To outsiders there is little more fascinating about the Mormon religion than the underwear that Mormon temple initiates are expected to wear day and night. As one former believer put it, “I’ve been an exmo since 1967. All that time, the underwear questions were the first ones I got from people who found out I had been Mormon. A friend brought it up again last week at lunch.” Another former Mormon agrees: “When people first find out I’m exmo, their first question/comment almost ALWAYS is, ‘So what is the deal with the magic underwear?!’ Honest! People outside the morg are spending WAY too much time thinking about garmies!” (DC)
(“Garmies” is insider slang for the sacred undergarments prescribed by the religion’s founder, Joseph Smith.)
Some outside interest may be driven simply by curiosity: Mormons have sacred underwear! What do they look like? Or incredulity: Religious leaders can tell women to wear undershirts with special symbols all the time beneath their bras and people do it?! But that’s not the whole story.
The idea of sacred, secret underwear seems a little kinky, at least to some outsiders. Commenters on blogs and forums confess the attraction. “I tell you guys who grew up taking “undergarments” for granted- WE in the not-know find these items fetching indeed [Here in Idaho].” (Kymba) “Mine had been in the bottom of my closet in a moving box, in a paper bag for 5 years until a couple weekends ago when I modeled them for my boyfriend, he was intrigued by the whole thing and found them to be very sexy.” (Randy) It only makes sense that some subset of us would find the idea of Mormon undies titillating. They are novel, they are hidden, they are taboo, and they are in constant contact with genitalia.
But are they kinky to insiders?
It’s hard to get a balanced sample from active Mormons, because the Garments, as I said, are sacred, and catering to the curiosity of prurient outsiders would violate a covenant sworn during the same temple ceremony in which a Mormon gets authorized to wear the Garment. Unfortunately those who have been fantasizing about a romp in which layers of white cotton create the perfect sense of mystery (or bondage), exMormons offer few words of encouragement. Discomfort seems to be the predominant theme.
I was continuously battling wedgies–often in public; how the people would stare as I would try to wrestle crumpled material out of my crack. Lady DB
If you have ever worn the modern ones you should appreciate the distance these have come. When I first got married they came in a one piece get up with a wide neck so you could step into them. The back had a split crotch (not the kind in kinky panties) but this huge wide sloppy split that would separate under your clothes, leaving a draft in your nether region much of the time. The little panel they sew into the ladies special part was so poorly designed that it would roll and twist till you felt like you were skewered by a roll of old toilet paper. Insanad
Of all of the things about Mo-dom, the thing I miss the least is the underwear. Zapotec
Theologically, Mormon undergarments are said to be symbols of a covenant between God and the believer. Initiates pantomime their own death should they violate this sacred trust. The underwear have sacred symbols drawn from the Masonic Order into which Joseph Smith was initiated shortly before he proclaimed God’s desire that people wear the Garment. True believing Mormons avoid allowing Garments to touch the ground. They may cut off and burn the symbols when a Garment itself is worn out.
I thought the kitchen was on fire a few times until I found my mom burning the “sacred symbols” in tin cans before she cut the underwear into dust cloths. I was slapped a time or two for letting them fall or drag on the floor when I did laundry as a child. Cheryl
In Mormon folk religion, Garments have special powers. Stories are told of wearers being saved from bullets or fiery death in a car crash. One story tells of a Mormon soldier during WWII who was killed by a Japanese flame thrower – but his Garment survived intact. The stories go back to Joseph Smith himself, who died in a hail of bullets without his Garment on. His companion, Willard Richards, who was wearing his, emerged unscathed. Mormon historian Hubert Bancroft described the incident in his 1890 History of Utah, “This Garment protects from disease, and even death, for the bullet of an enemy will not penetrate it. The Prophet Joseph carelessly left off this Garment on the day of his death, and had he not done so, he would have escaped unharmed.”
Today such accounts are not investigated or endorsed by the church authorities. The Catholic hierarchy has an established procedure for assessing claims about weeping statues or a miracles cures, but the Mormon hierarchy largely ignores stories about the real world protective powers of the white underwear. In 1988, Mormon authorities asserted that the Garment serves as a protection “against temptation and evil.” Unfortunately, ordinary believers may take the broader protective power of their Garments seriously, sometimes with painful consequences.
