It’s been all over the news –
“New Tank Top Garments!!”
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/10/16/lds-temple-garments-women-rejoice/
Lines out the door!
Lines down the block!
LDS women THRILLED to have some more freedom;
To desperately grasp at ANY straw of any sort of bodily autonomy that the LDS church will give them.
Something we NEVER thought we would ever hear in a million years!
And we were THRILLED! For the new freedoms LDS women will have with how they can dress with garments. Clothing styles opening up. More freedom of self-expression.
But, while there were may positives to this change…
It’s also a very SHARP, double-edged sword.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/06/modesty-matters?lang=eng
As a young woman, I, “the wife,” grew up with this type of messaging –
“COVER your shoulders.”
“No low-cut in the front or back.”
“No extreme styles.”
Imagine how insane it sounded to me when I became an adult, and witnessed women buying the low-cut v-neck breast-feeding garment tops to accommodate lower-cut shirts.
Or when the church announced its tank top garments.
Recently there was a family gathering on my husband’s side.
It was on a Sunday; which, honestly, was kind of progressive for my husband’s extremely-Mormon family.
But of course, it being a Sunday, half of everyone was still dressed in their Sunday best, their church clothes from going to church earlier in the day. I don’t know if all households were like this; but my mother would stay in her church clothes all day on Sundays to “keep the spirit of the sabbath.”
We had recently left the church, and so I picked a very pretty Lacey top. It was brown, with thicker tank top straps, and was not see-through. While the v-cut was slightly deeper than a normal tank top, I being a smaller-chested girl, it did not show any cleavage.
I wore it with a regular pair of jeans and some sneakers.
I believed it to be perfectly acceptable for the family setting, while also being something I thoroughly enjoyed wearing and felt beautiful in.
Everything was going just fine;
Until I was waiting in line for food, and my husband’s aunt, dressed in a floor length jean skirt and full-coverage, very Mormon-modest top, came up behind me and stated, sarcastically;
“Wow, aren’t YOU dressed for the weather!”
It threw me off, and I couldn’t think of something to say quick enough.
My husband jumped in, irritated slightly, and told her “well yeah, it’s really hot out!”
His aunt didn’t say anything after that.
The comment on my shirt was completely unnecessary.
The point of her comment?
Absolutely nothing.
Nothing but to point out the fact that I wasn’t wearing garments like the rest of them.
–
Growing up, even before I was endowed, I was NEVER allowed to wear tank tops, and my shorts practically went to my knees. I envied the girls who were allowed a little more freedom of choice in their fashion decisions.
I have a vivid memory of being on the women’s basketball team, and how the team wanted to wear their jerseys to school for the home game that day. I remember wearing my tank top jersey that day to school; my first time ever actually wearing a tank top to school;
The sleeves were capped; it was barely considered a tank top.
But still; I felt like I was rebelling; I had a rush of exhilaration of being able to wear something I had always wanted to wear, but was never allowed to.
But I also felt shame; and started questioning myself at age 13;
“Should I have just worn a basketball team t-shirt instead and changed into the Jersey right before the game to stay modest?”
“Were people talking about how I was dressing wrong today?”
The thoughts were all in my head, of course. And no harm occurred from wearing my barely-considered-a-tank-top basketball jersey to school;
But the way the Mormon church had programmed me, had me spiraling all day over the decision to wear my jersey.
https://www.margiesmessages.com/mormonadsmodesty.html
I overheard my mother and little sister recently talking about the new garment tops. And they made a comment that stuck with me –
“It was never about modesty.”
This statement was sharp like a knife.
Because my mother herself was the one who raised me, and taught me, before I was even endowed, that I needed to cover up;
don’t show my shoulders. Cover my stomach. No bikinis. Longer shorts.
And now here she was, 10 years later, claiming that “it was never about modesty.”
It’s interesting.
I still get a little nervous dressing “immodestly” (according to Mormon standards) around my family members.
