Author’s note: this isn’t about the endowment or the sacred nature of garments or anything like that. Comments that I gauge as inappropriate will be deleted with glee.
It was with delight that I noticed Beehive Clothing now offers BOXERS in the Men’s Authorized Pattern. Anxious to return to a semblance of my undergarments of yesteryear, I ordered an evaluation pair of the Men’s Bottom Boxer DriLux Jersey (Short).
First of all, kudos to Distribution Services for free and fast shipping. Say what you will of centralized systems, but the Church’s Distribution Centers are efficient and courteous all the way. So what if the website is a pain in the butt to navigate? But I digress.
Skeptics among you will scoff at the mention of DriLux. True, it is a much-maligned fabric, sneered at almost as often as that evil DriSilque or Corban material which is the endowed member’s version of satin underpants. But alas! The “Boxers” only come in DriLux and mesh. And I don’t live in Guatemala or in Death Valley, so no mesh for me, thanks. DriLux it had to be, although I steeled myself for the inevitable discomfort of this odd cyberfabric.
At last the plain brown box from Salt Lake arrived, containing my tester garment bottom as well as a new cotton-poly crewneck. Gazing at the familiar little blue plastic packaging, I noted with dismay that in Spanish my “Men’s Bottom Boxer” translated as “Inferior Hombre Boxer.” Inferior hombre, indeed. At least my Men’s Top Crew-Neck was for Superior Hombres; I take comfort that on average, I’m a seemingly regular guy.
Now, Dear Reader, on to the main course. Those who don the Boxers will immediately note an item of relative importance: THESE ARE NOT BOXER SHORTS. In fact, I am hard-pressed to find any difference from the “Briefs,” which at least have the good sense to be offered in good old American Cotton-Poly. Some have argued with me on this privately, saying that the Boxers do indeed offer more room “in the pants” — if so, my butt has enlarged greatly since yesterday, because there is no more room there than at the waistband. The thigh and leg of the Boxers are as clingy as lycra biker shorts, folks. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe the folks at Beehive Clothing have ever seen a boxer, let alone a boxer’s shorts. I plan on sending them a copy of Million Dollar Baby for reference. Now arguably you can point to the bottom hem of the leg and see some looseness. A slight flapping in the breeze can be perceived. But this may be the result of my chicken-legs rather than any deliberate design element; testing is inconclusive on this point. Oh, and DriLux is creepy creepy stuff. It shimmies on the skin like a reptile on a rock. No thanks!
To add insult to injury, my “short” Boxers weren’t short at all. Apparently overnight my butt enlarged, my legs skinnified and I shrank about three inches. Alas, Beehive Clothing, you have inflicted TWO forms of false labeling in one product: Short Boxers are neither boxers nor short. I’m verklempt!
Finally, as a epilogue to this review, I would just like to note that one of the sleeves of my Men’s Top Crew-Neck was sewn directly to the neck, rendering the garment impossible to wear without surgery. Only following quick intervention by Sumer’s shears of fury was the Top able to be worn at all.
2/5 stars for the Boxers; 1/5 for the Top.
The message: give the Pattern back to the members, I say. Trust us to make our own garments by adding the Authorized Pattern to, say, Hanes T-Shirts, and they will be of higher quality for less expense.
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
This post is worth it for just this line:
“Inferior Hombre Boxer.”
That is classic.
When I was first endowed I bought one of evry thing they had in mens, they had poly-cotton boxers. They weren’t boxers either. The legs of them crept up and bunched and were thus very uncomfortable.
more importantly, I want to take this opportunity to tell Ronan that no, in fact, men’s garments do NOT come i drisilque. The Church Website is in error. I have the 2008 catalog and drilux, poly-cotton, cotton, and mesh are what’s available.
Mate,
You are the DB.
Give the Pattern back to the members.
Where do I sign the petition?
The last garments I bought were made in Paraguay. This raises all kinds of interesting questions…
Oh man, this is good stuff. Thanks for the laugh!
The Church Website is in error.
No way, man. Every word of the Church Website (TM) is true. How dare you suggest otherwise.
Melissa, laugh it up; everybody knows that women’s garments are both more comfortable and more fashionable than men’s. No need to rub it in.
Too excellent.
I would go with the “your butt grew three sizes in the past 24 hours” theory.
If it could happen to the Grinch’s heart, it could certainly happen to your hiney.
Interesting fact:
Steve’s butt grows at night. Much like a night flower.
ronito, I call it “the Season of the Blossom”
Great review, Steve. It is mystifying why Beehive Clothing can’t just make a plain white boxer. It’s not rocket science.
Last weekend when I bought new garments at the distribution center at the Boston Temple, there was a description posted of a new kind of garment bottom to be released in late 2007. The description claimed that it was made out of the same material as Under Armor athletic underwear, and that they had been made in cooperation with the US armed forces. The white ones will be available to all members. The Under Armer material is great, but I wonder if the design will be up to snuff.
I must disagree with you about DriLux. I wear DriLux crew neck tops, and I find them to be vastly superior to the cotton or cotton/poly blend.
DKL, if you feel that way about DriLux, it raises a host of suspicions in my mind about you.
I like Dri-Lux.
Ronan, then you and DKL can snuggle up together with your accursed DriLux! I will brook no support of the thing.
Well, now we know what Peggy Fletcher Stack’s next column will be about…
UnderArmour style bottoms would be really nice. Tops would be, too.
I’m with Steve on DriLux; it’s like fingernails on the chalkboard.
I was advised long ago that the best time to buy short garments was in winter. My experience has born this out. For some reason, garments sold in summer are typically longer.
Working at the Distribution Center we see a lot of these opinions. Here is the basic difference between the briefs and boxers… ready?
The leg diameter is smaller in the briefs.
That’s about it, apart from some difference in the waistbands. The legs are smaller so that they can more effectively grip the legs to… um, provide support.
Also, I have my personal problems with their approach, but the measuring system used by the Church allows for the garment to “drape over the body”, and it’s understood that nobody really understands what that means. They conduct countless surveys on the measuring, all of which result in the median of people have a loosely draping fit (for women who are used to tighter clothing this is why you probably find that you swim in garments of the recommended size). Give it another generation and we’ll hopefully see change in the sizing charts. Short simply means two inches shorter than regular; I suspect that you just went by the recommended sizing.
Finally, since somebody else said it, I can reiterate that the UnderArmor bottoms have already arrived for the military, and we hope sometime next year to get civilian style ones in (never trust a Distribution date, however, it could and probably will be longer).
I wish I knew the history of how the Authorized Pattern was taken away from general membership. I might actually try to ask this one up the chain of command to see if there’s an answer.
I had no idea there was such a thing as short garment bottoms. I thought the theory was that they were supposed to go to the knee, not be boxers.
Here are some details on the 1985 development of green garments for the army, courtesy of Wayne Kuehne:
I spent a lot of years dealing with many issues involving LDS military personnel. It was exciting, with a feeling of doing some good for the
Church. I was the fortunate chaplain in the Pentagon who received a call from Elder Haight one day telling me that too many of our folks were having trouble with their white garments (in basic training especially, but also in the field). During Vietnam many of us dyed our garments a brownish color with Ritt dye to not be visible in the field. But the rice soap turned them into an ugly purple and we would destroy each set one at a time as we came to the end of our tours. After discussion with Elder Haight on what I felt was the only viable alternative, to have them professionally dyed according to Army standards, looking more like a T-shirt with a round neck, Elder Haight spoke with two of the brethren and called back to give me the go-ahead. I gathered officers from various divisions in the Pentagon (legal, personnel, logistics, etc.) and within a short period we approved a new revision to the Army wear (approving “knee-length” shorts was the major key there, we couldn’t make an official LDS exception in that change). We got the brethren from our garment labs to meet with the folks at Natick Laboratory, obtain the dye formula used to evade infra-red scanning, and the Brethren put out the official garments for Army (and Army also at that time made the garments for the Marines). That resolved that issue very simply and the vast majority of the Army had no idea of the significance of that regulatory change.
