48 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
i’d not thought of that before! i’ve always thought it unfair that women get dinged when you can see the outline of their garments through a shirt, but men don’t. if a man wears a scoop neck garment top under a white dress shirt, it’s pretty obvious and no one cares. but if i wear a white dress shirt, people will squawk that the garment isn’t properly covered, even if i’m wearing a camisole over it in order to cover my weird bra-on-top combo. whatever. my husband exclusively wears crew neck garments because he’s always been in the military or a cop, both of whom require/d a white undershirt. somehow, i’d not considered that he’s showing a healthy span of his garment top every day. i’m torn. the church makes garments in olive drab for the military and have stitched garment markings onto navy blue undershirts for my husband’s foul weather uniform. they know that those are to be seen, so i don’t have any issue with seeing the actual garment. but could an argument could be made for where the visible garment is located? at the collar versus at cleavage? |
yes. some one will complain that she is not toeing the line. hope she ignores it. |
What I don’t understand is the differences in the garments, |
Just a warning to you that might attempt to buy new garments based on this discussion. Members of my family have been given large loads of crap by the ladies at Beehive Clothing for attempting to purchase the new style garments. From what I’ve heard you basically have to go in there ready to do battle and not accept “No.” for an answer. |
Makakona, |
I asked about this last summer (before the new top came out) and here is the email conversation: My question: “Are the women’s legging bottoms allowed to show? I’ve seen some wear them with the lace edge peeking out below skirts, and am wondering if that’s proper protocol. I know men’s shirts show with an open collar. I hope you’re working on a women’s top that’s like one of those shade shirts where we could also show some of the neckline or hemline and not have to wear so many layers!” The answer, which totally dodged the mens neckline issue: So then I spoke with my brother-in-law, who is a bishop, and he had no answers… |
a random John – My solution to the Beehive Clothing ladies is to cut out the middleman (middlewoman?) and order online. The internet doesn’t talk back. |
That’s strange. Why offer them if they don’t feel like they are appropriate. My sister who is very short got a load of crap when she tried to get short garments because the regular size when about 6 inches below her knees. |
Ron–fair warning: NO man “rocks” a sleeveless T shirt. ARJ–that’s ridiculous. Fortunately, there is no beehive clothing where I live–it is all straight from the computer order. Anita–I had never supposed that any women intended their lace to show below their hems. I think it is just a too long/too short combo. All–I propose that the markings are sacred and the clothing attached incidental. This is based on the various changes and alternatives allowed. What do you think? |
I don’t think it’s appropriate for men to let the top hem show, despite the fashion. As far as buying them goes, we haven’t had any issue in Dallas at the temple buying anything. Or, as stated, just buy them online. |
Thanks for the warning Eso. It still bothers me that Men’s G’s are more “Modest” than womens. I especially when I start trying to wear my Old G’s with my new T-shirts and the sleevs always hang out. |
Hmmm. My wife has many times worn a garment top as a visible layer. I never knew it was “improper.” And she has also bought petites even though she’s of average height. And maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but why workers at Beehive give anybody a rough time for buying something they sell? That doesn’t make sense. |
In my opinion, the way we wear our street clothes/outerwear is a reflection of our heart about modesty and self-respect. I have been convicted that there are no exceptions to modesty. Swimwear should go down to the knees and cover the tops of the arms and have a high enough neck that the breast bone does not show. This goes for all “outerwear” including sports attire, dance (ballet or other), as well as formal wear. I have not always felt this way. But neither have I always been as near the Savior as I feel I am in my heart. As I come unto Him, I have a greater degree of self-respect and love for the this temple body he has made for me. I desire to show my love for Him and myself by covering and trying to dress myself in a manner that is respectful of myself and the gifts He has given in this awesome creation of a human body. Would I be offended to see a Sister showing her Gs? No. Would I worry about her heart. Probably. Would I talk to her RS Pres or Bishop about it? Probably not. It’s really more between her and our God than her and our Bishop or other church leadership. If she truly believes in her heart that she is being respectful of her Gs and the covenants they represent, then she is, it seems to me. And I’m certainly not going to try to judge her about that… lest by what measure I meet unto her, it be measured unto me again! Do I think making such garments as those for women is a good idea? Maybe not. But that’s just my opinion. (Also, I think it’s not a great idea for the guys to NOT think twice about showing part of their Gs regardless of how much it looks like something else. But that’s just me.) |
