LDS Church: Sexist?

[_Mister Scratch]

Okay, I've told this story before but I think this is as good a time as any to tell it again:

Does anyone remember the poster "Onandagus" from our former board and from ZLMB? Well, one day he told me about a certain Elder's Quorum meeting he was sitting in. The speaker talked about how some Mormon was mauled by a shark, but the only parts of the guy's body the shark didn't eat were the parts covered by the garments.

I couldn't stop laughing. What good are the protective powers of garments if you lose both legs, both arms, and your head?

Yes, the annals of faith-promoting lore are rife with such tales. There was one, too, about a guy whose arm was caught in a thresher and essentially chewed off. Miraculously, the machine stopped right where the sleeve of his garment began. Unfortunately, the poor fellow bled to death. I makes one wonder if the Church would perhaps be better off re-instituting the full-length, longjohn-style garments.

Speaking of "Onandagus", there are other posters who never seem to have re-appeared, namely: Road to Hana. What happened to that guy?

[_Dr. Shades]

Speaking of "Onandagus", there are other posters who never seem to have re-appeared, namely: Road to Hana. What happened to that guy?

He (she?) re-registered here a few days ago, but hasn't posted yet to my knowledge.

[_MormonMendacity]

Okay...get ready for a cheap shot...

I couldn't stop laughing. What good are the protective powers of garments if you lose both legs, both arms, and your head?

What do you need your head for when you've got garments?

[_truth dancer]

Ok, so I wil ask you, how many men other then your one have you discussed this with. How many women?

I've had several men struggling with their intimate relationships discuss this issue in a therapeutic sort of way. Many men have mentioned it on boards as well. I have had dozens and dozens of women (TBMs) mention this to me, in private and in gatherings. It is not a secret Jason.

Lets be real... how many men do you think really find garments attractive on their spouse? How many women do you think feel attractive wearing such a thing? (Personally I do not think it is even possible. LOL!)

~dancer~

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Okay...get ready for a cheap shot...

I couldn't stop laughing. What good are the protective powers of garments if you lose both legs, both arms, and your head?

What do you need your head for when you've got garments?

I can just picture someone saying ......he will be fine no head but his garmies will live on in history...forever and ever..and they will put him in museum....of garmies....sorry I have been drinking..

Celebrated my 28th wedding anniversary today and had my yearly mammogram..what a fun day I have had...

[_Gazelam]

I think its funny that women who complain that they don't have the priesthood are the ones willing to shed the emblems of the priesthood because they don't find them fashionable. Maybe once you honor the priesthood you have received in the temple you'll be entrusted with more?

Gaz

[_MormonMendacity]

I think its funny that women who complain that they don't have the priesthood are the ones willing to shed the emblems of the priesthood because they don't find them fashionable. Maybe once you honor the priesthood you have received in the temple you'll be entrusted with more?

Gaz

Yeah, you unworthy women! You suck because you don't want to wear the stylish garmetns and complain about not having the priesthood, so you can't be "entrusted"!

by the way, Gaz, the women have exactly the same priesthood as the men: none.

[_Polygamy Porter]

I think its funny that women who complain that they don't have the priesthood are the ones willing to shed the emblems of the priesthood because they don't find them fashionable. Maybe once you honor the priesthood you have received in the temple you'll be entrusted with more?

Gaz

Goddamn gaz.

Its a good thing you s*** on a regular basis. Otherwise the garments that are shoved up your ass every time you post would become part of your anus.

Women don't need the pretend superpowers that you have been told is called the priesthood. And they don't need mindless sheep like you for a husband who is too chickens*** to be himself.

[_harmony]

Okay, I've read this whole thing, nauseated though it makes me (no breakfast yet, so it's not really fair of me to blame my nausea on the thread).

Short answer for the direct question of the thread: yes, the church is sexist. So is most of the rest of the world, so it's not like they're alone. The church is very traditional, because it's run by very traditional men who are stuck in the 50's. Once the present generation of leaders die, we'll see changes in the church around several issues, including women's issues. Those who are traditionalists are praying mightily for the leaders to stay alive; those who are progressive can't wait until they all die.

Answer for the garment question: yes, I wear garments. I am so used to them by now, it's like they're a second skin. Without them, I'm cold. If I ever took them off permanently, I'd have to transition I think... wear something like a camisole and long-legged panties. Personally, I hate panties and bras. I have a pathelogical hatred for bras in particular. With the g's, I can get away with never wearing one, as they form a layer in between my skin, which is hyper sensitive due to my diabetes, and the fabric of my clothing, which tends to scratch and irritate if I don't have something on in between.

We've never worried overmuch about garments interfering with our sex life, since DH has always been one of those 'every night and twice on Sunday' type of guys. We shed them as needed and keep them off as long as desired. I don't find them necessarily sexy, but I'm not exactly shaped like a supermodel anyway. I know some men find them inherently a turn on, under certain circumstances (naughty boys doing what they do best, usually with someone else's wife).

As for women and the priesthood, you all know how I feel about that.

[_Jason Bourne]

Thank you Scratch. That was my point.

Having children does not mean one has a healthy, romantic, intimate relationship.

My observation is that garments harm intimate relationships because many women feel asexual, unattractive, ugly, which inhibits and thwarts a sexual desire. In addition few men I know, (like no one) finds their wife attractive while wearing garments. Garments on women (in my opinion purposely) thwart the sexual desire in men. I'm not saying men become asexual, I'm suggesting seeing one's wife in something so ugly and odd does not lend itself to being sexually attracted to her.

~dancer~

Ok, so I wil ask you, how many men other then your one have you discussed this with. How many women?

Jason---

Are you kidding? You've already had a few males on this thread tell you that garments are sexually unappealing. Just what is it you're trying to argue, exactly? That the garments are hot? That they don't interfere at all with sexual attraction, what?

Maybe you need to go back and re-read. TD claims that woman and men have major issues with garments, that they stifle sexuality, make women feel totally unappealing, etc. etc. I proposed that she is projecting her own negativety on other and that I do not believe it is as extensive as she thinks. She asked me how many women I have discussed this with. I said not many. She continues to claim that this is a big issue. So I asked howm many men she had discussed this with.

No I am not arguing the garments are hot. Where did you get that idea? Yes I do not believe that for most the interfere with sexual attraction. My personal experienve is that they do not. We just take them off, or replace them with something more sexy or whatever. I certainly could be wrong about all this but I think a few commens from dissaffected members like yourself needs o be taken with a lot of salt and really think that extrapolating the negative emotions about garments and sexuality on the minds of most active TBMs is a mistake.