NoCoolName_Tom- thanks for the insights.
I love this stuff.
By the way, boxers are way too breezy for me.
Kevin, the short garments are for short people, not giants such as yourself.
I kick it old school–one piece all the way baby! This practice earned me the derisive nickname “Brother Brigham” in the MTC, but I have endured.
I think this might be the first instance of a man complaining about the fit of the garments. I’ll repeat a suggestion I made at FMH awhile ago– why couldn’t the marks be printed on the same way that many tshirts have the label printed directly on the fabric now? Print them in white, and then they wouldn’t stand out in ridges. And for the women, lose the little cap sleeves that just bunch up under clothes.
When I was a freshman in DT at BYU, my good friend got his mission call to Toulouse, France. At some point he bought garments and had a lot of leftover tightie whities. He and his buddy put my name, address and phone number on them in magic marker, along with various funny lines, took them to the parking lot by Heritage Halls (where the girls lived), and put them all over the place: in trees, on antennas, and if the cars were unlocked, they would stretch them over the steering wheels of the cars. There must have been 20 pair of underwear strewn around the place like that. I had to admit it was very funny.
(Strangely, none of the girls ever called the number looking for a date…)
Kevin, that sounds like someone who would have been in the Toulouse mission…
I agree with Paula, for women the cap sleeves just bunch up and produce extra bulk. They are probably just there to keep people from wearing sleeveless shirts, which is disappointing.
I also think the bottoms need some design work. Most every woman I know gets frequent infections from the garment, especially during the summer. Sadly the best way to treat/ avoid these infections is to not wear the garment for a period of time.
I like Dri-Lux tops for their feel, but I hate that they are not supposed to be dried with a dryer sheet (ruins the wicking ability apparently). I always have to separate them out and hang them on a drying rack.
Under Armor garments, sweet! My husband and I have been seriously wishing for this variety for quite awhile. Why not tops too?
I’ve actually tried the Dri-Lux boxers myself. When I was first endowed, since you cannot try on the garments beforehand, I got ones sized too small. The lace elastic was digging into my thigh. So while I waited for larger ones to be shipped to me, I borrowed my fiancee’s bottoms. I found them so comfy that I ordered some myself. But I generally don’t wear them out and about, as the thigh bands show through my pants. But I still like to wear them to bed sometimes. At any rate, even as a woman I give the Dri-Lux boxers a thumbs down. The material is just too creepy on the legs.
I’ve tried just about every fabric and style out there. I have often thought that I could write a great review of the pros and cons of each, perhaps aiding endowed-members- to-be in making their selections.
I’ve always been a boxer-style fan but I agree that they are not the equivalent of cotton, extra junk in the trunk civilian wear. Seems like it would be easy enough to offer a more genuine boxer option (cotton, looser fit). I’d be interested to hear from No Cool Name_Tom what it takes to offer a different style, sounds like the process is rather bureaucratic. What makes a critical mass for Distribution to justify a new line?
And amen on the “They assumed I ordered “short” to wear skimpy shorts so what I got seems longer than my regulars”.
” everybody knows that women’s garments are both more comfortable and more fashionable than men’s. No need to rub it in.”
I wish. This is a really sensitive topic for me right now. Who in the world designed the nursing and maternity tops? I have actually shed tears of late over trying to breastfeed while maneuvering the tops. And I would much prefer to have a thick elastic on the bottoms like the mens than have the bottoms go up past my navel.
Steve, thanks for a good laugh. It must have been weeks since I have laughed that hard….
They should make women’s tops like mens, so the top of the collar could show for a layered look. Living in Arizona, layering is impossible with garments, tanks, tees, etc. Sometimes I untuck the garment and look at the extra 3 inches that hangs over my jeans. Why can’t that be part of the layers? No markings or anything.
There should definitely be a bloggernacle advisory committee on this issue. The distribution center has way too much control here.
BTW, I laughed all the way through this post. My husband will love it.
Snail-mailed comments change things.
Distribution Services1999 West 1700 SouthSalt Lake City, Utah 84104
That’s what we’re told, at least. The usual example we’re told is that the snap-button quads will be coming back because of written demand.
As for pattern changes, these usually come from the same (e.g., the chemise-style tops for women) but I imagine they’d have to get a lot of comments to really change things. Yes, Beehive and Distribution are very bureaucratic; good because they make few mistakes, bad because it takes forever for things to change.
As for short/regular/tall differences I don’t think anybody in Church Distribution really understands them beyond their 2″ difference between each other.
Jessawhy: “They should make women’s tops like mens…”
They do, and they call them size small. Seriously, I think lots of people wear them. I know I wear my wife’s tops.
Also, I hope I don’t get in trouble for saying this (we are taught things as part of our training that are similar to the CHI book 1; i.e., things for our benefit that could disrupt people’s long-cherished folk beliefs about things, so no talky abouty) but in response to #31:
We’ve been told (for our benefit as employees so that we don’t rudely question a customer for doing something “wrong”) that there is no division between garments that men and women can wear. If a man wants to wear Carinessa (the biker short/Lycra bottoms) so be it, and vice verse. The Men’s/Women’s fit is usually meant to accommodate physical difference between sexes. But if you’d like to wear something like a Men’s top and can get over the cultural barrier of wearing men’s underclothing go right ahead!
(To cover my own butt you might want to talk to the Temple Matron about this; they tend to know more than Bishops and SP about wearing the garment appropriately.)
NCNTom: “snap-button quads”????
ohhhhhhhhhh, SCRIPTURES.
I believe NoCoolName_Tom is referring to quadruple combination scriptures with a snap-flap.
“the UnderArmor bottoms have already arrived for the military”
NCN Tom, does that include green?
I hesitate to imagine what you saw behind those words… ;-)
I envisioned some sort of complicated snap-button jumpsuit, NCNTom, and was about to log on to order it post-haste.
Since I don’t feel like writing a letter on the subject, I’ll throw this out and let someone else do it.
For all the palefaces that populated the church for 150 years, the white undies are fine. But in the summer, white undies on a woman with dark skin who’s wearing something thinner than the armor on an M1A1 Abrams tank makes her look like she didn’t have no upbringin’. A lady in our district has told me that friends have come up to her and said, “Uhh, you realize that . . . ” Every line shows through, and thicker clothing in a hot, humid climate just make life miserable.
So, let’s have some other colors. If olive drab is good enough for the army, how about mahogany for the non-paleface women in the church?
Looks like I slipped into semi-Ebonics there. I should have said “Thicker clothing . . . do just make life miserable.”
Re: 38) No, just desert sand.
The Lord wants a peculiar people!! ;)
As usual, the Marines get the shaft.
Eric, I will not tolerate any jokes about the Marine Corps getting the shaft.
Anyone else have problems with the fly on the cotton bottoms? Who designed that thing, a sadist? It’s so non-functional it might as well be used on an episode of punk’d. I keep looking for the hidden cameras in the bathroom…
There’s a fly?
