Garments and "well endowed"

[Gwen]

Another question is which top is best for breastfeeding? I am at a loss of what to do. Its already totally frustrating to nurse but then have to deal with the whole garment issue on top of nursing bras!!!!!!!!!!!!

I really hope someone will chime in.

check out what was said here and then ask away with further questions. http://www.lds.net/forums/relief-society-womens-issues/14065-maternity-garments.html

[dash77]

Gwen:

I found that your last post has some mixed messages (unless I am missing it). On the one hand you are stating that the natural man is behind the focus on the bigger is better myth. I agree completely and 1 Samuel 16:7 makes it very clear that men and women need to seeth not as the natural man seeth.

However, at the end of your post you seem to suggest that using the term “well endowed” is appropriate when speaking about larger breasts or penises. I disagree. I think that if a conversation needs to outline that a women has larger breasts or a man a larger penis it is best to simply say it is larger with saying “well-endowed”. And there are times – not many – but times that outlining largeness in these areas is appropriate, such as the OP with purchasing garments and the same with men related to type of bottom garments (there is a difference in support regarding boxer type garments and the new spandex bottoms).

The term well-endowed is appropriate for material possessions (as you outline) and the endowment in the Temple is a special blessing. However, because the bigger is better myth is so pervasive in everyday life, I think as Christians and Latter Day Saints we should be more wise about the actual terms we use. When others say “he is well-endowed” or she is “well-endowed” in essence, we are saying that the man with a larger penis or the woman with larger breasts do indeed have a gift. The gift is related to pride, they are better than others or the gift helps their spouse. We should be more clever than to simply follow the language of the everyday world. I would challenge you not to use such words. Why not simply say something like “I am larger up top” or “I have larger breasts” (and the same with men) rather than I am well-endowed?

Wingnut:

A “I don't care enough to think about it” only contributes to the issue at hand. Latter-Day Saints should care more about not being part of the worldly discourse. If I understand the GA, we really should stay away from worldly ways and language.

[Wingnut]

Why not simply say something like “I am larger up top” or “I have larger breasts” (and the same with men) rather than I am well-endowed?

Because those phrases are more crass and less tactful.

Wingnut:

A “I don't care enough to think about it” only contributes to the issue at hand. Latter-Day Saints should care more about not being part of the worldly discourse. If I understand the GA, we really should stay away from worldly ways and language.

I choose to focus my mental efforts on more important things.

[john doe]

Dash, please read post #74.:deadhorse:

[dash77]

Wingnut:

I think we simply have a philosophical difference. When used approriately, those terms are not crassy and less tactful. They are the proper anatomy and biological names and are used in profession settings, such as when seeing a doctor. I think the "well-endowed" term is more crassy and clearly connects to a wordly discourse of the natural man.

[dash77]

I left another post last night -- one that I think is very important and brings clarity regarding how everyday ubiqitous human behavior is aligned to normative language and is against LDS standards -- and it seems to have been erased. Does anyone know if it has? I do not think I broke any codes or conducts. If I did break any codes on conduct, please communicate them to me. And I apologies if I did. Please keep in mind that I am new here.

Some person by the name of Dravic sent me a personal e-mail outlining that I needed to listen to John Doe. I just realized he is a head moderator because Dravis just communicated this to me.

John, I did not respond to your posts because I thought your comments were irrelvant and not aligned to the topic at hand. I did not think you were connecting the dots at a relevant and elevated cognitive level. So, I ignored them. I honestly did not realize you were the head moderator, or else I would have responded. May I ask, did you delete my last post?

I re-read post number 74. I believe my comments throughout, and the last one, were on topic and in good taste. What seems to be the problem? Please explain. In my mind, using the term "well-endowed" is not in good taste and does not aligned to LDS standards. If you will put back my last post, I explain it there (assuming you did remove it). Please keep in mind that as Latter-Day Saints, and in keeping with the words of prophets, we need to stand up for those things that are opposed to gospel standards. I do not think you realize that by deleting my last post (again, assuming it was you) -- you are thinking you are keeping LDS standards, but in fact your actions do the opposite, it keeps a crude phrase alive in society and right here on an LDS forum (the crude phrase is well-endowed). I would encourage you to listen more and take more time to frame the conversation in your mind. But to do this, you need to listen and reflect on what I am trying to communicate.

In now way am I saying I am right or better than you. But I honestly think you have jumped a hasty conclusion.

[Gwen]

the topic of this thread was not about the use of the term "well endowed" it was a woman with large breasts asking other women who have been to the temple what they do about that situation.

[eternalpromise516]

i still get this odd picture in my mind whenever i see someone on here mention maternity/nursing garments....it's rather hilarious, the way i see it in my head. they've got a weird flap contraption and everything.

but anyways, i'm finding these discussions to be very informative and helpful, and they have given me things to keep in mind since i will be looking at buying my first pairs of garments in the very near future and i'm a "well-endowed" female..