Flame swept up my arm and no clothing burned at all except the entire sleeve and part of the shoulder of the Garment that burned/melted. I was burned where the material melted into globules. I was a good person. They did not work as claimed. I will never ever forget that day. AmIDarkNow
My TBM (True Believing Mormon) father was a radiologist and believed that his garmies would protect him from radiation. Needless to say, the bonehead died of leukemia at 49. Jeebus
Taking off the Garments is a big step for many people leaving the Mormon religion. Some people feel vulnerable when they first abandon the white regulation underclothes.
Well, I still remember the first time I took them off. Half wondered if I was going to die in a car wreck. nonyabiz
I was on the look out for the death from no garmies too for a bit!! Oh good Lord!makesmyheadspin
But others experience a sense of freedom:
I cannot believe I let another grown man ask my wife and I what kind of underwear we were wearing and volunteer the information with a cheery smile. What was even more sick is that I believed in a tyrannical God that cared about what kind of underwear I was wearing. Mortimer
My hubby and I were cooking on the grill in the back yard. All of a sudden the wind changed, a flame leaped out of the grill and came straight at my chest. I looked down and saw it hit my shirt and chest, then arch away from me, back in the direction it came from. I looked down, my plastic buttons weren’t melted and the shirt wasn’t singed at all. I automatically thought in my old morg ways, “my Garments must have protected me!”. THEN….I pulled my shirt collar forward and looked down my shirt… I couldn’t stop laughing!! I had no Garments on!! This was soooo refreshing and invigorating! I had been “protected” and I had no Garments on!! Kathy S
Sometimes the heart of that newfound freedom is freedom to explore sexuality or intimacy.
When we began to just lay together, skin to skin, and talk to each other; to feel each other’s pulse and breath; to simply feel our physical selves, our body-shame began to dissipate. Waking Up
I remember when I first quit wearing my Garments and how feminine I felt. WOW, actually had breasts and a waist. It was very liberating and for the first time in my life I began to feel sexual, not a droid without any sexuality. And even though I didn’t fit the, what I perceived as the ideal, weight, shape, looks, I felt sexy and powerful. anonymous
This is not to say that Mormon Garments have no place in the history or future of erotica. You say tomayto, I say tomaaahhhto. Interestingly, the Garment may owe its existence to Joseph Smith wrestling with his own high libido. As recent research on homosexuality suggests, people who are struggling to contain or suppress their own sexuality may be particularly interested in controlling the sexuality of others. Historians are unclear on the number of women Smith actually married and the number with which he simply had sexual relationships. The list of his wives, first published in the late 19th century, and still debated, includes 27 names. Despite this, Smith preached against polygamy till his death. Was the design of the Garment (then a full body long-sleeved button-up affair) the product of a divine revelation, Smith’s sexual tastes, or his effort to suppress desire? Maybe a better question is what it means to you.
Read more about Mormonism on Awaypoint:
The Same God? Twelve Beliefs the Mormon Church Might Not Want You to Know About
Does Mitt Romney Think He’s a Jew?
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.
Apologies to all of you who expect these articles to be substantive. Last week I was feeling a little wicked — and like I wanted to be on summer vacation. :) If you’d like to learn more about ideosyncratic teachings of the Mormon Church, read this follow-up article I wrote with religion professor Tony Nugent: Twelve Beliefs The Mormon Church Might Not Want You to Know About (https://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/the-same-god-twelve-beliefs-mormons-might-not-want-you-to-know-about/). Tony gets full credit for the research!
Do some research on Mormons. You find out that the hierarchy is very repressivve when it comes to sexuality. The old confession style from Quebec Catholic 1940s is nothing. They get 3rd-degree from priests for masturbation. Family nights often turn into Maoist-style shaming sessions. Forbidden to fantasize, it is sinful. Etc., etc. No wonder they wanted many wives.
I did notice that in the comment threads from ExMormons. It pains me that so many people are willing to submit to shaming.
3rd-degree from priests for masturbation? I’ve been a member my entire life and have no idea what you’re talking about.
Incredible article! How “CRAZY” “The body” makes some religions & religious people. Can’t bear the thought of having to wear such uncomfortable-looking underwear ALL THE TIME! No need to apologize for the lack? of substantive-ness. I thought it was plenty “substantive.” And you did this Work while you were “On Vacation!”