MCQ, Heck Yes! For more reasons than I care to go into. When I got my first garments in 1989 they didn’t have that design, they were the more traditional vertical opening. Then they added that horizontal flap (trap, more like it). Sheesh.
Ronito, turn your underpants around.
Before my trip to Hawaii (which was great by the way), I stopped to pick up some new g’s. I got a few of the dri-lux bottoms and they are gross. They feel like a girdle. So I will stick with the dri-silque ones which are comfortable against my skin. Problem is that they sure don’t do well in hot humid areas like Hawaii. I don’t know how Hawaiian Mormons handle it.
#35/#36 & #50 – More than one classic in the same thread. That’s impressive, Steve.
Not having the experience of keggers, I haven’t said that (“Turn your underpants around.”) to anyone over 3-years-old – and I never thought I would read it in the Bloggernacle. Thank you for expanding my literary horizons.
People wear underwear in Hawaii???
I think the fly was designed to encourage adherence to the law of chastity.
Call me insane and paranoid, but I’ve been developing a theory about the first batch of garments one purchases just prior to taking out one’s own endowment. Like many of you, I didn’t take out my own endowment until right before I left for an LDS mission. I don’t know if they still do this, but when I received my mission call, also inclosed in the letter was a yellow card that offered me a discount on my first batch of garments. I remember the card specifically mentioning that this was for my use only and that the discount could only be used once. Perhaps an added incentive to go on a mission? I never found out. Anyway, this is where my ”first batch garment” theory begins to unfold. All the garments I purchased using my yellow discount card were awesome! The bottoms (boxers, of course) were shorter than my civilian boxers I had been wearing for the past decade, and the tops (cotton, crew, of course) were made out of some of the softest cotton I have ever felt. You know those old T-shirts that various companies made back in the 70s and 80s, the super soft kind? Well…all my garment tops in that first batch were just like those. Needless to say, I was extremely pleased at how great my new underwear was.
Then, about a year and a half into my mission, my beloved garments began to wear out. It was time for new garments. I walked into the distribution center, which was conveniently located in the Mission Office building, and asked the nice cashier for some new garment tops. The guy visually sized me up and then disappeared into the back only to reappear again with a few familiar blue plastic bags. I paid for the garments and went home. The next morning I tore into a new garment bag like it was Christmas morning. I was not ready for what happened next. The garment top I held in my hand was cotton, just like I asked, but the fabric was about five times thicker than the garments I had before. The garment top could literally stand up by itself. Needless to say, I never wore it. I served in Taiwan, and we sweated like crazy in the summer time wearing the normal garments. I wasn’t about to don a garment top that would be the equivalent of wearing four additional t-shirts. Another interesting thing about those garments was the tag: it had a picture of the Manilla, Philippines temple. The bag that the garment also claimed (in about twenty places) that the garment was made in the Philippines. Instead of wearing my new Philippine style garments, I made do with my ragged original garments and left all my Philippine garments in my last apartment.
Finally, back at home, one of the first things I did was buy new garments. I was so excited I almost burst while driving to the distribution center near the Timpanogus Temple. Fond memories of that first batch of garments came flooding back to me as I made the short drive. I bought about 10 new tops and bottoms and rushed home as soon as I could. I excitedly tore open that first garment bag only to be disappointed again. Before I even tried it on, I noticed that the first pair had the marks sewn into it by someone who was either blindfolded at the time or severely inebriated. One of the marks was sewn into the armpit, and another was sewn into the back. The third mark, well…I guess it never made it onto this one because I could never find it. Already confused, I decided to try it on anyway. Again I was dumbfounded. Now granted, I had gained a little weight on my mission, but only like ten or 15 pounds. The new garment was a size Large–a size that fit perfectly before the mission–but somehow fit like it was a kids size large. I was actually about to check to see if they gave me kid’s size large garment top when I realized that was more than ridiculous to assume. I managed to wiggle my way into the garment top, but it looked like it was painted on. I then tore open all the bags and inspected the rest of the garments. The rest of the batch had the marks sewn into the right spots, but all of them fit really tight. All of the bottoms seemed to be manufactured well, other than the fact that they all went well beyond my knee, unlike my original batch.
Anyway, so the theory goes something like this: If you buy your garments with the yellow discount card, the nice old ladies behind the distribution counter go and get you the “good ones.” With out the discount card, you’re out of luck.
Hilarious! A review of Gs? I’m now enjoying JC Penney’s true cotton boxers, rather than the DriLux kind, but this review almost makes me want to order a pair….
In my RS president’s manual it said that members can contact you to contact a stake RS president to get the pattern and make ’em yourself. Still true?
I know that in the past, church magazines used to have real business advertisements (from gentile department stores and stores that sell thermal underwear). They advertized plain white long undies that you could make garments of yourself. (I’d love to do this and order some LLBean or JCrew all natural silk thermals). As far as I know, a lot of elderly people should still have the patterns. Darn it, why aren’t they blogging?
It can’t be that hard to figure out on your own, right? I’ve never read any direction on this matter in church policy. What if you buy your own cosy white t-shirt and you sew the emblems into it? I suppose this is getting off topic.
Matt G, members are not to sew their own garments. Church policy on this point is clear.
Back when two-piece garments first came out, they did offer both boxer and brief styles. I think I may still have a mesh boxer bottom from that era in a box somewhere. (Mesh was about as edgy as two-piece in those days. Mesh AND two-piece–Wow!) I guess the main difference was a little looser fit and a boxer-style fly.
For a long time, I had trouble with the two-piece fit. Either the crotch hung down halfway to my knees, or the waistband had to be pulled up past my navel. Finally, I explained the problem to the nice sister at Beehive Clothing. She suggested short bottoms. It seems that short bottoms are shorter in the crotch-to-waistband distance, though perhaps not in the legs. The short size worked out much better, but eventually I figured out that the one-piece just fit better and were more comfortable, so I went back to the one-piece style.
This discussion is tempting me to try the unthinkable; one-piece garments. I need to know that there are others willing to back me up on this.
Don’t do it Neal. I used to be very excited about the idea of the one piece garments (no bunching! no extra fabric!). But the reality didn’t measure up. The flap either doesn’t stay closed, leaving your area open to the elements, or it gets stuck in your, um, crevasse.
Top ten characteristics of one-piece garments:
10. You can put them on without messing up your hair.
9. Half as much laundry to fold.
8. No accidentally tucking your shirt into your underwear.
7. No twisting and bunching up.
6. Interesting topological problem taking them off with an IV attached. (I actually did this.)
5. No constricting waistband.
4. Boldy plunging neckline.
3. Better fit.
2. You can be a conservative nonconforming radical.
And the number one characteristic of one-piece garments:
1. By buying lots of them, you can help postpone the day when Left Field is forced to go two-piece.
Regarding women’s “petite” garments, the tops are fine, but with the bottoms, why does the waistband nearly reach the chest? If you make the legs shorter, you need to make the rest of it shorter. It’s just good sense. Also, why can’t they make leg bottoms that are seamless? Even if I wear loose pants, they still show through sometimes. It’s so annoying.
It’s obviously been a long time since I bought garments, because I don’t even recognize some of what you folks are talking about. Boxers shorter than regular boxers? BRIEFS? Do such garments actually exist? What would a garment brief even look like–a sort of boxer-brief?
I also wondered what “briefs” meant. Based on NCNTom’s contribution, I figured that is just what the traditional two-piece bottoms are called. Is that correct? (Probably the only “real” contribution for me on this one.)
One question for those who have mentioned garments made in foreign countries. Were they different in design? I have one Swiss made and some aspects are much better such as better quality fabric to begin with. A beautiful, cool to the touch, 100% thinner cotton.
