perfsfam Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Ourselves and another member of the church got into a discussion the other night about the temple garment. After doing some research we have not been able to find an answer. Looking for some insight. Back before 1973??? could be wrong on the date, there was only 1 style of garment. It was the men's. Is it permitted to have a female wear the male garment? I spoke with a temple president and he said it is up to the priesthood leader. On the package it states "mens authorized pattern". This item is for use only by endowed members of the...and is not for resale. Curious as to others thoughts and feelings. Have had others say, the garment is an outward expression of an inner commitment, but no real concrete answers. Anyone want to take a stab at this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O2BNSD Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Is it permitted to have a female wear the male garment? I spoke with a temple president and he said it is up to the priesthood leader. On the package it states "mens authorized pattern". This item is for use only by endowed members of the...and is not for resale. Curious as to others thoughts and feelings. Have had others say, the garment is an outward expression of an inner commitment, but no real concrete answers. Anyone want to take a stab at this one?The first question that I have is....why would a woman want to wear a men's garment? They're not even made for a woman's body, so they would be very uncomfortable, not to mention not fit properly under women's clothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sensibility Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Yes, it is. In fact, they don't make military garments for women unless the woman bothers to put in a special order; they just tell women to wear the men's military garments. I've worn my husband's tops before, but I can't imagine wearing men's bottoms. But I've heard of women who did, mostly because they prefer the thicker elastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 The garments are made different for men and women, not as a mandate, but as a consideration for different body shapes. As noted above, military garments are primarily made in one style: mens. That is because the vast majority of those wearing them are men. But the Church does provide a women's version on request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwen Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 I've worn my husband's before. I don't see an issue with it. My first winter after getting married I thought things were to cold and I wore his thermal ones cause I didn't own any. Sometimes I like to wear his shirts to sleep in. Though I have to say I don't think he's ever considered wearing mine. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizzy16 Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 my mum wears my dads sometimes. It's not a big deal, lots of members do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Sometimes I wear my wife's. It's no big deal. Plus, they're frilly and very pretty. PS Not really. PPS Not sure what the question was, but it sounds like you are thinking women didn't have a separate pattern for the garment before the 1970s. This is incorrect; even in the one-piece days, women had their own patterns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 PPS Not sure what the question was, but it sounds like you are thinking women didn't have a separate pattern for the garment before the 1970s. This is incorrect; even in the one-piece days, women had their own patterns.Hmmmm actually that's incorrect. 19th century garments were the same for both men and women, it was a men-only design. Zina Young requested to have her own garment pattern made but her request was refused in the early days. It was around the 1920's when the Church started changing the pattern of garments (along with a few sisters kindly requesting a change) and only back in the 1970's the first two pieces appeared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 I don't see what the problem would be. The markings and locations are the same, right? I guess the question is why you are wearing them. If the reason is comfort and better fit, I don't know why it would be an issue. If it gives you some sort of sexual excitement by wearing garments meant for the opposite sex(I'm not a shrink, I just play one on the internet), then it might be something to ask your church leaders about as far as its appropriateness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Hmmmm actually that's incorrect. 19th century garments were the same for both men and women, it was a men-only design. Zina Young requested to have her own garment pattern made but her request was refused in the early days. It was around the 1920's when the Church started changing the pattern of garments (along with a few sisters kindly requesting a change) and only back in the 1970's the first two pieces appeared.If I'm understanding you correctly we have:Pre-1920s: Single piece men's garments.1920s to 1970s (or starting at some time before the 1970s): Single piece men's and woman's garments.1970s to Present: Two piece men's and woman's garments.If I'm reading you right Vort is correct. He didn't claim there was always women's garments just that even in the one piece days before the 1970s there were women's garments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 If I'm understanding you correctly we have:Pre-1920s: Single piece men's garments.1920s to 1970s (or starting at some time before the 1970s): Single piece men's and woman's garments.1970s to Present: Two piece men's and woman's garments.If I'm reading you right Vort is correct. He didn't claim there was always women's garments just that even in the one piece days before the 1970s there were women's garments.Sorry, I am usually rushing during the day to post. In 1965, sisters got their own pattern. Before that, there were some modifications but both of them (men and women) wore the same garment however, the older garment was required for temple attendance.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Sorry, I am usually rushing during the day to post. In 1965, sisters got their own pattern. Before that, there were some modifications but both of them (men and women) wore the same garment.Okay, so Vort is technically correct* by 5 years.*The best kind of correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 I would so drown in my husband's garments... I remember one time he thought I had taken them. He had forgotten I had purchased a new material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Dravin, you're right. He is right by 5 years. I stand corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Dravin, you're right. He is right by 5 years. I stand corrected.I didn't know all the information you provided, Suzie. Thank you. But I knew I was right, because I grew up in an LDS household where my mother wore a very different garment from my father. Guess I grew up in that period following the unisex garment and preceding the two-piece, which were introduced a few years before I served a mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perfsfam Posted August 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 so apparently the consensus is that if it is about comfort and nothing sexual-comfort only church authority is okay with the wearing of the garment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 so apparently the consensus is that if it is about comfort and nothing sexual-comfort only church authority is okay with the wearing of the garment.Uh, this site is not nor does it pretend to be official LDS Church authority. We also have many people on this site who are not even LDS. All opinions given here are the opinions of the individuals who gave them. While many or even most of the answers given here may be accurate, they should not be taken or construed as official. If you want official answers, you should search lds.org or or one of the other official LDS Church websites, or ask your church leaders who have stewardship over you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwen Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 I would argue the idea that it can't be sexual. Why can't it be sexual? I would find it awkward if someone was just getting off on the idea of wearing the opposite gender clothes but that one sexaul factor does not generalize to all others. If I sleep in my husband's shirt when he's away it may not be an instant turn on kind of thing but it is intimate and/or sexual in nature. If I pull on his shirt after some couple time that is sexual in nature (it's pretty accepted that some ppl really like that). It's not lingerie, but that isn't the only kind of clothes you can wear and it be sexaul. I don't see anything wrong with that type of sexual expression in the marriage relationship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mysticmorini Posted August 24, 2011 Report Share Posted August 24, 2011 so apparently the consensus is that if it is about comfort and nothing sexual-comfort only church authority is okay with the wearing of the garment.With John Doe's caveat in mind, Yes I believe the CHI states this and it may be on the garment sizing website (not sure about that one) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momuv7 Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 This feed is old but if someone finds it I wanted to clarify the men's and women's garments question. The garment is not specifically male or female and can be worn by either sex. I wear men's bottoms because they are vastly more comfortable than women's bottoms. My male friend went to the garment store and requested spandex bottoms, at the time they were only available in women's and that is what they offered him and told him he could buy one pair and see if they worked for him. The women's have a seam straight up the butt crack and all the extra fabric climbs up and digs in. It causes chaffing and irritates any hemorrhoid and I suspect causes them. There were some changes made around 2015/16 that didn't actually make garments fit the human body any better but did give more options. The new DryLux men's bottoms have a weird butt seams three inches apart that go up either side of the crack, the extra fabric gives the men an opportunity to enjoy the same wedgie all the women endure but with two seams. Fun times! I seriously wonder if the people who design garments have ever seen the human anatomy. dahlia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.