queuno, it’s not because of any “fashion,” those garment tops are made to show and designed to be worn that way. That’s why they come up higher, i.e. are a crew neck rather than a scoop neck like the earlier versions. |
I would assume that the reason this top is being made in a t-shirt style is because it would be handy to be able to wear it that way. I don’t see the problem with parts of it showing as long as the marks are covered. |
“Also, I think it’s not a great idea for the guys to NOT think twice about showing part of their Gs regardless of how much it looks like something else. But that’s just me.” I thought twice about it. It’s the way they’re designed to be worn, and it’s totally fine. |
This is an interesting post. I am really curious about these new garments and how well they fit. |
I’ve seen that before as well. It seems brilliant to me, but would I do it? I don’t know. But I would definitely leave that option up to the person pulling off that look. |
I think it’s fine to let garments show – I wear crew neck cotton garment tops exclusively. I am also over 6 feet tall yet buy “short” or “petite” garments so the legs don’t hang down as much. There are A LOT of changes that I would continue to make to garments, which ALL involve much less than garments have already been changed. Rather than make this a huge comment, I listed them a few weeks ago here if anyone is interested: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/05/01/if-i-were-in-charge-change-womens-garments-and-mens/ But, while I would make changes and wear garments a certain way, I respect the right of anyone else to wear them how they seem fit too. |
like a layered t-shirt despite the fashion It’s an undershirt, people. Gentiles wear them too, especially the grownup ones, and have done so since time immemorial. If you really want to wear your religion on your sleeve, try “rocking” a scooped neck garment/white dress shirt combo. |
Apparently, the clothing item that is currently a dress shirt started out as underwear, initially something that shouldn’t be seen, then something that should have a jacket over it to be decent in public, and only for for the last century and a half or less something that a proper person might use as a top-most layer. With that evolution, something else had to take its place as an underlayer. We are well into a stage where external views of the current underlayer are starting to lose the sense of a risque exposure of intimate things. Another couple centuries, and there won’t be anything covering what we call underwear, but there will be something out of view under it. |
Mike S. Thanks for the link to your post. I thought it was great. |
I don’t see a problem with them showing a little if they look like part of your normal dress. But I may not be the best person to ask, as I have been known to enjoy a non-caffeine free Pepsi from time to time. |
I don’t know how I feel about this. If I counted right, only six of the comments have been from women. All sounded positive. If I saw a girl wearing her garments that way, I wouldn’t care. I might not even notice—the young girls all wear those layers. Well and older “girls” too. I don’t think I’d wear my garments showing that much, though. It seems disrespectful somehow. But again, I don’t care if anybody else does it. |
Well, I mean I have so many more important things to deal with. Plus I’ve been to church two times in a row and men gave the invocation. So in my ward, a woman wearing her garments like that would probably get stoned or something. I’m asking Princess Buttgold’s opinion. |
Also, garments can ABSOLUTELY be “shown” in public. As explained in the post I mentioned in comment #19 above, there are non-white garment tops that are worn AS T-SHIRTS with NOTHING on top. That’s the ONLY LAYER. The marking for the garments are silk-screened on the inside. So, if there was something wrong with garments showing, there wouldn’t be an official version that was DESIGNED to show. There is also an interesting link in that post to Distribution Services. Apparently, you can send just about any shirt in (ie. fireman, police officer, etc.) that you need to wear and they will silk-screen the markings on the inside of that shirt. So, I don’t know what the big deal is about garments showing. My biggest issue with it is that I think the white sticking out around a woman’s armholes is kind of ugly. That’s why I would actually make the woman’s top a camisole top. They have already removed 12-18 inches off the sleeves when they shortened them from wrist length. What is another 2 inches? Especially when it does NOT affect the marks at all? |