One observation–garments appear to be made based on affordablity for all income levels, that means the quality leaves a lot to be desired for the more affluent countries where standards for our undies might be a little bit higher.
For the women, I heard last week at Distribution in Salt Lake that they’re working on a carinessa top. Release time not yet known. How complicated is it to come up with a simple chemise pattern? Wide straps, no sleeves, no lace, and a nice hem. And marks printed on the inside. We’re told not to show g’s but the marks sure show under men’s shirts and women who choose to wear them over the bra.
The women’s 100% cotton chemise top can be worn as a Shade type shirt. The cotton is way thicker than I’d like and could use about 3% lycra so it’s not all stretched out at the botton by the end of the day, but that was about the only way I could wear g’s this summer. It’s also much shorter than drisilk or the blends and has no tails.
For the men: until the recent addition of drilux boxers, only the cotton/poly blend was made in the short style. Short means shorter rise and legs for shorter people and–much to the Beehive missionaries’s chagrin–for taller people who wear shorts.
Also, to nocoolname_tom, I have left very nice polite comments at Beehive several times and have yet to receive a phone call–even though a supervisor promised that I would get one the last time I did.
Members may manufacture their own ceremonial temple clothing under the direction of the stake RS pres. but not garments.
Kevin
My understanding is that they call the 100% cotton and the cotton/poly blend “briefs,” the boxers are the mesh, corban and, I guess, the recently added drilux. The cotton and blend are a more stretchy knit meant to support the parts that need supporting.
Steve, the reason that you thought you shrunk was because they’re making garments longer these days (easy enough answer). My sister-in-law mentioned that they were going to start doing this, and low and behold, the next time I bought garments they were about two to three inches longer. I guess they’re trying to make people realize that they’re supposed to go to the knee for a reason.
I recently bought some new garments and they finally decided to stop putting in such tight elastic in the legs of the bottoms. Yea! Now I don’t have marks left on my legs after I lay down. And since they’re a few inches longer too, the length doesn’t bother me so much since I can’t really feel it on my legs.
My husband always wonders why they can’t make a men’s V-neck shirt. He gets grief all the time from his European co-workers because you can see his “t-shirt” at the neck of his dress shirt. He could wear the scoop neck but he’s never liked the feel.
The Distribution Center readily welcomes suggestions on garments. They usually have comment cards at the desk.
I’ve got a container full of imported Swiss garments on its way that should arrive by Thursday. Meet at the parking lot behind the Applebee’s on the South Hill in Spokane on Friday at 5:00pm sharp. Cash only. Temple recommend must have a bar code. No receipts.
Point of clarification: USArmy Gs are brown, not green (or olive drab). And they look sorta tough-guy to me.
Misty,
They do have men’s v-neck tops, or at least they did 13 years ago. Man, I’m getting old.
this may or may not have been addressed, but to clarify, they will be making mens bottoms and tops in an underarmor like material???
Neal, that’s mighty close to a ward building to be selling smuggled g’s.
I don’t suppose we can hope women’s tops will look like this, can we?
http://www.underarmour.com/ProductFullLine.cfm?site_id=2&dept_id=7&coll_id=2113
MDS:
The Swiss Pattern garments were (or are) much better. My wife swears by hers but she has repaired them so often they no longer cover her nakedness as designed. She got hers in the late 90s in Stockholm. If they are still made, they can no longer be purchased at distribution centers we’ve been to in the UK or Scandanavia.
About bottom’s length:
In London, the distribution centre workers scrutinized your build and delivered the length they deemed appropriate. If you wanted shorter, you had to pretend you were buying for old Brother Burdick, who is about my build but quite a bit shorter and too ill to travel to the temple these days, bless his faithful heart. (Not that I ever did this…)
In Helsinki, the nice lady said, ‘You may want to get these short ones since summer is coming.’ Top-notch service!
thanks for a hilarious AND informative thread. i’m rolling!
i once jokingly mentioned that i was going to borrow my husband’s garments, i was so behind on laundry. our pioneer stock, rm, former branch president, sunday school pres was horrified and gave us a lecture about how we are not keeping to our covenants and are unable to receive any blessings if we wear someone else’s garments. it was quite funny. he didn’t see any humor in it.
they HAVE gotten longer. it was a topic at our last girls’ night out and four of us have now done side-by-side comparisons.
i am tall, but it’s all in my torso. bottoms used to hit me mid-knee and when even ugly kneeshorts didn’t cover them, i started ordering garments in petite. the waist IS shorter, which is nice with the lower waistlines of today. now, i only have five inches of bunchy fabric above my waistband instead of eight. but i once had a sweet older woman tell me that she wouldn’t sell me petites because i was so tall. i was too embarrassed to push the issue.
i LOVE nursing garments and prefer them even when not nursing. they fit me better, i guess? but as someone who has been pregnant and/or nursing for every day of the past five years, i still don’t understand why they can’t do a garment that is both maternity AND nursing. and don’t make the maternity ones so gigantic!
when my husband was in the navy, our regular garment cashier forever tried to get him to buy the green and brown tops. “but you’re in the service!” she’d say. she never remembered that the navy wears white. my husband is now in law enforcement and must wear a blue undershirt. that means garment, blue underarmour, bulletproof vest, and 100% wool long-sleeved shirt. in california. in the summer. y’all are just jealous.
stillconfused, we’re hawai’i transplants and everyone there told us that we SHOULD wear drisilque. i guess you wait till it sticks to your skin, peel it away, and it dries quicker? i tried one set and hated them.
one-pieces bite. my mil raved about them, so i tried a pair. the opening stuck out above my waistband in the back!!! and it was a pain when i forgot and wore them to a prenatal appointment. “hey, um, can i strip down before you measure my belly? thanks.”
I plan on sending them a copy of Million Dollar Baby for reference.
Cuz you fight like a girl?
Re comments #58 & 59, I was under the impression there was a Church authorized pattern that members could use to sew their own? Is that not the case?
I buy mine from Distribution and sew the front door shut. If that lands me in the Telestial kingdom, so be it. At least I’ll be there with no surprise appearances.
\
I can confirm this with anecdotal experience. I had always bought and wore the same size/material/pattern/etc. since the mid-1990s. Then sometime in 2004 or 2005 the capri length became the preferred choice for the distinguishing member. Ergh.
All this talk about one-piecers reminds me of the time my mother decided to punk my father by sewing shut the back flap of his one-piece wonders. He wasn’t smiling when he returned from work that day, as he had to completely “disrobe” in the men’s bathroom in order to do his business (multiple times, as it had been a particularly rough day for his bowels). He’s still mildly paranoid about others handling his laundry.
My gentile grandfather was born in 1896 (hence very old and dressed like it). After he passed away, I was visiting grandma for a week and had a need to do my laundry. Later that day grandma asked if I wanted grandpa’s old underwear since we both wore union suits. My one piece g’s look like grandpa’s gentile union suit underwear. I quickly was able to avoid that by saying that grandpa was much shorter in the torso than I was and it would be just too tight.
My wife’s parents told of how in the depression era the saints would buy underwear and draw the marks on. At that time I guess they would be buying long sleeved, long legged union suits.
Extreme Doritos,
The wonder of the TK Smoothie means that should you land in the TK, there will be no need for a “front door.”
Makakona #78, at one time (5 years ago maybe) you could special order nursing/maternity garments. However, lately it seems the maternity ones are so huge, you might as well just buy larger nursing tops and stretch. I live in the South and drisilque really is cooler.. give it another try. And they slide around under your clothes much more comfortably.
