How many of us recognized wearing garments ('day & night') as instruments of repression?

back in the day ... we called them passion killers! how apt was That !!!?

It's understood that males are sometimes / often more visually oriented than (most) females, agreed?

your comments, please

When I was single, women who knew what garments were all about wouldn't have sex with me because it was a sin. And I was too embarrassed by my weird long johns to have potential non-Mormon sexual partners see me wearing them. So I was a virgin until after I left the church.

In the military, military-issued eye glasses are utilitarian and ugly. But some guys wear them regardless. We always called the "BCG's," for "birth control glasses," because if you wore them, it would guarantee that you'd never get laid. So I think of garments like that, "birth control underwear." DW still wears them, and I have to look away.

My opinion is garments keep couples from what I'll call passive intimacy.

At night a couple free to wear anything or nothing to bed will most likely have more skin on skin contact while sleeping. More transfer of warmth.

Snuggling is more intimate. A caress more likely to be on skin.

A more openess to each other.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My opinion is garments keep couples from what I'll
> call passive intimacy.
>
> At night a couple free to wear anything or nothing
> to bed will most likely have more skin on skin
> contact while sleeping. More transfer of warmth.
>
> Snuggling is more intimate. A caress more likely
> to be on skin.
>
> A more openess to each other.

I agree.

If you are a "Touch Person" ("The Five Love Languages," by Gary Chapman), touching of all kinds is really important--especially including when you are both together in bed.

P.S. "The Five Love Languages" is (in my opinion) a "must have" book for people in a relationship, or people who would like very much to be in a relationship.

The "Five Love Languages" Chapman discovered are:
1) Words of Affirmation
2) Acts of Service
3) Gifts
4) Quality Time
5) Physical Touch.

There is another Love Language as well, which Chapman did not write about: Special Occasions (birthdays; anniversaries; holidays; could be vacations or getaways of some kind, etc.). To those who are "Special Occasions" people, "Special Occasions" are every bit as important as any of Chapman's original five Love Languages.

If you "speak" to your partner in YOUR PARTNER's Love Language(s), and your partner "speaks" to you in YOUR Love Language(s), you and your partner are very likely to have a far more deeply satisfying, and far better overall, relationship than would otherwise be the case.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2020 01:56AM by Tevai.

"It's understood that males are sometimes / often more visually oriented than (most) females, agreed?"

Hence-Victoria's Secret.

The ecclesiastical heirarchy of the mormon church uses this to exercise the final ultimate step in mind control!
Sexual intercourse is a natural genetic human function. Repressing it leads to all kinds of emotional and even physical problems.
The powers that be do not care one whit about the members. They only care about the power they wield.
Therefore the use of garments for repression is only a natural course of events.
Aanother nail in the casket of Mormonism!

First, the Mormon birthrate really does not suggest that there is a sexual repression problem in that community. On the contrary -- they seem obsessed with sex.

Second, research has debunked the idea that men are somehow innately "more visual" than women. All animals with sight are "visual." What does happen is that most cultures actively encourage men to judge women's looks, while discouraging women from judging men's. It's just another manifestation of the mindset that treats women as a resource to be shopped for/exploited/discarded.

I don't agree that birth rate is a valid measure or indicator of sexuality or sexual repression, we all know how Mormon culture effects birth rates...

I do agree that cultute teaches or encourages men to be somewhat more visually oriented. This is partly reversed in waterfowl where drakes are more colorful than hens. Nature does play a part in these matters.

Passing thru Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, the Mormon birthrate really does not
> suggest that there is a sexual repression problem
> in that community. On the contrary -- they seem
> obsessed with sex.

I'm not sure an obsession with procreation is necessary the same as an obsession with sex. In fact, I suspect that once a couple has two or three children, they will almost certainly have much much less sex than a childless couple.

Passing thru Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

“Second, research has debunked the idea that men are somehow innately "more visual" than women. All animals with sight are "visual." What does happen is that most cultures actively encourage men to judge women's looks, while discouraging women from judging men's. It's just another manifestation of the mindset that treats women as a resource to be shopped for/exploited/discarded.”

==I am skeptical of that claim.
There are plenty of porn magazines for men and they make a lot of money back in the day, before the internet. Porn magazines for women are a rarity.
There are nudy clubs everywhere. There aren’t many for women.
It is always the boys who are peeping toms.
I heard somewhere that 99% of pedophiles are men. 99% of sexual predators are men (me who focus on teens).
In the case of predator women, the teen boy is not against the sex yet they put the women in jail.
From what I hear, the time that such women serve in jail is much shorter than the men.

I remember a documentary about a girl trying to be a boy. She is a transsexual. He said that when he began taking the hormones (I assume he meant testosterone), his libido skyrocketed. He was thinking of sex every day.

“that most cultures actively encourage men to judge women's looks”

==Nobody is encouraging me to do anything. I’m a guy. Everyone knows the stats.

~~~~iceman9090

a bigger problem was wedgies wearing those things. I mean, you know, getting all tangled up. Could be lethal.

Wearing garments made my non member husband confess to me after years of marriage that it was the biggest turn off ever and just the thought that I was wearing them underneath my clothing instead of regular under garments was enough to forget about sex. So for years, our sex life was horrible and I never knew why. Then after the "airing out", I was forbidden to wear them to bed EVER because it was taking its toll on our relationship. Been inactive for 20 years due to that and "history" coming to light. Just to be transparent, I haven't been inactive from God. My messianic Jewish roots won't let me go that far. And in case there's some of Elder Holland's scrubbed from the internet "oh we have our spies" reading this who used to work for the See Eye A but now work at church headquarters, F--- You in advance. You're all going to hell in gasoline underwear.

The Mormon garment wearing requirement is really a means to an end; namely, controlling (or attempting to control) what church members do with their bodies, and though none use garments, religions and governments the world over are in to controlling human sexual behavior as a means to control humans themselves.

To illustrate this point, back in 1990 after the collapse of Soviet support for eastern Europe which in turned forced many of their puppet governments to collapse, Playboy Magazine (yes, I did receive it in braille) reported that (and it had to be hearsay) a lot of people in those eastern European countries began engaging in a lot of frowned-upon sexual behaviors once the opressive governments with their regressive sexual policies were overthrown or laid to waste.

Gees, what's next Playboy? Giving cigarettes to trees?

Garments were/are a big part of sexual repression with my TBM wife. Touching them or even the sight of them were an instant turn-off...because of what the represent AND because they are so f-ing ugly. They are an absolute boner killer.

Skin-to-skin contact is so important to a relationship..especially in bed. My wife refused to take them off except for pre-arranged sex...since it was impossible being spontaneous if she was wearing them (see above).

I felt that we were in bed every night with the 15 old guys from SLC. I rarely could bring myself to cuddle with her...because of the 15 old guys that were between us.

I felt totally ripped off when I all could touch of her skin in bed was her calves...although they were nice ones. If I wanted rub her back, I was only allowed to do it on top of the garments...I usually declined...because of the 15 old guys...ick! And heaven forbid I try to sneak under the garments...my hand was quickly brushed away. So I'd just roll over the other way and go to sleep. Sad.

You are never allowed to take off these magic underwear?

~~~~iceman9090

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are never allowed to take off these magic
> underwear?
>
> ~~~~iceman9090
not according to the temple ordinance