I told this to my mom, and she responded with “We don’t care what you wear; why would you think we would care about that?”
This, coming from the same woman who refused to allow me to wear any tank tops (even thicker-strapped ones), mid-thigh shorts, any shirt that didn’t fully cover my stomach, or swimsuits that revealed even an inch of stomach.
And she had the gall to ask me why I would be nervous wearing what I wear now, around her?
It was as if she genuinely did not remember the pressures she put on me growing up.
And that’s the magic of the church’s subtle brainwashing and gaslighting.
And they’re damn good at it, too.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/06/modesty-matters?lang=eng
So then, if it was never about modesty; why was I denied the chance to wear what I wanted growing up?
Nothing crazy, just an occasional tank top or shorts that went slightly above the middle of my thigh at times.
If it was never about modesty, and was instead about covenant-keeping once endowed, why did I grow up with such a strict dress code before I reached endowment age?
If it was never about modesty, why did my mother refer me to the for the strength of youth handbook multiple times to read up on what I could and couldn’t wear in regards to what was “modest” and what was not? At least; by the standards of the church.
And don’t get me wrong; we’re thrilled there are more options for LDS members and things are becoming more progressive.
However, to gaslight ex-members who are upset over the garment and modesty-standard changes,
Is extremely close minded and oblivious to the ways the church originally taught and preached modesty – to women especially.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng
If it was never about modesty, then why were women who dressed “immodestly” labeled “pornography?”
“Patrons of pornography.”
To be told that our exposed bodies meant we were literally walking pornography “to some of the men who see” us.
To be told by the church, to young girls, to cover up for the sake of men’s eyes?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng
To tell young girls that dressing “immodestly” meant DEATH?! Spiritual death.
DO WE UNDERSTAND the gravity of how DEEP that type of wording burrows into its victims?
The trauma and FEAR of spiritually DYING for wearing a tank top?!
This is the type of rhetoric a lot of us ex-members grew up with.
So yes; while we are thrilled for current members who get a little more freedom;
We are deeply hurt by the shame and guilt the church laid on us about exposing our bodies; even just our shoulders.
And many ex-members struggle to know how to dress themselves today, as a result of that harmful messaging and rhetoric.
The stories of girls being shamed at girls camp or youth activities are endless; all you need is a simple google search or to talk to those around you about their stories.
When I was a young women’s leader, I remember becoming frustrated with the youth activities.
The boys could run around shirtless, carefree, with bathing trunks as short as they wanted.
The young women, however?
They were told to cover up. No bikinis, only one-pieces.
Half of our girls were wearing oversized t-shirts to cover the inch of stomach that was showing in their swimsuits, just so they could participate in the water activities the ward so loved doing.
The hypocrisy is roaring.
Why do the girls need to be sitting uncomfortable in a sloppy, soaking wet t-shirt just so the boys can feel better while they run around completely shirtless and carefree?
The difference – girls bodies are sexualized merely for existing.
If you’re going to make the girls cover their stomachs; at least make it fair, and make the boys wear shirts, too.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/06/modesty-matters?lang=eng
It is not a woman’s job to manage the sexuality of a man.
Modesty is cultural.
Some countries have full-on nudist beaches and they are normal as can be.
Other countries demand women cover not only their bodies but faces as well in loose-fitting clothing.
Modesty. Is. Cultural.
Societal.
Differs.
The lesson here – Women’s bodies are always policed because society tends to sexualize the bodies of women for the crime of just existing.
In the name of making men more comfortable around the bodies of 12-year-old girls.
To place the accountability for sexual assault, harassment, and worse on the heads of women;
To allow men an escape off the hook if they act inappropriately.
Demanding that women and girls dress a certain way,
Is not a valid thing to do. It’s ridiculous; stupid. Unfair. Sexist.
It is not a girls fault if she looks pretty. If she was born with a certain body.
