EXACTLY! This is one of the main issues with the garment.
Now, there are suggestion boxes where you purchase garments, so the Church is making an effort. But to what end? Because the Church is operating within a certain budget, it just isn’t possible to get a good fit for every body type and comfort level. There’s just no way the Church can accommodate so many different bodies. It is an impossible task. I remain hopeful that the Church will foresee all of this and eventually use the garment only for temple worship. Did you know that at one point the Quorum of Twelve actually discussed doing away with the garment all together except when inside the temple? The idea originated with Apostle Melvin J. Ballard. According to sources, his wife found the garments uncomfortable. So ladies, even the Apostle’s wife finds them uncomfortable! (Conversation with George T. Boyd, July 3, 1986, Buerger Papers)
An alternate solution could be to iron-on or silk-screen the markings to your choice of undergarments. This would allow a person to choose a good fit out of the thousands of different undergarment companies that are out there. “You crazy apostate!” is usually what I hear after I present this idea. But get this – the military already uses the silk-screening solution for their garments! In fact, two years ago, in response to a lengthy letter to Pres. Uchtdorf about modesty and garments, a close, trusted friend of mine received a response from him in which he expressed interest in pursuing the idea of silk-screening the marks of the Priesthood in garments for all members, not just the military.
The silk screening option would do a couple of things. For one the church would no longer have any issues with finding the right fit for so many different body types. Second, the commitments you made in the temple now become private because no one can see your garments. There is something strange about being able to tell who a person is by the underwear they are wearing. There is one company that provides iron-ons, if you are not in the military and can’t wait for the official approval. It is hard enough to find clothes that fit you correctly, why are we making it harder for ourselves?
When discussing various garment improvements, keep this in mind: “It may be observed that no fixed pattern of the temple garment has ever been given, and that the present style of garment differs very materially from that in use in the early history of the Church” (Letter to Presidents of Stakes and of Temples June 12, 1923, The New and Everlasting Covenant). Remember that one time when the garment used to come down to the wrists and ankles? Some will say, “My garments fit me fine and I can wear very stylish clothes.” And I would respond, “Good for you, but there are many, many others that don’t feel the same way.” Just because it might work for you doesn’t mean it works for every other LDS person in the world. We should always remember that whole bit about mourning with those that mourn. Don’t dismiss other people’s suffering just because you don’t find yourself in the same situation.
Pablo
Born and raised in Northern California, Pablo received his education at Ricks College and BYU with a BA in Spanish, minor in PE Coaching. Pablo served his LDS mission during the years 94-96 in Rosario, Argentina. He now runs a skate shop and batting cages in Orem, UT. He's married and has 4 boys.
All posts by Pablo
I agree wholeheartedly with your critiques and with your proposed solutions. Let us buy underwear that fits our body, that’s appropriate to our climate, and that doesn’t create health/hygiene problems. If the church feels the markings are so important, sell silk-screen or iron-on kits. Reserve garments for temple worship. They’d mean so much more that way.
Also wanted to add that menstruation + garment bottoms = bloody disaster area. And so many women (me included) deal with recurrent yeast infections or bacterial vaginosis due to garment bottoms.
Chalk me up for the chronic infections. Also, fibromyalgia. When I was younger, my mom was sometimes so sensitive to that narrow lace digging into her skin that she would have to snip it to relieve the pain. Now I know that was probably because she likely has fibromyalgia, like me, and can experience heightened sensitivity. My main fibro-related problem has been overheating, because people with fibro are often very sensitive to hot and cold. I did okay in Utah, but once we moved to CA and had more humid summers, the combination of the heat and humidity and fibro and the extra layer became really horrible.
I have been able to avoid the yeast infections by going to all cotton garments…..what a relief/worry free.
Since the ERA was passed women’s (lack of) fashion has gotten progressively worse. It has gone from painted-on designer jeans and mini-skirts to spandex (what women call yoga pants/leggings) and skin tight, shorter than short, shorts. I understand the erotic feeling women get from wearing tight fitting clothes (it’s all about sex,) but what about dignity? This is so prevalent it appears there’s a law that mandates females to wear cheap, black, spandex and street walker boots. Just wait until summer; what’s next shrink wrap bikinis? This way of dress is indecent and unbecoming. I mean, if you’re advertising you’re selling!