I tend to find parents that force the “garment standard” on their kids revolting… But knowing an average ward chances are in the woman’s case someone WILL complain to a higher figure assuming an average ward follows the 10:1 ratio with every 10 normal members, there’s at least one that takes things to the extreme. What that higher figure does though just depends who the person is. ;) Personally, until you’re showing your cleavage at church what you wear usually goes unnoticed. Chances are I wouldn’t realize a person’s garments are showing unless I’m in a position where I have to stare at them for ten minutes (IE: when said person is teaching). |
Tori, your post fascinated me. I yearn to be at that point. |
I just can’t get past the idea that members are ratting out other members for the way they wear their G’s. Does this really happen? (shudder) |
I yearn to be at the point where I don’t worry about other people’s garments: Would I be offended to see a Sister showing her Gs? No. Would I worry about her heart. Probably. Would I talk to her RS Pres or Bishop about it? Probably not Probably not? I pity your Bishop and RS Pres. |
No lace? Seriously? A standard-issue option? This I have to see to believe. |
Thanks for the post ESO – I see it all as a good thing. What is frightening is that some people are up in arms about something so trivial as showing some cloth – seriously, and we wonder why people think we are cultish and a bit strange? |
Mike, what are you talking about? I’ve never heard of that. Kim, it probably does happen. I get ratted on every once in awhile for various small sins. I asked Sarah and she said she hadn’t heard about those garments. She said she wouldn’t wear them showing in a layered look. |
Just so there’s no confusion, the commenter in #28 was not me. |
I think discussions of garments are mostly a female affair. My friends and I rarely if ever sit around and discuss our g’s. Ain’t nuthin but a g thang baby. My understanding is that the crew neck g for guys is designed to poke out at the neck. There is no other way to wear them. So that is all I wear. The only way for it not to poke out is for you to put on some long necked underarmor over the g and then your shirt. Boy that would look strange. |
I liked Mike’s suggestion of an underarmor type Garment top that had the marks screen printed on the inside. (It’s in his blog post, not these comments) I know you can get a wicking material Garment top, but when you have to wear another shirt over the top of it it kind of defeats the purpose. |
I know a guy who wears his garment top like a t-shirt and puts a button down shirt over it, but he leaves the top shirt completely unbuttoned so if you are paying attention you can see the garment markings on t-shirt. It drives me crazy and I am convinced he is headed to outer darkness in the next life because he cannot understand what the big deal is. |
living in zion, Once on my mission we were walking somewhere (always walked, never had bikes, nor cars, and it was hot and humid) and stopped at a particular market because they had fresh squeezed orange juice for cheap. While there in walked the 2nd councilor in the Bishopric, wearing shorts so short that the bottoms of his garment were hanging out by a good two or three inches. On top? Just his mesh garment. He asked where we were going we told him, and he gave us a ride. We never said a word about the garment, just a big thank you for the ride. |
All my wife wears is the non-lace tshirt style. She has several tops – and Sunday dresses – that her garment also doubles as a cami for. Honestly I think that style is way overdue for women, and I hope it catches on. |
I have recently gotten into the blogging world- Mormon Mentality, Feminist Housewives, etc., and I am seriously shocked at some of the posts! I guess it is because I didn’t grow up in Utah, but wow, #13 Tori especially… worrying about someone’s heart? Don’t kid yourself by saying you aren’t judging. If you are worried about their heart and considering going to talk to the Bishop… I think you probably are…. I have *never* heard that guys can’t let the collar show. I think every male endowed Mormon I know (and I have lived all over the Southern region of the US) does this, including a family member who is a Bishop. If this were a no-no, we’d all know about it. I will get this new design and definitely wear it as an undershirt. Sure wish I had had one yesterday, when I was wearing 3 layers in 95 degree weather! |