Hey Norma, active Mormon here. In my own opinion, the garments aren’t uncomfortable. Basically the equivalent of an undershirt and boxer-briefs. Lots of different cuts and material to choose from. My wife wears her bra underneath her garments. We take them off for sports, swimming, and sex (obviously). She has an impressive lingerie collection, this is normal.
Ever skinny-dipped as a kid? It was wonderful then–& it’s wonderful now. I was raised in a repressive-of-the-body religion (Seventh-day Adventist); left it right after college, learned to dance & have continued to free my mind, body & spirit ever since. Have been a naturist-nudist for over 30 yrs. I love clothes–AND I love to peel them off–“take off the day” when I come in from the outside world. A great sense of freedom & connection with the Energy of Nature. I LOVE to feel the breeze against my WHOLE body. So sensuous–gives me JOY. You oughta try it sometimes–maybe it’d make you less serious & more alive-looking. Your picture looks like you swallowed a funeral pill. — Norma J. Young
Being nude helps you to connect with nature; it’s the way every animal is born. Do you really think that the god of the universe you believe in cares at all about what you wear? If it’s a reminder of commitment, something simpler, like a ring, would do but, hey, different strokes for different folks.
@Norma: yep, it was good fun! There’s nothing in Mormon doctrine that forbids skinny dipping as far as I know :P That’s obviously not my real picture, but thanks?
@Daniel: i’ll ask him about the ring and get back to you :)
I’m embarassed to admit this, but I had no idea that Mormons had special underwear. There are very few Mormons where I live. It was a fascinating story to me. The garmis were kind of cute. I’m sure they were uncomfortable as some exmos’s admitted. I’m imtrigued by their neat abbreviations such as TBM, Mo-dem, ex-mo, and garmies. An interesting story for me who knows so little about Mormons.
Fun article, Valerie, and actually a bit provocative (psychologically), though not “titillating!”
I’ve wondered a bit about the specifics of how the truly faithful deal with the details of handling the garments… I guess they’ve made special arrangements for having sex… If birth rates are any indicator, they must not be much of a barrier :).
Thanks, Howard. I’d share your assessment that it’s interesting primarily from a psychology of religion standpoint.
Hey Howard, I think I’m one of the “truly faithful” ones you referred to. :P I’ve heard stories of devout Mormons from generations ago who would find creative ways to have sex without completely removing the garments, but I think it’s ridiculous. We take them off for sports, swimming, and sex. My wife has plenty of non-garment options for the latter. :)
Birth rates is another topic altogether! When the church was first getting rolling, the leadership really pushed the “multiply and replenish the Earth” agenda, and it still has some momentum in modern Mormon culture. I got married at 21 (not uncommon in Utah), and have 3 children with one on the way. I’m 30 years old.
That said, members are being encouraged now to plan their families. Get married when you’re ready, have kids when you’re emotionally and fiscally responsible, etc. Cultural pressure to marry earlier and get to the business of making babies is definitely still present, but it’s starting to lose steam.
Hey Mike –
I imagine you realize that among people who aren’t part of a “be fruitful and multiply” religious subculture, one that has sanctified competitive breeding at some point, many think of four children as something that raises moral questions, and it is increasingly unusual for that reason. I am at once admiring of your candor and puzzled at the seeming contradiction.
I will be borrowing the term “competitive breeding” for future conversations, thanks for that. As for the morality question, I know exactly what you mean. I see some families with 8-10 kids and have to wonder if they’re not a little delusional. As a father, I couldn’t see how you could possibly give the individual attention and care that each child needs to that many children (to say nothing of your own sanity). I know in those situations it’s not uncommon for the older children to take on more responsibility in order to stay afloat, but that’s not without cost either.
That said, I have many friends who come from large families that are very well adjusted, educated, successful people. Of course that’s not always the case, and I think parents should use discretion and wisdom in family planning. For my own family, 4 is AMPLE. I have a solid career to support the family, and my wife is happy staying home with the kids. It works for us personally, and I think that’s what matters most.