Also, I read once on the ‘nacle about someone in law enforcement who had black garment tops.. perhaps similar arrangements could be made for blue? I’m under the impression that concessions can be made, esp. for people in law enforcement. Your DH is going ‘above and beyond’ the call of duty (to wear his garment!)
Thank (telestial) Heavens for Alma 40:23, which, if TK Smoothies turns out to be a true false doctrine, will enable me to sue for full restitution. I just hope each and every literal hair from all the years isnt returned as well as part of the settlement. Sometimes being overly literal can have unintended consequences.
My friend, who is a Corpsman in the the Navy, was deployed to Iraq with a Marine detachment. He was required to wear a black t-shirt beneath his camouflage “blouse” but nothing else (i.e. he could not have a white garment top peeking out from beneath the black t-shirt). The Marines often ditch the blouse for exercise or work, so stitched markings wouldn’t have worked well. The church instructed my friend to purchase the black t-shirts and send them in – and this is the real kicker to me – to have the marks silkscreened on the inside of the t-shirts.
Now, I don’t mind special perks for military folks, but why on earth can’t they just silkscreen marks for everyone!?
When I showed a Beehive supervisor my Swiss made garments she and her co-worker bent over, admired the quality and told me to buy my g’s in Switzerland. They claimed it would be too expensive to import such fabric. i can’t believe there is no fabric mill in the U.S. that can manufacture a fine, high quality cotton knit.
The ones I have were bought at the The Hague temple for my 85 year old mother who can no longer make the trip. They’re a couple of years old.
Makakona–Sweet older ladies are really not supposed to refuse to sell you the size you prefer. They can suggest but not mandate what you wear. But they just hate it that some of us wear shorts above the knee. The convenant is between the member and the Lord.
Ten years ago, I requested custom made petite bottoms with a longer leg. It was actually suggested by a worker. I’m short waisted and was buying petites but was bothered that the legs didn’t reach my knee. The smallest adjustement they’ll make is 2″ so these were going to be quite long. When they arrived they were 2″ SHORTER than the petites–they hit right a mid-thigh. Since I was told custom made g’s cannot be returned I kept them and wore them with shorts! That’s when I started getting alot less uptight about g’s. They could not even follow very clear instructions on a custom order and took it upon themselves to decide that there must be a mistake–I wanted 2″ shorter, not longer.
Misty–I’ve filled out cards and have even included an additional sheet with suggestions and I’ve checked the little box for them to call me. When i showed the supervisor the Swiss made g a few weeks ago–this was at main distribution in SL–she suggested i fill out a comment card. I told her I’d done so several times. She added a comment to my card and PROMISED I’d get a call. That was more than a month ago. I’ve checked my caller ID, nothing. I know they talk to people, I’ve heard reports. They’ve just never called me.
#79, It used to be possible to get the patterns and make your own garments, but I’m fairly sure this hasn’t been allowed for about 50 years. I’ve heard stories of poverty-striken family members making them out of old flour sacks, etc, which I imagine is part of the reason we’re no longer allowed to make our own. In Utah, you used to be able to buy them in stores like JCPenney. I’m not sure when that was phased out. My mom still has stuff stored in old garment boxes with JCPenney price tags, since the boxes were a nice size for papers.
One of several things that drive me crazy about garments is the inconsistency of the styles and sizes. I’d like to be able to buy more of the same in the unlikely event that I find some comfortable ones, but it’s almost impossible to predict what you’ll get.
You are sorely mistaken about women’s gs being more comfy than men’s. At least men’s gs fit! I am short and flat-chested. It is impossible to buy gs without special ordering that do not have extra gobs of fabric I am left to stuff in my bra. Gives a whole new meaning to padding your bra. I am getting close to breaking down and special ordering or considering a breast enhancement so I can fill out what the church considers an “average” cup size.
If you get the chemise tops (the sleeves are longer than the other kind of tops incidentally) I’m left with bunches of fabric under my shirts or fabric that shows around the edges of the arm opening of my t-shirt if I lift my arms up. The chemise top sleeves are much longer than the “other” tops.
It’s hard enough finding petite clothes that fit and look good let alone finding some that fit decently over my gs — I’ve been in tears over this.
When preggo I couldn’t wear the maternity/nursing tops — even then my boobs weren’t big enough to ever fill out the tops and I swam in them. Eventually I just slept in my hubby’s gs at night and wore my same bottoms and bought bigger chemise tops and stretched them over the belly. I know a lot of women who give up on the nursing tops and just wear their bra underneath their regular top and then lift up their entire shirt to nurse (forget about trying to be discreet and just head to the mommy lounge) — I finally did this. I know some gals who wear underwear underneath their bottoms during their “ladies days” because their gs shift too much for their sanitary pads — too roomy/loose.
Back in the day, the flap on the one-piecers did have a button. You knew you had arrived on the nimble fingered shore when you could button that up without a fumble.
Left Field left out the numero uno benefit for one-piecers: insulation on the toilet seat on cold mornings. Try that with your newfangled shorts, be they boxers or briefs. (Or depends–which brings up a whole new pattern possibility.)
I think he was kidding, there is no way men’s garments are more uncomfortable than women’s.
jjohnsen, that sounds like the voice of a man who has tried both.
I am SO relieved to know I am not the only woman who has stolen some of my husbands garments to wear!
I don’t have a problem with it, but sadly my butt is much larger than my wife’s. I doubt I could fit into them. The tops are stretchy enough though, maybe I’ll give it a shot.
To second the comment about the quality garments made in Third World countries (TM): don’t EVER buy mesh garments in Brazil. American mesh is far far far far superior. That is all.
On a serious note,
I’m sure this blog is monitored from time to time by high-ranking church employees. And so I want to make a public announcement:
If the church ever offers Swiss made garments to the general endowed membership, the church can rest assured that I am willing to forgo the typical 10% tithing and pay at least 12%, maybe even 15% of my income to the church. And I’ll pay it before taxes are taken out, too. And, I’ll also pay for whatever it costs to make the garment. And even tip the nice old ladies that work at the distribution center…whatever it takes…
Neal, do you even have a job? The Church will not be particularly incentivized by the extra $12.50 it stands to make from your generous offer.
That came out harsh. It should be, “Neal, did you get a job??”
#89, According to our local temple matron, it’s your choice whether to wear your bra under or over your garments. I know some women like having the garments under the bra so the straps don’t rub as much, but I always found it to be pretty unpleasant. I think that somehow the folks who design garments have found a way that the breast area doesn’t fit anyone. I’ve been underweight, normal weight, and overweight in my adult life, and they never seem to fit me. I hate the chemise too because the necks seem so big and floppy.
A temple matron told my wife the same thing, she’s been much happier with the fit since then.
Although women have been told for a few years–maybe 15 or 20—that they can wear the bra underneath garments, the garment patterns have not been updated to reflect this. As mentioned above, the chemise in particular, but not exclusively, creeps up and shows under even the most modest of necklines when it is not restrained.
I still wear my bra underneath with drisilk but have made several changes to accomodate my particular fit and make them work with my bras–please don’t tell me I’ll burn in hell for doing this or, more likely that the Lord will not be able to bless me, I’ve heard the rules. I just happened, after 30 plus years of hearing them, to have made the personal decision that this is right in the spirit of “the garment was made for woman not woman for the garment.” I make it fit me, not the other way around which I did for more years than I care to remember.