Why shame them for how they were born?
A body is a body.
And society sexualizes them just for the reality of their existence.
How unfair and unjust that is.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/06/modesty-matters?lang=eng
The LDS church used to have very strict and obvious standards for dress.
Standards we women were shamed for not following.
Not being allowed into “Mormon prom” or stake dances if our dresses showed our shoulders, were “too high” above the knee, if the back or front dipped too much, if our stomachs showed even slightly…
And while we are ecstatic for current members;
The pain and memories of being shamed for our bodies remains.
And that’s something that needs to be acknowledged;
Not gaslit.
https://www.margiesmessages.com/mormonadsmodesty.html
But the church has done a very, very good job of subtly and slowly changing their messaging.
Even so, that my own mother who was so very strict with my own dress code;
Somehow was not remembering the things she taught me growing up;
The conference talks she heard;
The articles and messages she read.
And now she fully believes that it was “never about modesty.”
From one extreme to the other.
The church is VERY good at gaslighting its own members.
And the members in turn, gaslight those who have left.
“You didn’t understand the spirit of the law.”
“That never happened.”
“It was never about modesty.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/06/modesty-matters?lang=eng
I remember when I first got endowed.
I was having a panic attack.
It was the first couple of days after being endowed and starting to wear garments, that I was driving with my mother in the car.
I was getting extremely overstimulated with the garments; they felt tight; restrictive. Wouldn’t sit right. Kept rolling up and having to re-adjust. Uncomfortable.
I couldn’t breathe.
I felt like clawing them off of my body.
I remember yelling about it to my mom; how I HATED these garments.
And my mom? She responded by shaming me for speaking negatively about the garments.
“Be careful how you speak about your garments!”
I brought this memory up to my mom once.
She claims she doesn’t remember it.
But it is such a vivid memory in my own mind; I’ll never forget it.
“The garments are more important than your ability to breathe.”
That was the subconscious message I got from it.
So I sat still, scared after what my mom said to speak out against the garments for fear of retaliation of my soul by God Himself.
And I silently suffered, struggled, and tried to figure out how to feel beautiful in them.
Plot twist; I never did.
https://www.margiesmessages.com/mormonadsmodesty.html
When my husband and I were sealed in the temple, even my wedding dress was garment-appropriate.
I sacrificed the style of dress I had always dreamed of on my wedding day;
For one that was church-approved.
I’m not sure why the church LOVES plainness.
And hates anything extravagant and beautiful.
Why they hate “extreme” personal styles and self-expression. Why that is considered “worldly” instead of ART.
I can understand where it comes from – the idea that the sealing/wedding ceremony is God-focused, and “not worldly.” That “putting off worldly things” in the church’s eyes brings one’s focus towards God.
But then a couple’s wedding ceremony doesn’t become about them and their love;
It becomes all about god, and how marriage is just the next step to get into that highest degree of heaven.
But that’s a whole other topic for another time.
The church’s desire to have “plainness” in clothing reminds me of the FLDS break-off, where women wear the exact same wrist-length floor-length dresses and hair styles.
That also would explain why many “weddings” are held in run-down church buildings on a basketball court that’s half-decorated.
But I’m getting off topic again.
I would like to believe that God delights in individuality, expression, and art.
That God would see the creativity His children have in the world He created for them.
People are REALLY creative, artistic, and have ingenious ideas involving self-expression and style!
People have HUNDREDS of different body types they are born with.
Clothing is NOT a “one size fits all;” and what might work on one person, will NOT work on another.
So why try to box everyone, who are already born so very naturally diverse, into the same box?
They won’t all fit.
I try very hard not to get angry or irritated when I see active LDS women not wearing the temple garment the way I was raised to wear them; every night and day. Not taken off if you can help it.
But I have heard current, active members state “it was never about modesty;” and half the time, if they have that mindset, they oftentimes don’t wear the garments on a regular daily basis.