Thanks, Mike. As one of those older children, in a family where the approach to family planning was “leave it to God”, I saw a lot of suffering that I thought could have been avoided by the more thoughtful approach you are describing. Warmly, Valerie
On a related note, my Mom was telling me about a family she knows who is on the “Leave it to God” birth control plan. I don’t even…
Sir, I really appreciate your sense of humor, tact, and good common sense that’s showing in your replies. It reminds me of the closing monologue from the South Park episode “All About Mormons”: “Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people.” I’ve met a lot of LDS who are just plain Good People, and it seems like you’re one of them, so thanks.
What a silly subject, I thought. But I didn’t have to force myself to read the post through. ;-)
Valerie, I’m confused by this sentence in your final paragraph: “Despite this, Smith preached against polygamy till his death”. Did you mean to write homosexuality instead, because I thought it was Joseph Smith who was the instigator and driving force behind Mormon polygamy?
About a year ago I wrote a blog article comparing the Mormon doctrine of polygamy and various sexual doctrines of the evangelical, fundamentalist cult that entrapped me for years.
From Sex Fiends to Family Values: the LDS and The Family International
I did a similar comparison of delusional belief systems in this article:
Folie a deux: the insane prophets of the Seventh-day Adventists and The Family International
HI Perry –
Apparently Smith gave mixed messages on the subject. Smith’s wife argued that plural marriage in Mormonism was started by Brigham Young. Per an exMormon friend, many Mormons don’t know that Smith had multiple wives.
This from Wikipedia: “Records show that Smith publicly preached and wrote against the doctrine of plural marriage; however, historians wrote that Smith performed dozens of plural marriages. Allegedly, “several were still pubescent girls, such as fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball”. Kimball, Smith’s 28th wife, wrote of her experience of celestial marriage in 1843–44,”
Thanks for that. I based my question on my recollection of reading Jon Krakauer’s book “Under The Banner of Heaven” several years ago where he discusses Mormon history. I guess I forgot some of those fine details of the story.
I read a news article today about Tom Cruise seeing an advance copy of a new movie about Ron Hubbard and Scientology. A remark by one character referring to the Hubbard character says that he is just making the whole ‘religion’ up on the fly. Apparently, Cruise was outraged by that, but the thing is, any outsider looking at cults like the LDS and Scientology can come to no other conclusion than their entire dogmas are just made up fantasies.
As a psychologist, you probably know a lot more about this than I do, but I think there is something to the notion that religion is really just shared delusions, a psychological disorder.
“Folie à deux from the French for “a madness shared by two”) (or shared psychosis) is a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief are transmitted from one individual to another. The same syndrome shared by more than two people may be called folie à trois, folie à quatre, folie en famille or even folie à plusieurs (“madness of many”). Recent psychiatric classifications refer to the syndrome as shared psychotic disorder (DSM-IV) (297.3) and induced delusional disorder (F.24) in the ICD-10, although the research literature largely uses the original name.”
So the NEXT article you will write is an article deriding and making up silly and inaccurate adjectives for the Jewish male wardrobe staple — the Yarmulia or Kippah?!?? Here’s a clue folks, this Mormon underwear is JUST LIKE the Jewish skull cap or a catholic priest’s robe…. so ….Why is this ‘fair game’ to disrespect something that is religiously significant to the Mormon people, but not for any other religion? I know there are some people with find joy in spitting on Catholic statues and giggling at a devout Jew dressed distinctly, but I was expecting better from Americans. I would like an answer from Ms.Tarico herself please. .. or is it: “Yes, it was all just for my amusement this summer… ha ha ” ?
Oh, never expect better from Americans, especially me. :) In all seriousness, I write mostly about evangelicalism, the religion I know best, and one that i believe drives all manner of harm in our world. I have written recently about the Catholic Bishops, specifically because they are willing to sacrifice compassion for children and respect for women on the altar of their arrogant certitude.
One pattern in our world is that when religions encourage tolerance and respect for outsiders, they tend to be given slack, even when it can be easily verified that teachings are false. When religious leaders or adherents engage in intrusive proselytizing; justification of war; efforts to control the personal, sexual, or spiritual lives of outsiders; attempts to rewrite history, organized lobbying to turn dogma into public policy . . . . that’s another story. The Mormon church is engaged in a massive PR campaign that focuses on some aspects of the religion (like the fact that people with brown skin are now allowed to become temple initiates) but not others (like the fact that they are required to wear the Garment). Why? Because one is respect worthy and one isn’t. It has also chosen to weigh in against civil rights in this country. In other words, the Church itself has chosen to make itself part of the public spectacle.