One reason I like the 100% cotton chemise–with the reservations mentioned in #67–is that it is to be worn over a bra. It allows air to flow in the back, something I call “Heavenly Father’s A/C.” It’s meant to cool you in hot weather.
OUCH…
Okay, I’ll admit it; I guess it never looked like I had a real job while living in Seattle. Was it my shabby blazers? My extremely worn vintage ties? But just because I rode a bicycle to church when Aaron drove his Range Rover and Dave drove an Audi TT doesn’t mean my job was that bad.
Just think, my 15% donation–albeit extremely humble–will be like the widow’s mite.
p.s., Steve, can you do me a favor? I never had the chance to give Dave a hard time for driving his TT to church despite the fact he only lived three blocks away.
I didn’t know the bra could go either way. I had it stuck in my head that the garment had to be next to the skin (probably some sort of pharisaical fence around the law, I imagine). Interesting.
Wow. How did I miss that? That’s great! (I was only endowed 6 years ago, and I used to be a temple ordinance worker, and I didn’t even know this.)
I worked for a few years at a factory which required a full change of clothing when entering and exiting the facility. Luckily, the company had a policy for reimbursing us LDS folk for our work Garments. To keep things simple for the laundry personnel who had to seperate ours garments, we wore one piece garments. After two years of being teased about my “Mormon Onesies” by my colleagues, I don’t know if I can go that way again. I still get a laugh out of that.
Kevin, my wife says it’s obvious (and a good thing) that you’ve never nursed.
It’s not just the bra for women. This was hinted at earlier, but my wife was told by her mother well over 20 years ago to not worry about the garment bottom being next to the skin for those few days each month when it was an issue. Personally, I kind of assumed that was a standard instruction given to all women – since it makes so much sense to me.
This makes me mad! I had heard that you could wear your bra underneath the garment but when I asked the ladies at the distribution center and then the temple matron, they looked at me like I had just asked to go topless in Sacrament Meeting.
I too have shed many tears over maternity and nursing garments. I can’t stand the nursing garments! I have continued to wear maternity garments now seven months after the birth of my child, regardless of the fact that they make me look 10 lbs heavier due to all the extra fabric. They just provide easier access.
103 and 104, when I was endowed, the instructions were that the bra went over the garments, but a few years ago, I started hearing rumors that the instructions were changed, so I asked our temple matron, whom I used to visit teach, and she confirmed that it’s our choice now. That solved some problems, but still left the problem of the neck sliding around and peeking out of the upper layer of clothing. (There are still many problems with the bottoms– too long, wedgies, elastic on the top that hits me far above the belly button, etc.)
I am appropriately ashamed of driving the 4 (it’s 4, not 3!) blocks to church. I’m usually running late and occasionally sneak home for a snack if I need to carb up for afternoon interviews (but don’t tell anyone). Yes, Bishop Dave hates the environment and is lazy.
Next topic.
Does this mean I can wear my man-thong under my garments?
On my mission, a greenie from the other companionship in our apartment was walking around one evening in his garments, sporting blue-and-white striped briefs underneath his bottoms, and was duly mocked by the rest of us. Now I feel bad…
mw, we need to get together to redistribute garment fabric… i am well-endowed (ha!) and hate tops without the cup. if i wear one, it ends up a midriff in the front.
i was told five years ago that it was up to me how i wanted to wear my bra. i wear it over because it keeps everything in place. i’m so used to it now that NOT wearing something under my bra is horribly uncomfy.
but my mil had fits. her best friend left the church, her family, and became a drunk “and it all started with the bra under!” she’s obviously a bit nutty, but she said we’d end up divorced if i followed suit.
Here’s a scooby snack for all you Garment history buffs:
I know for a fact that as late as February 1998 the ZCMI store in the University Mall sold LDS temple garments.
Also, just so the sisters don’t feel too jaded about the “bra under or over the garment” issue, there is a similar issue that some of the brotheren have had to deal with.
Let me elaborate: As soon as I arrived in the first area on my mission I was immediately indoctrinated into the practice of not wearing anything but garments while in a missionary apartment. I noticed that one of the Elders would, without question, always tuck his garment top into his garment bottoms. Such a practice not only seemed weird to me, but when I tried it, it proved to be extremely uncomfortable, especially while wearing the mesh variety. And so I asked him why he wore the garments the way he did. He explained that when he went through the temple for the first time, they specifically told him he HAD to tuck his garment top into this garment bottom (unless wearing a one-piece garment). The rest of us laughed and offered thankful high-fives that we had not received similar council.
And sure enough, for the rest of my mission, there was always one or two elders in each apartment that had received similar instruction.
Ah, the new all-cotton chemise tops. What a wonderful thing! The first chemise tops were poly-cotton that turned gray after a few washings, and still had the dumb elastic lace around the neck. The new all-cotton ones have no lace anywhere, and I’m one of those who wears them over the bra instead of having to wear garment/bra/tank with low-cut tops.
One note for all garments, but ESPECIALLY for the all-cotton chemises: pay close attention to the size charts. Since I am a big girl, one time when there was a glitch in the online size charts I just ordered a couple of XLs. They did seem rather large, and then the next time the size chart link was working, and I found out I’m really supposed to be wearing a size L! They fit much better, and I don’t have a problem either with the neck shifting or the sleeves bunching up (as women above have commented).
Now, on the bottoms, gosh they are high-waisted. I am tall but short-waisted, and when I’m not pregnant the waistband on the carinessa bottoms comes about up to the bottom of my bra. The next bunch I order (after delivering) will be custom, with the only adjustment being to the rise. In the past I also really liked the custom drisilque bottoms I ordered with a 28-inch inseam. Unlike the stock “mid-calf” bottoms, they didn’t roll up and cut off my circulation at the knee, and under pants it was like wearing nothing at all.
The custom order number, btw, is (800) 521-1203. I would recommend NOT calling them until you’ve really checked out the size charts and tried other ways of making the garments work, AND be prepared for them to assume the worst about your motivations, but having garments that truly fit can be marvelous.
Neal: I received that instruction from a temple worker during the W&A in my first session. It was, to put it mildly, explicit.
The tuck/not tuck issue is a fascinating one. I never got any official word on it, but when I wore 2 piece I always did it because my dad did it that way. I never found it uncomfortable though. I have noticed recently that temple workers, at least in our temple district, are pretty specifically told not to offer advice about how to wear the garment beyond what it says in the ceremony itself.
MCQ, it makes me sad when I read of people receiving such instruction. I can tell you definitively that it is not part of the instructions given to temple workers, and is not part of the program. Folk belief gets passed on from time to time, but it’s unfortunate.
I think that perhaps there would be more clarity on appropriate ways to wear the garment, if the church would just write these instructions down. Too much conflicting information comes out of different temple matrons, which leads me to believe that most of it is just their personal opinions, not church doctrine. Why do you suppose the church doesn’t just publish a little pamphlet on this?
This discussion has led me to try and remember what the temple president said to me when I went through for the first time (Idaho Falls, 1994). I remember he said not to throw them on the floor and to get rid of them when they turned yellow. I’m pretty sure that was it.
But busymom, there’s not much to say, besides “wear your garments night and day.” Anything else, including when it’s ok to remove them, what to tuck/not to tuck, etc., is up to how a person feels under the Spirit. While I agree with your sentiment, I feel that a pamphlet on this point would just add layers of institutionalization to something that’s meant to be fairly intuitive.
Usually I wear mine untucked, but the latest pair I bought have a real itchy tag, so I tuck when I happen to wear one of those.
jjohnsen: Please clarify what you are tucking!