“Since the ERA was passed women’s (lack of) fashion has gotten progressively worse” – your personal opinion, there is no way to back this up with facts.
“I mean, if you’re advertising you’re selling!” – this is the rape culture defined. A man would say something similar after raping a woman – “she was asking for it, did you see what she was wearing??” Should we have them cover up their ankles now?
Paul – I am with you on this, on a deeper level I have daughter who is terrified to take out her endowments because of garments. She suffers from severe physical self confidence. She was large, and spent her teen years being reminded of her largeness from coaches, family, teachers. Her size is no longer an issue, but the recurring self worth struggle may never go away. Today she is a college graduate, personal banker, a fan of What Not To Wear, and has really put together a nice physical presentation of herself. She knows the garment issue will railroad all the progress she has made. Her vision of her self-worth would be so much assisted if she could keep her covenants but wear a different reminder of them on her body. Even just a ring or necklace, or the iron on symbols.
It’s like you stole my thoughts right out of my brain! I am petite and garments make it very difficult to shop for my body; I think being able to dress comfortably and fashionably is very important and not against the will of God, and I desperately want to feel sexy under my clothes and for my husband. I wore garments faithfully for over ten years and used to judge those I might notice not wearing theirs. How I have changed. I no longer believe that God intends me to suffer in such a very tangible way on a daily basis. I weargarments to church and the temple, and when I feel inclined to do so on other occasions. I cannot express the relief I feel from what was truly a heavy burden for me, and I don’t believe my parents in heaven are nearly as concerned about my underwear as they are about my heart.
I also love What Not To Wear. 🙂 Thanks for the post.
You make some good points, and I’ve written in suggestions about silkscreening marks (and tags! don’t forget those itchy tags!!) for years. One quibble, however, is that for the past year or so the women’s bottoms now come with a wonderfully wide elastic waistband, such an improvement. So that particular complaint has been somewhat resolved.
All the women’s bottoms? Or just the Carinessa II?
carinessa and drisilque are the only ones i’ve tried, but for sure on both of those
Heidi, I have Carinessa II, DriSilque II, and Drilux, all with wide waistebands.
Also on What Not To Wear, a lot of times the women aren’t wearing their correct bra size, which is also so important for comfort. With garments, you have to make sure you have the correct size. And unfortunately, when you shop, you can’t really try them on, so when I went the first time, I ended up wasting money on garment pairs that I never use cause they’re not the correct fit.
And I just have a hard time believing that the Church with all its wealth, can’t find the money in its budget to create better fitting garments, especially for expecting and nursing mothers. That’s hogwash.
I haven’t seen this come up in this article or conversation, but frequently members seem to infer or believe that one of the purposes of garments is to assist members in remaining modest. I could not disagree more in that being the purpose of the garment. If we listen to what it says in the temple, and if we study the history of the garment, at no point is it clear or obvious that the point of the garment is to enforce modesty. That is all cultural. I love the idea of all of us being able to buy the underwear that is appropriate for us, put the marks in, and live our lives. I have had different feelings about the garment at different points in my life, but at no point ever have I felt that they were attractive or that I was attractive when I wore them. I think it’s an unfortunate part of our religious culture that there is so much underwear policing. Makes it hard to be of one heart and one mind.
I have done a good deal of research on this subject, and I’m certain that they were never intended to help members be “modest.” The definition of modesty in dress has changed in such extreme ways since the garment was first made, and the garment has changed in extreme ways as well; sometimes specifically to allow the women to wear modern clothing, as when the sleeves and legs were first shortened. Heber J. Grant concluded after extensive research that as long as the markings were held in place, the garment was not mutilated, and that it was kept covered, that it was fulfilling its intended purpose. I think that should carry some weight in the discussion, and that people should learn and consider the words of previous prophets who have done a lot of looking into this.
As a petite sister I couldn’t agree with this post, or the many posts on garments, any more whole heartedly! Many pairs of my garments literally hang below my knee because Carinessa II isn’t offered in petite, even though I am 5’2 3/4 (those 3/4 matter)!
I have decided that because of how I feel about the garment to start a letter writing campaign similar to Let Women Pray that will be sent to the Bretheren, R.S General Presidency and Beehive clothing!
I would love to have you all participate.
