DiscussMormonism.com

This thread is a dedicated thread to display your creative side. Those of you who feel Mormon marriages and/or self image might benefit (even slightly) from a new and improved temple garment design, please consider contributing. Please draw your version of the new and improved design and post it. Here are the rules:

1. No photos or editing of existing photos
2. Artwork must be your own, using your own hand just as Abraham used his to write the Book of Abraham
3. Keep things respectful. Draw your designs as if you really were going to submit it to COB for consideration
4. No mocking of fellow MDB'ers designs
5. Refrain from showing temple markings so that this thread stays in the Terrestrial

Thank you!

Zee.

OK, this is really hard. I followed some tutorials on drawing torsos and legs and found I have some homework to do! Have you ever followed drawing tutorials? They actually work! I started sketching my ideas using pencil and paper and think I like the results but I'm not ready to post the image here yet. We should start with the basic concepts before detailing anyway.

First on the agenda: bottoms. Bottoms really need to be shorter. It's hard to work with an undergarment that is long these days! The women should be given 3 additional options, and the men should be given 1 or maybe two additional options. The image (drawn by yours truly) shows 4 additions. These additons give us a lot more to work with.



Now you might be wondering, what about symbology? Well, we can use a garter. Wait, a man with a garter? yep, that is the price you must pay for shorter undergarments. The men could wear very thin garters that are only noticed if you rub your hand along the leg. Women with garters? Well, yeah.

I think to improve the garment the production and design franchise should be sold to Calvin Klein...

OK, please don't laugh at this. I found it very difficult to draw bodies! Here is my design idea:



I know, I know. It's not amazingly unique in any way. But it covers all the bases:

1. requires you where shorts down to the knee
2. allows the appropriate symbols to be placed on the right knee
3. is still nice for married couples who like to see each other
4. works for both males and females

What do you think?

4. works for both males and females

Yes, they definitely need to get rid of the cod-piece!!! LOL.

Zeezrom,

Take it all the way--all the way to a thong.

by the way, I really like your knee-band innovation.

You make your new design too sexy and we'll know that every knee will be bowing, but it will be for the purpose of orally pleasuring one's partner. Not confessing anything else.

MCB wrote:4. works for both males and females

Yes, they definitely need to get rid of the cod-piece!!! LOL.

haha ok some modifications (and better drawing skills) are needed to remove any codpieces. My point is, however, that men can wear awesome Hanes like briefs and women can too. Just pretend that the women would wear women's style and men would wear men's style, with very rare exceptions :) .

by the way - my drawing is supposed to be for the female in case anybody is wondering...

sock puppet wrote:Zeezrom,

Take it all the way--all the way to a thong.

by the way, I really like your knee-band innovation.

Sock,

I will need to practice more before I can get all that anatomy onto the paper. Now I understand why artists practice drawing nudes! It is easier to cheat and draw clothes. Drawing the anatomy is really hard (for me).

What do you think about the Masonic symbol? Personally, I think it is kind of alluring.

1. requires you where shorts down to the knee
2. allows the appropriate symbols to be placed on the right knee
3. is still nice for married couples who like to see each other
4. works for both males and females

What do you think?

What commandment(s) prevents my wife from wearing lingerie without garments or nothing at all from time to time? Besides ourselves, we've been through the temple for the first time with two of our children now (5 more to go) and have heard nothing that prevents us from doing what we want in this regard and coming in to conflict with the Church. Obviously you're attacking a Church that doesn't exist (perhaps FLDS?).

SP,

How about this?