Steve: Would you call those false “folk beliefs” folklore? Because if so, you should weigh in on the meaning of that word on the other thread.
Costanza: Don’t throw them on the floor? That’s a new one on me. Does that mean they can never touch the floor, or is it the act of throwing that is prohibited?
I think the idea was that they shouldn’t touch the floor–I added the “throw” part although “drop” or “place” would also be prohibited. I don’t usually throw underwear on the floor anyway, so it wasn’t much of an issue.
One time when I was going through a W & A for proxy work, the attendant told me I should always put my right leg in to the garment bottoms when wearing them. He said it was VERY IMPORTANT. Luckily my culture/tradition warning bell went off and I was able to politely nod and smile.
Matt G,
I heard that one too and my response was exactly like yours.
I guess I should clarify: Right leg FIRST. I always put my right leg in my garments, for the record.
When you’re doing laundry do you make sure nothing touches the floor while you’re folding? The not touching the floor thing sounds as ridiculous to me as right-leg first.
JJohnsen,
I agree. My mission prez. once recommended to us that we treat our garments with respect and try not to wad them up on the floor where they can be kicked around, etc. But he recommended it as his own personal feeling, not a matter of doctrine. That’s how I always took it. We always fold laundry on the floor, I don’t see a problem.
“Treat them with respect” is what I was told – and that covers it well for me.
JJohnsen,
I never really paid much attention to them touching the floor to be honest. I just barely remembered that he even said anything abou it.
One of my missionary companions said that he went into the hallway in the MTC at night wearing nothing but his garments to write in his journal. He sat on the floor and another missionary chastised him and told him that he shouldn’t let garments touch the ground. This missionary compared garments to an American flag and pointed out how you should never let an American flag touch the ground.
Did he suggest burning the garments?
You gotta be a pretty big guy if you want to use your garments as a flag. Plus, all that flag will say is “I surrender…blasphemously.”
My companion was not the type of guy who liked being told what to do. I thought it was funny that someone tried to call him out for sitting on the floor while wearing nothing but his Gs. Plus, I thought the American flag comparison was pretty funny.
i get teased by my girlfriends for tucking, but they go all haywire if i don’t. i was also told they should never touch the floor and we were actually told that we SHOULD burn them when disposing of them. when we were in hawai’i, the matron said we could cut out the markings and just burn those instead of the whole garment.
I thought the rule was just that you were supposed to keep them covered, not that they couldn’t touch the floor. It’s amazing how many of my MTC memories are of guys in their underwear. For some reason, that rule really took a beating.
Steve, clearly, you are forgetting Captain Moroni. His flag said a mouthful, and he didn’t have the easy access to crayola markers that we do now.
I think the ‘keep them covered’ idea is part of the idea that we have garments to keep us modest. Men who wear the crew neck cotton top show their garment all the time at the neck of a shirt… if it didn’t have such a big manly collar, I’d do it myself instead of feeling like I have to wear bra, garment top, undershirt, shirt.
Are the new chemise tops w/o lace normal-looking enough to wear showing?
I’ve always tucked my two-pieces, but I frankly just don’t remember whether anyone ever suggested it to me. But I would never tuck a tshirt into my boxer-briefs, so I’m guessing maybe someone in the mists of antiquity did tell me to wear them that way.
I have heard people suggest that one shouldn’t sleep in just garments because, as the question in TR interview goes, they are to be worn as “underclothing” day and night. These particular people argued that if the g’s aren’t literally under the clothing then they aren’t being worn correctly; therefore pajamas were required at night to be over the underclothing. I think that they put WAY too much time into that argument.
By the way, I was told to burn the markings too, and that is no easy feat. Now I just cut them into lots of tiny pieces.
Claire,
Believe it or not, I knew a guy in college who would never wear the crewneck garments with an open collared shirt because he felt that the garments always had to be hidden.
Yeah, Costanza, I was going to say, I have heard a lot of crazy garment disposal doctrine over the years. Cutting out the marks and burning them is pretty standard.
How do you fold clothes on the floor? Do you sit on the floor or just keep bending over? Either way seems mighty uncomfortable.
I never got any official or unofficial instructions on wearing two-piece garments since they didn’t yet exist when I first went to the temple. When I got my first pair, I guess it just never occurred to me not to tuck the top in. In fact, more than a quarter century later it still hadn’t occurred to me until just now reading these comments. I don’t like the waistband, so I probably tucked them in so as to put something between me and all that elastic. Next time I wear two-piece (probably when I go to the doctor), I’ll have to try it the other way. Maybe that’s the key to two-piece comfort?
I’ve never heard of burning the whole garment. I do distinctly remember being told in the temple before my endowment that without the marks, it was just cloth and could be thrown out or used for rags. I don’t think even the marks of decommissioned garments need to be burned; if you just cut them into unrecognizable shreds, that should be fine.
Stephanie #64 — I use the drysilque mid calf with my professional suit pants and with tight jeans because there are no visible lines.
It has been my experience that women are told not to let them touch the floor and men are just told not to step on them.
Garments under the bra is great for big chested women with lots of fabric and the necessity of a tighter fit. No more chafing. Hurray. Oh and thank goodness for the tops without the sewn in bra cups. What was the thinking there anyway?
Long ago, I was told that Rose Marie Reid, the swimsuit designer, was a consultant in some garment redesigns, perhaps in going to two piece. Can anyone verify that? Does anyone know if any professional designers are currently hired as consultants?
“or used for rags.”
I was going to comment on this when I suddenly remembered that what I was going to say had already been said by Evans on his last garment thread.
Molly, I don’t have a page number, but Juliea at T&S claims the book Rose Marie Reid: An Extraordinary Life Story, includes how she worked with President McKay on the patterns. They didn’t move to two piece until 1979.
Re #148: Yup. That bio has the story of her (re)designing the garments.
No kidding….this answers a lot of questions. I’ve always wondered why my garment bottoms partially resembled a swimsuit from the circa 1980 era.
Re #148: I attended a fireside about Rose Marie Reid given by her granddaughter, and the story was that she really pushed for the two -piece garment (it was already being used in some nursing home situations) but was refused. She insisted that once she died she would go straight to the top, and sure enough, six months after she died the two-piece garment was introduced.
Waving to makakona!
Way, way, way upthread, mmiles commented about the nursing tops. The elastic on those is notoriously flimsy. I’ve been pregnant and/or nursing, er, longer than makakona has, and for the first few years, I soldiered on with the nursing tops. I sleep in my garments and got sick of putting on a peep show for thirsty toddlers. (Oh, thank goodness for the anonymity of the bloggernacle.) Then I gave up and just started wearing regular tops again and pulling them down to nurse. Much easier. I’m not at all well-endowed, so YMMV.
#s 121-131
The updated missionary white bible actually specifically says not to put garments on the floor. It specifically says to put them somewhere else inbetween wearing them and laundring.
Cathy,
It’s not just the stupid elastics, the flaps are stupid the way they are designed.
Some of these things are totally new to me and I went through the temple in the late 80s. I was told you could NOT wear the bra under the garments, also that you could not ever wear any other underwear beneath them, which is a giant pain certain times of the month. I’ve also been recently told they can’t touch the floor but too late – I pile my laundry on the floor when I sort whites and colors, I’ve done that for years so I sort of missed that rule if it ever existed. I always cut the marks out and then use them as rags, but I thought if you didn’t cut the marks out, you had to burn them. Which I’ve done occasionally done as well. Can you someone definitively answer what the protocol is suppose to be? Why are none of us getting the same instructions? Shouldn’t there be some kind of list or something? A friend of mine recently received her endowments for the first time and she was told she has to wash her garments completely seperate from any other whites! I’ve never heard that one – but apparently the current matron at the Arizona temple is passing that little tid bit out.