I am inviting you to join in me writing letters to beehive clothing (the people who produce garments), the Bretheren, and the General Relief Society Presidency. I am hoping by gathering a large number of letters about the garment that they might realize how many faithful members are being effected by the poor construction of the garments and we might see some changes.
So what am I asking of you? I am asking for you to write a letter be honest about the things you love about the garment as well as the things you wish could be changed.
Please be respectful of the people whom you will be addressing as well as the issue at hand.
Come May 15, 2014 we will print off each email to send to the above mentioned parties.
please address the email to LDSGarments@gmail.com
Personal Style Statement from Stacy London herself –
“Now it’s been 10 years. I’m not going back to styling, but that is why I founded Style for Hire [which hires out stylists to people around the country], because I believe so strongly in the power of personal styling. I believe that in the same way we invest in financial advisors, we should invest in our personal style. Finding the right clothes is hard. Whoever is able to help you achieve the look that you’re after, that is something worth investing in, and it shouldn’t break the bank. Fashion is about the industry, but style is about the individual. It’s the blend of fashion and self-esteem.”
My wife, very hard to fit, orders custom sized garments through the distribution center. She dislikes doing it because it always seems to be a major hassle but it is the only way she can get a reasonable fit.
Sadly, quality control isn’t what it should be since competition and profit offers no correcting force so occasionally she’ll have to return an entire order. Just a bit more hassle.
I have always been small breasted but tall. throughout the years I would have to stuff the excess cup of the garment into my bra, talk about feeling unsexy! recently I have left the church and the greatest freedom of all, for me, has come from taking off those garments.
I remember hearing that in the 1950s Rose Marie Reid (a designer of swimsuits) was commissioned by Pres. McKay to redesign garments. Maybe that’s when the sleeves changed dramatically.
I like my garments, like wearing them, like how I feel with them on, but it might be interesting to take another look at restyling. It seems that many women have angry feelings about small things.
Did you get the last few sentences of the article, where the author said that just because something is small to you, or just because it doesn’t bother you, does not mean that everyone is the same? Please consider this before judging that “many women have angry feelings over small things.” I had a chronic yeast infection for years. It was incredibly uncomfortable and interrupted my life in ways I don’t care to discus publicly. I know *many* other women who have experienced the same thing. My clothes never fit once I started wearing them and it interfered with my self esteem. And I also have health problems that make me very temperature sensitive, and the extra layer made summers unbearable. You said yourself that garments work just fine for you. Therefore, I do not think it right that you say other women are angry over “small things,” when you have not experienced just how big they can be. Please consider this.
Could you please link to a source for the Melvin J. Ballard story? I can’t find any reference to it and I don’t have a copy of the Buerger papers. It’s a very interesting thought.
It is in the book – development of lds temple worship
My solution was to go to all-cotton garments, my body has thanked me ever since. The fashions of today show way too much form and this is not modest. If modest clothing is used, garments are a blessing not a curse
.
Modest clothing isn’t the issue here. I’m glad it worked out for you, but for many it doesn’t.
Here is my first article I wrote about the LDS Garment – It goes over how the changes were made over time. Let me know what you think. http://rationalfaiths.com/know-your-religion-dont-show-it/
The original garment design had sleeves to the wrist, legs to the ankles, and buttoned up to a collar around the throat. They were not designed with women in mind, as women could not even receive the endowment when they were first created. We have written record of women asking for their own pattern as early as 1890, and many records of complaints of the garments being uncomfortable, non-functional, and difficult if not impossible to wear with modern fashion–dating as far back as before the turn of the 20th century, consistently up through now. When Heber J. Grant made the first changes to the pattern, shortening the sleeves to the elbow and the legs to just below the knee, he cited the women’s needs to be able to adapt to modern fashion. He made a very thorough inquiry and discovered that the pattern itself was never revealed directly from God, and concluded that as long as the marks were in their proper places, the garment’s function would continue to be fulfilled. In short, the purpose of the garment has nothing to do with modesty. Modern day ideas on that subject are cultural. They have developed on their own in the last few decades as a way to explain the cut of the garment, and have no doctrinal grounding. If people in Joseph’s day would have seen LDS women today running around showing their calves and wearing tight pants, they would have been scandalized. Some cultures are scandalized that the women here show so much hair. Some have women walking around topless and the men don’t react to it sexually because they grew up in a culture where that’s not seen as a sexual thing. “Modesty” is highly variable across time and place, and we need to give weight to previous prophets who studied this out and came to the conclusion that the cut didn’t matter.
