Comments on: Guest Post: G Love

By: Ashley

Ashley — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:18:05 +0000

Garments are the least sexiest, feminine thing on the planet. I get claustrophobic wearing them, not to mention they are UGLY! This may be TMI but women need vaginal support, just like men!, I hate having the crotch sag all the way to my knees! They had to have been designed by men in the 1800′s. No woman in her right mind would EVER design underwear to fit or look like this. I agree, I HATE the lace, it is itchy and ugly. I hate that the waist band gives me muffin top- I dont when I wear normal underwear?? Something needs to be changed. Get rid of the sleeves, if an undershirt is necessary make it camisol! I don’t think my underwear need to hang past my knees. I have also thought that maybe they should only be worn in the temple. It may sound bad of me, but I really despise them and want to scream every time I put them on. I reluctantly wear them which is probably just as bad as not wearing them in the first place.
We should start a petition to get them re-designed. I think the last time they did so was when the went from longsleeve (to the wrist) and when the used to go down to the ankles.
I have had this conversation with many faithful members, it is TIME to fix garments!

By: Amy

Amy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:23:46 +0000

The garments are a blessing. Instead of focusing on the things you hate, focus on the blessings associated with them. Return often to the temple and remember why you wear them in the first place. I just started wearing them and although they are different than regular underwear, I am truly grateful for them.

By: name

name — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:30:27 +0000

Good day!,

By: name

name — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:03:24 +0000

P7HIWV Hello!,

By: name

name — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:22:33 +0000

I’ve more or less been doing nothing to speak of. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Today was a loss. My life’s been really bland today, but so it goes.,

By: Erica

Erica — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:48:55 +0000

I used to complain about garments when I first started wearing them. Yes, shopping can be frustrating. I am going through a very hard time in my marriage. I did not fully appreciate what garments symbolize until now. We are to be in the world and not of it. I think that when we focus on what bothers us it is only magnified. I dress in style. I have to say the hardest thing to find is evening wear that doesn’t look like a grandma. Maby try the bottoms that fit kind of like biker shorts. I wear my tops pretty small and I never have any problems with bunching or them peeking out. I think it is important to focus on the blessing of wearing garments and dressing modestly, rather than how we are restricted.

By: A. CLEMONS

A. CLEMONS — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:38:18 +0000

Well,
I have to agree with THE SCOUTMASTER. I have been a faithful G-wearer for over 13 years now, and while I appreciate the improvements that have been made over the past decade, it sure would be nice to see some more.
The Church is getting so much bigger, and more and more innocent women are being afflicted with the “bunching layer” dilemma. Surely SOMETHING can be done!
I have a friend from Itlay who is tiny—really tiny. (My seven year old could wear her clothes…and probably her G’s.) This friend swears that European g’s are smaller and more snug fitting than the ones available here. SO—maybe we should all move to Europe.

By: anony mouse

anony mouse — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:01:51 +0000

I just went and looked around the ldscatalog site and saw that they 100% cotton chemise style tops supposedly don’t have any lace on them. Has anyone tried these? I ordered a few to test them out. I’ll let you know what I think

By: anony mouse

anony mouse — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:55:41 +0000

I wonder if any of you ladies have tried wearing the men’s tops? I like that they don’t have the lace and I’ve seriously been considering it. The symbols are the same, right?

Also, I’ve always wondered why women get these thin wimpy waitbands and men get a strong stretchy one. If there weren’t the extra ‘bulk’ in front I’d be tempted to try men’s bottoms, too!

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:17:47 +0000

Rusty,
I understand where you’re coming from and respect your opinion. But for me, even the covering is symbolic and can be substituted with a more user friendly alternative without any loss of symbolism. Otherwise, we’d only wear Gs of animal skins to better maintain the symbolism of the first Gs coming from slaughtered animals. Since the whole thing is symbolic, the GAs are free to update things at any time, just as they periodically update Temple procedures and instructions. A temple pendant could even have a depiction of the first animal sacrifice and Adam and Eve departing wearing the skins and the reverse side could be a depiction of Jesus suffering through the real sacrifice that allows us back into G-d’s presence.

Scoutmaster, personally I’ll pass on the tattoos, but you can bet your bottom dollar some LDS person out there has already done it.