Thanks for the response. You have made some valid points. You are very passionate about same sex unions, I surmise… fine. My take away is that you think that since the Mormon church has become active in promoting the defeat of same sex marriage laws, they deserve this. I understand your feelings. Now if we were to apply this criteria across the baord then those who are adamantly opposed to the civil rights of a woman to choose an abortion say then the Catholic church is now fair game to be written up. Every devote Catholic that posts a virgin Mary image on their car window.. they are foolish magic bumper sticker morons? Every rosary sold is a magic trinket to be giggled at. Or that every Catholic nun is a magic garment wearing numbskull…. Or that Jews who don’t see the civil rights of Palestinians the same as you, their kippah caps are really dunce caps? Or the Muslims who don’t see the civil rights of women the same as you, they are to be documented online as foolish or evil, imbecilic drones with magic beards and head coverings? So, these are all fair game in blogs and alternet articles… let’s see if any articles show up, or will it continue to be the Mormons who are singled out.
Images ridiculing orthodox jewish garb the popemobile, the virgin mary, etc. abound on nontheist blogs, cartoons and such. Your assertion that Mormons are singled out because of this one article is somewhat puzzling.
Is there some reason Mormons should be exempt from having their superstitions exposed?
I wore the magic underwear for about seven years. What do I have to say for myself? I was trying to be a good kid, make loved ones happy, do what I thought was right at the time. ;)
No special underwear, but it sounds like otherwise we were on similar trajectories. :)
Perhaps the underwear issue is a compensatory exercise to cover their shame a-la-the-creation myth? How weird religious initiates or every religion can be!
Hey Bruce, active Mormon here. I wouldn’t say “compensatory” necessarily, but the temple garment does tie in to the creation story. It is meant to be used a spiritual shield (I don’t take that too literally, personally) and as a reminder of the promises we make with God in the temple. In that way, you may compare it to how many Christians carry a cross to remind them of Christ’s life and teachings. Fun tangential fact: Mormons don’t carry crosses, display them on their churches, or their bibles. The garments serve as a personal reminder to the person wearing them, and aren’t meant to show off their devotion to God to others.
As far as the creation story goes, I believe in science and evolution. I believe God to be a God of science, that the rules apply to his work. In that sense, I don’t literally believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. I don’t literally believe that the Earth was created in 7 days. But I do believe he was responsible for organizing it, or putting it into motion, even if it was over the course of billions of years. I also he believe he created many other worlds. This is my own personal belief, so take it for what it’s worth.
Mike, from your comments here you seem to be an individual with a good head on his shoulders! Your thoughtful responses and no-offense taken demeanor are what more people need to bring to conversations about their religions :)
While we’ve got this open dialogue, I’m interested to know how literally you take the teachings of your own religion… for example, do you believe that there were Jewish people living in North America, complete with thriving cities and wars being fought, roughly 2,000 years ago? If so, do you believe that the resurrected Jesus Christ came and visited them?
Those are two of my more pressing questions. Thanks for your openness; even if you choose not to answer me, the insight you have provided thus far has been fascinating!
Hey Soe, thanks! One of my best friends is an atheist, so we’ve learned to be respectful of each others’ beliefs, and have had some really interesting conversations that didn’t end in either of us wanting to kill the other. So that’s a win! :)
To answer your questions, yes, I do literally believe that a small group of Jews traveled across the Atlantic and populated parts of the Americas. I also do believe that the resurrected Christ visited them. In John 10:16, Christ is recorded saying,
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
We believe that the people he visited in the Americas were some of these other sheep. And although there’s no record of it in the Book of Mormon, it’s not a stretch to think he may have visited people of other countries as well.
Thanks for another interesting article Valerie, I always learn something new from your work! I have mormon relatives and had a cousin in my wedding 20 years ago who had to remodel her whole bridesmaids dress to make it work over the underwear, it was my first exposure and I think you’d have to be raised that way to put up with it…like many religions. It’s another sign of control over the masses,I just hope that people who are raised in a restrictive cult or “religion” can try to think for themselves and not just believe what they are told. Also, when I was in her wedding in UT we couldn’t actually be in the “real” ceremony, being nonmormons, and then I found out her younger siblings couldn’t be in it either as they were too young to participate in the ceremony. I haven’t done the research but I always wondered why you have to be over 18 to be there. Thoughts?