Modesty is part of what we are asked to live by no matter the time or fashion or length of garment sleeves/legs. Most clothing now, is tight and form fitting, very immodest, not becoming dignity of body and soul.
This is not about modesty at all. This is about the LDS Garment and how ill fitting they are.
I respect whatever you have decided, between you and God, is right for you. However, people used to say exactly the same thing about women wearing denim pants, and about women with short hair, and about women showing their calves, so I think it’s best to make modesty judgments an individual thing, rather than trying to enforce personal standards on other people.
This was not a personal judgement. The church says:
“Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner”.
This post is not about modesty.
My issue is also the elastic on the bottom hem. There is some product in the elastic that gives me a contact rash. Whenever I show the rash to my husband he suggests I order the men’s bottoms since they don’t have any elastic in the hems. I didn’t know that there was an option to get a custom set made. I wonder if they’d make me bottoms with a regular hem like the men’s bottoms have.
I’m also quite short and haven’t been able to find any shorts that don’t show the garments, so I haven’t worn shorts outside of my home in over 5 years. Yes, summers are my least favorite season now.
I already buy the 100% cotton sets since my skin is hyper-sensitive to synthetic fibers and would really love it if silk were an option.
I heard from some older members that members used to be able to buy patterns from the church and sew their own garments. Urban legend or is this true? If it is, I’d love to see that option return. I’m far more skilled at fitting clothing to my body than a random employee in a factory.
It’s true. People used to make their own garments and their own temple clothing.
In the manual “Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple,” it says:
“The garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer.
The wearing of such a garment does not prevent members from dressing in the fashionable clothing generally worn in the nations of the world. Only clothing that is immodest or extreme in style would be incompatible with wearing the garment. Any member of the Church, whether he or she has been to the temple or not, would in proper spirit want to avoid extreme or revealing fashions.”
This may be one source of the modesty-garment rhetoric/culture. However, I agree with others that have said that according to temple instruction, the purpose of the garment is not to enforce modesty. Modesty is a byproduct due to the need to cover the garment up, but it is not the reason for them. I hate that garments=modesty has become another standard for us to judge each other by. I find myself occasionally doing that, and I hate that I do it.
Also, I was just reading in Handbook 2 on garments and I must have completely dismissed the following particular instruction before because I don’t remember ever hearing it:
“The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect at all times. Garments should be kept off the floor.”
Where else are you supposed to put your garments when you take them off to have sex or before you have time to fold them after washing?!
The church has not always been the one to make the garment. I have scanned images of ads placed in Church owned newspapers from the early days where various businesses were selling garments that they made.
Things have gotten so bad in the church I’m not even sure it matters at this point though. They have mutilated the original garment and this to accommodate the fashionable clothing of the day. The setting in order of the church will include the restored full length garment, which must be worn by those who accept the changes.
Bob, before the first changes were instituted, Heber J. Grant made thorough inquiry into the matter and found that the exact pattern was never revealed to Joseph from God. The conclusion of the study was that the marks, not the design of the clothing, were what was important. He made this inquiry not because of a whim of fashion, but because the women were having consistent trouble, not only wearing modern clothing, but doing everyday things like household chores, because the garment didn’t let them do basic things like roll up their sleeves to do dishes. The earliest record we have of the women asking for their own pattern is 1890. Many women now suffer chronic yeast infections or other health problems from the garment. I do not believe God requires women to suffer in order to be faithful. For a good answer to this problem, you can look to the historical record: Joseph, Hyrum, and others were not wearing their garments the day they died. It is clearly written that they “had laid them aside because of the heat of the day.” The strict (and personally invasive) rules that have grown up around when and where the garments needs to be worn are far more than was originally intended. The first prophet himself sensibly took them off when they got too hot. Before insisting that things must return to exactly as they were in order for everything to be right, let’s take an open and thorough inquiry into how things actually were.
j. m. h.,
I guess you’ve never used a douche. Most women today don’t. Rancid!
This is so true…..just last night at R.S. birthday dinner, we had 2 young married women in the tight spandex leggings with just a blouse added…….showed every curve, etc……my how difficult that makes it for the men, who are very visual.