They wear whatever tf they want;
even after being endowed and given their garments.
And honestly; HELL YEAH.
More props to them!!
HOWEVER…
…making the claim that states that “the church said garments are optional and between you and God,” however…
NOT a true thing.
The church does indeed have specific regulations and mandates on how its members are supposed to wear their garments;
And they even made it a temple recommend question;
one you have to pass to qualify for a temple recommend to enter the temple.
Which you need to enter the highest degree of heaven, in Mormon theology;
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend
So although we applaud the bold LDS women who are taking control of their own bodily autonomy and not allowing a religion to sexualize their bodies or dictate what to wear or what not to wear;
According to the CHURCH and THEIR standards;
The garment IS supposed to be worn night and day, for the REST of your life.
But women are drowning in the lack of bodily autonomy.
And they’re coming up with justifications to try and live within church standards without living the church standards;
I’ve seen many an LDS woman living in gym clothes or active-wear; justifying that “because they’re working out at 2pm today, I don’t need to wear my garments at all today since I need to wear my gym clothes.”
“It’s summer and hot and I don’t want the sweat to yellow them, so I’m just not going to wear them all summer.”
“I’m not modifying the garments, I’m just stretching after I put them on, and they’re naturally going up my legs and getting shorter in that way.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/temple-garment-faq
And don’t even get me STARTED on “garment-checking.”
The church has done such a good job at getting into it’s member’s heads about covering up,
That their own members act as their internal “police;” always watching each other, analyzing one another’s outfits, whispering and gossiping about who’s wearing their garments and who’s not.
But your body, and your modesty, is supposed to be a relationship between you and God; is it not?
–
Body policing is SUFFOCATING.
Stop trying to police people’s bodies.
Bodies are bodies and no two bodies are exactly the same.
The sexualization of girls as young as they are, of children, leads to body image issues, shame, eating disorders, self harm, and a lack of reporting sexual assault and harassment.
It teaches boys that girls’ bodies are to be lusted over; not admired in non-sexual manners.
To make them feel guilty for liking the way a girl looks.
For feeling attraction to a girl before marriage.
It’s unhealthy, and intervenes in normal, healthy growing pains in both girls and boys.
Sexuality needs to be talked about; not ignored.
The ideas of sex being taboo are old-school; out the window. Gone.
Sex is a normal part of life.
Your body will grow, it will change; it will feel attraction.
But how society and religions handle that;
Well;
That’s what determines the outcome of mental health, healthy bodily relationships, knowledge of one’s own body; body image issues, eating habits, etc.
A body is a body.
Stop sexualizing it for merely existing.
Especially the women.
Especially the little girls.
–
If you find yourself saying things like
“That’s not how it is anymore! Modesty is between you and God!”
“We can show our shoulders and wear bikinis; it was never about modesty!”
“It was always about the spirit of the law regarding modesty, not the physical covering of our bodies!”
Then tell me.
• Today, is wearing the temple garment and not being able to modify it still a question to obtain a temple recommend?
• Today, do you still find yourself noticing when others who are endowed members of the church aren’t wearing their garments? And silently take note of it? Wonder why they aren’t wearing them?
• Today, have you heard or seen others commenting on or policing what women and girls are wearing to church; to activities?
• Today, are online “garment friendly” influencers trying to find creative ways to make outfits that LOOK like they aren’t wearing their garments, but still are? As a means of attempting to try to self-express within the box the church has placed them in regarding what to wear?
• Today, is there still an expected dress code for youth church activities and camps?
While individual members may view themselves as more progressive;
As more open towards when and how to wear the garments or not;
How to dress before they get endowed…
The church itself still has expectations towards the ways women cover themselves through the garment,
As well as its members who shame others into covering up.
–
Imagine shaming someone for leaving the church –
Because they don’t believe young girls’ or women’s bodies, (as well as men’s), should be sexualized and policed for merely existing.