I don’t know what their reasoning is. To their credit, I would say that it seems right to me that a person should have to be an adult before committing to a religion. Evangelicals try to exploit even kindergarteners with targetted conversion activities.
That bridesmaid dress is quite the story.
“I haven’t done the research but I always wondered why you have to be over 18 to be there.”
That comment reminded me of this recent blog article:
“What Happened When I Tried to Leave the Mormon Church — 3 Times”
“The bishop grew quiet for a moment and then said, with a note of regret in his voice, “Are you sure? You sound too young to make such a big decision. I don’t want you to do anything you might end up regretting.”
“Yes,” I told him, full of youthful conviction and not a little bit of resentment that he was speaking to me like a father grieving his wayward daughter, “I am sure about this.” I would berate myself later for not pointing out that if 8 is old enough to be baptized into the church, then 19 should be old enough to leave it. But in the moment, I was too insecure to argue with a man that sounded like my father.”
Hi Michelle, active Mormon here. The “real” ceremony is what we refer to as the sealing ceremony. Only “endowed” members of the church who hold a current temple recommend are allowed within the temple. The majority of members will obtain a recommend around the age of 18-21, depending on their spiritual preparedness (usually). There’s nothing secretive about the ceremony itself. An officiator asks the couple to kneel in front of an alter, hold hands, and he reads them their vows. These vows are more of an eternal nature, rather than the traditional “until death do you part”. Hope that clears a few things up. I’m happy to answer any other questions.
As far as covenants with the Gods goes it surely beats the heck out of circumcision. But in Florida though?
Pingback: Can the Church Prevail Against… the Internet?
I just got these and my husband finds them sexy. they are also the most comfortable pair of underwear I have ever owned. The pic you show has people who have lose fit garments. They are possibly not measured correctly. I can’t find anywhere online that agrees with me about this. I find that very sad. All I find is negativity, not positivity. That is so awful. The church is true, the endowment is amazing. I have been reading all these things prior to my joining the church as well as after and I find no truth in any of it. Are people really so shallow that wearing underwear has to be sexy? Being sexy is not about underwear but how one feels. Be comfortable in your own skin but don’t use your self esteem as a crutch against the truth.
Agreed! That picture looks outdated. Garments have come a long way, and are really comfortable. Different styles, lengths, and materials to choose from as well. My wife has an impressive lingerie collection for sexytimes. I’ve heard outlandish rumors that some Mormons never take their garments off, even during sex. That’s ridiculous.
“ST,” It’s not ABOUT the underwear having to be sexy. I go for COMFORTABLE over sexy any day for regular wear. HOWEVER, to HAVE to wear the underwear all the time (except for making love) is to me based on inappropriate BODILY shame (instilled by shame-promoting religions). Our bodies are beautiful & nothing to be ashamed of! Don’t you crave–even one little bit–to have the wind blow against your bare skin — or skinny dip with “Nothing” between you and “God” but the Love Energy that you and “God” are supposed to Be?
There’s no reason why we can’t do that. Skinny dipping and going skyclad are still okay. Also, the garments are quite comfortable for me as well. Those are things we cannot reasonably do with the garments on, so we can take them off. Why so serious? It’s really not about seriousness. It’s a remembrance and a protection. If you feel they don’t work that way for you, I’m sure you’ll still be okay. My whole issue for originally posting is that my husband found them to be sexy on me and I was trying to find others who felt the same. Not finding that, I figured by posting it here, it would help others not feel alone about it.
It’s sad to think there really are people who think a deity cares about the kind of undergarments they wear. Skin is the only garment endorsed by nature. Nude when possible, clothed when necessary is a logical way to live. –Dan
I just saw to whom you made the “nude when possible clothed when necessary” comment. –Norma
Pingback: There’s a religion for that | manRebollo
When married Mormon women want to have an affair, those garments act like a chastity belt, but manageable.
Pingback: A chat with Josh – Part 1 | /dev/null
Pingback: The Youthful Elders – Bewilderbeast Droppings
Pingback: There’s a religion for that – manRebollo