[JThimm88]

As I've been reading the thread, I saw someone (I think it might have been Gwen???) who mentioned something about a top that has a gathering in between the chest? I was wondering what style top that is? All of mine (aside from the 2 chemise tops I own) have the "boob pockets" and have a seam in the middle, but the seem doesn't necessarily gather. They're just the plain old round-neck and square-neck tops. Then again, maybe this is what you're referring to? Also, can someone please tell me what on earth is the difference between the full-cup tops versus just a regular top? I just kind of thought my tops were "full-cup" as my chest fits into them!

EDIT: I actually found the top Gwen was referring to -- the drisilque chemise has the gathering in the front. (Thanks for the maternity topic link, as that's where I found it while reading through!) Also, found out what a full-cup top is (they're equivalent to a DD top) on the sizing chart when ordering some new garments just now. Sheesh. Too bad I didn't do my research BEFORE posting!

I have to order mine online (because, even in Rexburg where many of us have gone through the temple, they still don't carry many petite sized bottoms, which I need, I'm only 5'2" and wear an 18P or 20P depending on the material) so I can't see exactly what the tops/bottoms will look like. At least in the distribution center I can kind of get an idea of what the fabric even looks like. :)

I've never asked the distribution worker, but does anyone know if they actually have tops out that they can show you, ones out of the packaging? Not just a sample of the material? I was too nervous to ask when I went to pick mine out before my endowment last October and just let the worker tell me what she thought would be best for me. (Funny, she gave me a 22P bottom -- this was in Chicago at the time, so they didn't carry much smaller sizes -- which came literally right underneath my chest, which even with garments generally rising a little bit higher than "hipster underwear," it was a bit too much for me to handle. However, the worker got it perfect with the top size! Now I'm just wondering about the styles!).

Edited June 11, 2010 by JThimm88

[Gwen]

i'm glad you found what you were looking for (yes the drisilque chemise is it). unless they have something new to try next time i order that is the only top i will wear now.

i can't say much for buying in person i always have to order online. when i order i try to get mostly the items i have been wearing and if there is something i've not tried but have been thinking about i get 1 or 2 pair of that. i can always go back and order more if i like them. if i've not been happy with what i've been wearing or i'm not sure on the size i only open 1 pair at first. you can return anything that is unopened so i would still have that option till i've decided.

[Wingnut]

I didn't even know they had chemise style tops in DriSilque. Those must be only a couple of years old. I wear the DriLux chemise tops. They have plain front ones, but they also have rouched (gathered) ones that are slightly shaped, but not cupped.

JThimm, unfortunately you can't try on garments before buying. Years ago, the distribution centers used to have unmarked garments in stock for trying on, but that practice has been discontinued. If you're trying out new fabrics or sizes, I would recommend buying one of each of what you're trying, wash and wear them, and then decide what you want more of.

[JThimm88]

I didn't even know they had chemise style tops in DriSilque. Those must be only a couple of years old. I wear the DriLux chemise tops. They have plain front ones, but they also have rouched (gathered) ones that are slightly shaped, but not cupped.

JThimm, unfortunately you can't try on garments before buying. Years ago, the distribution centers used to have unmarked garments in stock for trying on, but that practice has been discontinued. If you're trying out new fabrics or sizes, I would recommend buying one of each of what you're trying, wash and wear them, and then decide what you want more of.

Darn. I have had to buy them them, try them on, and then decide. But of course, the problem with this is, if they don't work out, I'm still stuck with them as I can't return them once they're opened. Thankfully it's not too much of a problem at this point.

[not_ashamed]

Dash, please read post #74.:deadhorse:

lol I so didn't know we had a beating a dead horse emoticon

[jayanna]

I was instructed by the temple matron to wear mine specifically under the bra. Was no one else told this during endowment time? I'm so used to it now, I feel naked without it. I just assumed everyone else did the same.

Edited August 2, 2010 by jayanna
spelling

[Wingnut]

I was instructed by the temple matron to wear mine specifically under the bra. Was no one else told this during endowment time? I'm so used to it now, I feel naked without it. I just assumed everyone else did the same.

How long ago were you endowed?

[jayanna]

Let me think, it was about 5 years, ago...but I re-checked on this one at a different temple a few months ago, b/c another sister wanted to know, and I wanted to make sure I understood it right. I was told the same thing by the matron at that temple, too.

[Wingnut]

That's surprising. It may just be that these particular matrons are very steeped in tradition and are of a much older generation. As you can see from reading through this thread, many of us who have been endowed in the last 10-12 years or so (8 years ago for me) weren't told either way specifically, other than just what we've seen our mothers do.