I am scared to death of the Beehive Clothing ladies. Whenever I ask a question about anything, I get a lecture about how I shouldn’t be trying to get away with being immodest while wearing garments. And I try to go there prepared…wearing turtlenecks and ankle length skirts or something equally enormous to impress the sales ladies. Have they started offering maternity and nursing garments online yet? They didn’t have them online in the past, which meant I had to go in to Beehive Clothing and deal with the salespeople. #35, women discuss garments more than men because male garments are pretty much like male underwear. Female garments are nothing like female underwear, so they don’t fit properly under female clothes and are always causing issues like those mentioned by #9 and #26. So we women try to figure out if there are any better fitting styles or sizes. We are not allowed to try them on before we buy, and if we ask the salespeople questions they treat us like devil spawn, so we have to talk to each other to try to learn how to keep the darn things hidden. |
annegb: Mike, what are you talking about? I’ve never heard of that. Here is a form for non-white garment tops designed to be worn AS THE ONLY LAYER. It can even be a non-white shirt that has a logo on it. As to the authenticity of this policy, note the location of the link is lds.org. http://lds.org/pa/military/2010-Military-Garment-Special-Orders.pdf |
[...] the whole doctrine of eternal gender roles is deeply problematic. The problem with modesty/chastity isn’t just the insanity, but rather blaming one person for another’s actions [...] |
Mike S., you are trying to get a lot of leverage out of that military accomodation. Applying it as a principle encompassing those who are free to choose the shirts they wear is rather expansive thinking. |
I agree with #44, the policy is an exception based on the problem of how to deal with a military which forbids an endowed member of the Church from wearing the approved garment. Rather than risk losing a lawsuit – and having members in the military not be able to wear *any* garment – the Church compromised and came up with something which the military found acceptable. For those of us who are not in the military we should wear the garment int he standard manner. There is a reason the military policy is called an *exception*. |
The LA Temple Distro Center has a lady my daughters call “the garment Nazi” She won’t sell you garments that she thinks are the wrong size. |
#44/45: The exception is the rule. It shows that the only thing about garments that TRULY matters is markings. The color doesn’t matter, the fabric doesn’t matter, the length of sleeves (or cap sleeves) doesn’t matter, sewing vs silk-screening doesn’t matter, etc. If any of these were ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the function of garments, they wouldn’t have made the exception. For many people, the current version of the garment is fine. They are used to it. It’s not that big of a deal. And the current format represents something to those people. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. That being said, I don’t see a lot of these same people going around wearing one-piece rough spun garments that go all the way down to wrists and ankles as garments were originally designed and which were the “standard” for well over a century. And I think that many people would balk if they went back to that style – there are people who would do it for the sake of covenants – but I think it would be seen as a “sacrifice”. So, just like garments have been changed extensively throughout the past few decades for what is essentially the sake of fashion, what is “essential” about the current format? As seen in the comments to the post I mentioned in comment #19 here, there are A LOT of people who have issues with garments. They wear them out of respect for temple covenants, but are we creating unnecessary stumbling blocks? If there is a way to make wearing garments more comfortable that doesn’t change the ESSENTIAL part of garments, why not do it? Why cling to a 2″ cap sleeve when 16″ have already been removed from the arm? Why cling to the frilly lace border when it was a later addition? Etc. So, the concept of military garments proves the point about what is essential. And when you say “we should wear the garment in the standard manner” – is this the one-piece wrist/ankle garment as revealed to Joseph Smith, is it the one-piece shortened garment from the 1960s and 1970s, is it the two-piece garment we use today, etc? What is the “standard manner”? Is it the latest iteration? The whole 19 |
My ex wife always got mad at me if any of my garments was showing at all. If I was wearing a loose shorts and if I was sitting and you could see my garments 1-2 inches above my shorts. She even had a problem if I wore a white shirt and you could see tje garments under my shirt. I used to wear the 1 piece sonetimes she got mad at the eternal smile look. She never wears amything white for this reason. We live in Utah most of the people we can see there garments either visibly or under there clothes. I now wear the cotton crew neck all the time. I know it bugs her when I pick up the kids and she sees the top of my crew neck. People needs to get over it.with some garments showing. I know the church started making mens crew neck so it will blend in better woth the world with guys wraring regilar t shirts. I do wish the church would offer the silk screen markings on the inside so guys wouldnt need to wear 2 t shirts at times. |