My grandparents used to teach temple prep. They taught the women that they have to wear bras over garments. A woman and her daughter were irate at this. My grandparents recieved a blunt letter from the first presidency stating that they were not about to tell women how to wear their underwear.
It might be worth noting also that one pieces had nursing flaps, but when the original 2 piece came out they did not even make nursing tops–and my mother was told to put her bra under her top (obviously)–it doesn’t matter either way.
Bandanamom: That is priceless.
Bandanamom, here’s some answers, of which I am quite certain:
1. You can wear a bra underneath. I don’t know about wearing any other underwear under garments.
2. Garments are to be treated respectfully, i.e. not thrown about or treated as you would any regular old clothes. Personally I interpret this not to mean that they may never ever touch the ground, but rather more of an attitude of respect for what they represent.
3. You can wash garments with other whites. Careful, though, as some garment materials are more sensitive than others.
4. When garments are no longer wearable as underwear, the marks are to be removed and destroyed, and the remaining garment cut in such a way that it is no longer clothing.
These are about the only standard protocols when it comes to the treatment of garments. Your friend got some odd advice. There is indeed a list of instructions concerning garments that is provided to temple presidents and matrons.
True that. If the elastic were sturdier, I think it would ameliorate the problem, but it really isn’t an efficient design. I wonder how much R&D went into that particular pattern.
I do give thumbs-up to the chemise top.
Wait, Steve — you’re saying I can wear a bra under my garments?
Dude, this changes everything . . .
And now, to make you all feel terrible: read THIS.
Wow, I do feel terrible … I rarely use the complete name of the Church in the first reference.
Don’t worry Steve. This conversation never touched the floor.
Claire-
yes, the 100% cotton chemise is normal enough to wear showing and I do. A few weeks ago my niece was wearing a deep v-neck top with cotton undershirt. I asked if she was wearing the new garment top and she looked horrified. She said, “I would never show my garments like that.” I said, “why not, men do it all the time.” It hadn’t occured to her. Beehive could bring a little sophistication to the product but it works as it is. Unfortunately, it only comes in white….
Thanks for the tip MDS… does anyone have a link to a picture?
I’ve never ordered g’s online so I don’t know if there’s one.
There is one problem with them–well more than one but this one I can do something about. The shoulder seam is straight; about 2″ from the neck I sew a seam on a diagonal so it follows the shape of the shoulder. Nothing coming out of Beehive will ever be perfect.
re: 140
Especially since the temple recommend question says nothing at all about wearing them as underclothing. Maybe the statement on garments that is to be read to the member at the time of the interview, but not the question itself:
I only happen to have the Spanish version here:
Usa el garment tanto de dia como de noche de acuerdo con las instrucciones de la investidura y de acuerdo con el convenio que hizo en el templo?
Nothing about “underclothing” in that question. And, apologies for leaving the accents out.
A question for people at the distribution center: most people I know take the injunction to wear garments day and night literally and wear them to bed. I tried that for a few months, but I found that in my poorly air-conditioned apartment I couldn’t sleep through the night without waking up in hot flashes when wearing the tight fitting pants. Are there any plans for a p.j. version of garments more tailored to night wear? Loser fitting shorts, a tank top version, etc. I just hate wearing to bed what I wear all day.
Natalie, why not buy a pair of men’s garments and use those?
Natalie,
You could also get one-piece garments that are a size or two too big and try that. It would be, uh, pajama-like.
So, is traveling to Switzerland the only way to get the good g´s? Im in Europe and wouldn´t mind investing in the trip if that were the case!! Please let me know!
When I was going through the temple with my daughter before her marriage, the temple matron was very sweet in her garment instruction talk and said that “some people say that the garment should never touch the floor, but we know that that’s just not really practical.” She said we should treat it with respect, but it was expected that it would at times be on the floor.
Sarah,
The Swiss garments I have came either from the Frankfurt or The Hague temples. I would think either of those–and maybe others–would be supplied by Swiss made g’s. I would try to call the temple/distribution you’re closeset to and ask.
I will give my comments on this subject next Saturday or Sunday. At that time I will be an Endowed Member of the Church. Look for a first time garment wearers review on these exact Boxer Shorts then.
Jamie Trwth (;
Wow, I’ve never heard these things! I can’t get over the idea that I can wear my bra under my garments! (of course, it would probably be uncomfortable at this point, and by wearing it on the outside, I wash my bra less frequently)
But what I really can’t believe is that women wear the chemise top like a Shade shirt, for layering. Is this true? Do you let the hem stick out, and maybe see part of the neckline, or even sleeve? I’m really curious here. If you’re doing this, I need more details. Also, my chemise tops have lace on the neck, are there new ones that don’t? Hmm, as far as maternity and nursing tops, I thought it was just a suggestion, not a mandate. I’ve worn my regular garments (however ill-fitting they may be) through my whole pregnancy and nursing (I pull my shirt up and the garment down and use a front clasp bra). It’s funny b/c right now I”m 8 mths pregnant and my husband laughs at the bottom half of my belly sticking out of my garments. I’d never thought about buying new ones for just a few weeks or months. hmm
hillarious thread, btw. I’d really like to see us import some of these Swiss garments. And how do markings on garments end up in weird places? Aren’t there quality controls for that sort of thing?
Lastly, my husband dislikes wearing shorts, even in hot AZ summers, b/c his garments always stick out the bottomw. He’s looking for European style mens’ capris. Anyone know where to get those in the US? We’ve looked everywhere. People where them all over, but stores don’t sell them. It’s a mystery. . .
I’m one of those all-cotton chemise wearers, Jessawhy. I wear them over my bra when I’m going to be wearing a low-cut top, and the neck does show. There is no lace–it has a simply bound edge that is similar to the widely-available shelf-bra camis that women frequently wear under low-cut tops. One of my low-cut tops also has big armholes and slits at the top of the sleeve, so more of the top shows there. The bottom and sleeve hems are not bound, just simply serged. I don’t think they’re finished-looking enough to let really, intentionally show for the layered look, but for incidental view totally acceptable.
I’m also 8 months pregnant and still wearing non-maternity garments. The Carinessa bottoms are super-high-waisted (as I mentioned above) and stretchy, so no problem there. Last time I checked the maternity bottoms were only available in cotton-poly, which doesn’t work well under clothing imo. When I’m not wearing the all-cotton chemise top, I wear regular all-cotton round-neck tops (bra on top to keep everything in place), which are less stretchy than would be optimal for going over my belly (I think the cotton-poly round-necks would work just fine).
um… to clarify things about the Swiss garments… they were available until 2002 or 2003 and then production was stopped. As far as I can tell, the reason was that they wanted to have one uniform garment that was affordable for all (not that the Swiss garments were that expensive – under 20 euros for a set).
livingingermany-Thanks for the clarification. I knew the ones I had were a few years old and I think I was told that sytle was no longer available but didn’t realize all Swiss production had stopped. I sort of figured, since the 50% price cut 4 or 5 years agao, that affordability overuled quality or comfort. With the number of temples in Third World nations the emphasis is on making them affordable worldwide. Unfortunately we don’t all live in Third World countries and wear mumu style dresses or other cultural styles. Some of us actually live and dress in the 21st century, wear bras, etc.
As far as cost, each piece is less than $3 so that was a big difference between US made and Swiss made but that’s true of anything made in Europe.