[jayanna]

Welll, I don't have a mormon mom to ask...I ask a lot of questions at the temple. You know, my new temple matron is very young, as those things go, I'll ask her next time I go. I struggled for so long with it under that if I find out it was pointless I'll feel like a complete idiot. I just figured it was a standard instruction for endowments...odd that it isn't really.

I'm already odd in my ward bc a lot of the sisters rarely wear theirs...like only on Sun. or only to the temple. I think my ward is really abnormal though, so investigators, if you are reading, please do not think this is the norm. Sometimes I think it would be good to review those recommends questions a little more often, just for strictly educational reasons.

[Melissa569]

You know what I think would be cool, is if the church started manufacturing garments in pairs-- Like shirt AND bra combos. Or panty AND lower garment. As in the panties and bra belong in the set, they are just as sacred to be worn next to the skin, and are made of the same material as the regular garmies.

But they would be designed like traditional bras/panties, and could be worn under them for comfort and support (think breast support, or for security wearing dipsosable pads and such). But the regular garmies still come with the set for the "conforming to modesty" aspect. And of course you could choose bra and panty size, etc. Just like you normally do. It seems like a lot of people are wearing regular underwear under the garmies anyway, so this would just be a more legitimate way to do so.

Then of course, some women complain that its hard to feel "feminine" with the full garmies while laying next to their husband at night. So when its just you and your husband alone at night, baybe you could just wear the bra/panty combo. And during the day, wear the regular stuff.

I just think it might solve a lot of issues :)

Its also health issues. I've been told by doctors that its really not a good idea to wear pants and shorts without panties... Because (this is yucky I know) it can cause infections-- its from the bacteria from the "back area" sliding up by the front area in the loose fit. So-called "thong" undies are dangerous too, for similar reasons. Of course, you need air flow for health reasons too, so they also recomend not wearing spandex or leather pants. But they recomend a decent-fitting (not too tight, or too loose) pair of cotton panties, to reduce all the problems and risks. Also for sanitary pads, because if those slide around too much from front to back, you will have the same problem. Decent panties are just best all around.

So this might be something that church women need to push for health reasons as well as comfort.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Melissa569

[Wingnut]

Count me out. Especially if we have to start calling them 'garmies.'

[Melissa569]

Well, that's just an expression I once heard floating around this forum.

I still think its a good idea, though. I've never worn garments due to being inactive for a very long time. But from all the photos and videos I've seen, and everything I've read in this post, I know I deffinitely would NOT like not being able to legitimately wear regular underwear under them, especially for all the previously mentioned reasons, but also personal preference. :)

[Gwen]

i will say it ......... again...... for the sake of new ppl.

it used to be taught (when my mom went to the temple) to only wear the bra over the garment. next to the skin was the thinking. they learned that not only will pregnant/nursing mothers get mastitis that way (due to the wrinkles in the garment), some women can't get proper support out of their bras. it's usually said larger women have that problem but i used to have that issue and i wasn't large when i was first endowed.

when i was endowed (nearly 10 yrs ago) the temple pres wife was instructing me and she made it very clear (this has been backed up by other temple workers and stake presidents over the yrs) that no one is to tell you how to wear your garment, not even a spouse. the wearing of the garment is an individual covenant with the lord. how you wear them is up to you and if you feel you can stand before the lord in clear conscious that you are keeping your covenant. on that basis some women will wear their bra under the garment for support or health reasons. she did say that pregnant/nursing mothers should never wear the bra over the garment. she talked about normal panties for health and such during menstruation or recovering from yeast infection, or other reasons that may come up in an individuals life.

because every person is so different and having so many different personal issues all possible situations can not be addressed. i think the new instruction falls back on the teaching "we teach correct principles and let them govern themselves". because of the new instruction i don't see a need for sisters to organize a protest of sorts.... i do see a great need for better training of our temple workers.

[Melissa569]

Gwen-- very well said. I suppose in that light, additions to garments shoudln't be necessary then. It just seemed like a lot of people were struggling with how to wear them in relation to regular underwear, and possibly feeling like they weren't living up to what the temple workers had told them because of it.

But if it can be squared with god that you wore other underclothes for very personal reasons, and if that's ok with the church too, then that sounds pretty fair.

[krp5]

As a man I am much more comfortable wearing a supportive brief, etc. under my garment bottoms. Without supportive underwear under the garment bottom I want to or need to "adjust" frequently. The men's garment bottom does not keep things wear they should be.

I hope I have not shared too much information, but wonder if other men have experienced this same issue/problem.

What exactly is the instruction for wearing the garment -- is it next to the skin even for body parts needing more support?

[Wingnut]

What exactly is the instruction for wearing the garment -- is it next to the skin even for body parts needing more support?

I think "next to the skin" is up for a little personal interpretation. My own personal interpretation is that is means underneath your regular clothing.