Fashion of world is mostly accepted by mormon women if they put a sleeve on it and/or it covers…….but it is TIGHT and shows everything anyway. NOT modest at all
Michael,
Paul Barker,
I challenge you to do some research on the history of women’s fashion. I have done so. Women in the U.S. didn’t wear ¨trousers¨ until WWII when they wore their husbands pants to work while their husbands were at war. It wasn’t until feminism that pants became popular. Before that women wore dresses/skirts. Are you suggesting that what women wear today (spandex, daisy dukes, etc.) is more modest than dresses/skirts?
For the record I am in no way, shape, or form a chauvinist or misogynist. However, I am very disappointed and disgusted in women’s lack of fashion, modesty, and dignity.
No matter what a women claims, provocative attire is most definitely an influence on sexual assault. Face reality, provocation is an element to every crime (esp. rape.)
Paul Barker,
I challenge you to do some research on the history of women’s fashion. I have done so. Women in the U.S. didn’t wear ¨trousers¨ until WWII when they wore their husbands pants to work while their husbands were at war. It wasn’t until feminism that pants became popular. Before that women wore dresses/skirts. Are you suggesting that what women wear today (spandex, daisy dukes, etc.) is more modest than dresses/skirts?
For the record I am in no way, shape, or form a chauvinist or misogynist. However, I am very disappointed and disgusted in women’s lack of fashion, modesty, and dignity.
No matter what a women claims, provocative attire is most definitely an influence on sexual assault. Face reality, provocation is an element to every crime (esp. rape.)
J.M.H.,
J.M.H.,
J.M.H.,
J.M.H.,
J.M.H.,
J.M.H.,
If women can’t dress appropriate to formal occasions like children’s B-Day party’s, when will they?
I mean I’ve seen spandex worn at weddings and funerals. I mean ¨come on!¨
I know women prefer to use yoga pants or leggings, but they’re spandex. Women have a way of sugar coating terms. For instance: strippers are ¨dancers¨ and prostitutes are ¨escorts.¨
I’m sure almost all women who wear ¨yoga pants¨ have never tried yoga and have no idea what yoga is. I mean, do you see the size of some of these women? Some say ¨there ought to be a law.¨ There is, it’s called indecent exposure!
I work in law enforcement and sent off some black Hanes t-shirts to get the markings put in them for when I wear my uniform. I assumed that they would silk screen the markings in the garment, but they came back stitched in! I sometimes wear a polo uniform shirt and the markings show through the freakin’ uniform shirt and it’s quite obvious.
Another issue I have is that I’m an amateur bodybuilder and have big legs with a small waist. I have to buy the smaller garment bottoms for the waist to fit properly and my big legs stretch out the legs of the garments. When they are stretched out they then lose their elasticity and bunch all the way up my thighs. I’m constantly having to pull them down or reach up the bottom of my shorts to pull them back down. I hate it!!! Why do they have to be so long? Why can’t we wear shorter garment bottoms that fit more like athletic underwear made by Reebok, Under Armor, Calvin Klein or any other reputable manufacturer? I’m on the verge of taking them off except for church or the temple. Also, the comfortable, athletic-cut and form-fitting shirts I wear don’t go well with the garment top unless I buy them in a smaller size so the sleeves don’t poke out the shirt sleeve.
Lots of opinions from women on here or men talking about womens styles. As a man i have so thoroughly had enough of sleeves hanging out of my tshirts and garment collars hanging out of tshirt collars. In 12 years of endowment ive never worn clothes i havent had to retuck during the day, shuffle etc.
i deliberately buy longer shorts and sleeves and smaller collars. Ive tried all the different garments and sizings. My last order was $150 to australia. So yeah. Over it.
Also my mum wears g’s on the skin but my sisters and wife all wear them over underwear (info sourced from frank conversations about mutual discomfort)
On top of that i only ever wore undies and shorts with a t as any more layers would cause me to overheat so endowments have given me years of discomfit. Add a mission to that which enforced a suit jacket at all times inc on the 35 celcius made a lot of frustration for a young man trying to be more faithful. It has never affected my faith. Only my sweat, discomfort, frustration and air conditioning costs as my ac is on max almost constantly.
Finally im a little overweight now but only the last 5 years. Poor fitting has literally nothing to do with weight.