Jump to content

Hamba Tuhan

Contributor
  • Content Count

    5,459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hamba Tuhan

  1. Some years ago, my home teaching companion decided to leave the Church because of his support for gay 'marriage'. He was very public about it and demanded, quite publicly, that no one try to reach out to him, rescue him, or try to change his mind. So we didn't. Respect for agency and all that. A couple of years later, he paid me a visit. What a bunch of shallow hypocrites the Saints are, he told me bitterly. His evidence: literally not one had tried to reach out to him, rescue him, or change his mind when he left the Church.
  2. Photos or I'm calling shenanigans. I know there are some loonies in the Church, but I highly doubt any of them are also acrobats or contortionists.
  3. And non-Latter-day Saints can still buy union suits with seat flaps and full-body button plackets. So theoretically those people could also be having intercourse with their underwear on. When I was studying in America, I had a housemate who wore a red union suit year-round. But that's not common behaviour, is it? I'd be willing to bet money I don't have that the garments bought and worn by over 99 per cent of all Latter-day Saints in the world do not allow for sexual intercourse to occur whilst wearing them. And that has been the case for as long as I've been a member of the Church.
  4. No, my point is that people can't have intercourse with the garment on. I don't care what may or may not have been possible in the past. As I noted, in the past all kinds of people would have been engaging in intercourse with their underclothing in place simply because that's how life worked.* We haven't lived in that world for a long time. ----- * 'As clothing became more complex, undergarments (when they were used) were simple and usually bottomless so sexual intercourse was easy to do when fully clothed (Marissa Rhodes, 'Underwear: A History of Intimate Apparel').
  5. I'm a high priest, but I've never had that problem anywhere execept for the armpits. I spray those with distilled vinegar before washing, in addition to using an oxygen bleach and drying them in the sun whenever it's not raining. Easy peasy.
  6. As I've pointed out above -- and as others have likewise noted -- the Church's system knows if you're endowed or not. If you are, you can simply order online or provide your MRN if purchasing in person. Your recommend needn't be current. But, seriously, why are your garments stinky? Don't you wash them?
  7. I have no idea how old your grandma was, but not many decades ago, many people (and not exclusively Latter-day Saint people) only changed out of their underwear on occasion. But we don't live in your grandma's day. That's my point.
  8. As I noted above, my last lot of garments lasted me seven years before getting any holes. That comes out to 255.5 wears each. I'm not brave; I'm proud! And they were nearly as white when I destroyed them as the day they came out of the packet. I use oxygen bleach and dry them outside in the sun.
  9. As a never-married male, I've tried to avoid this whole conversation, but I seriously don't get it. I've seen enough women's garments to know that they don't have flys or anything similar. Intercourse whilst wearing garments is therefore a physical impossibility. Why is no one pointing this out?
  10. I had to Google 'kifing'. Clearly my English vocabulary is not as good as I'd presumed ...
  11. OK, now you've really lost me. There is no spandex in any of my garments. Are you talking about the elastic waistband? If so, why did you mention that it was the tops that wear out? Also if so, maybe try a larger size?
  12. I don't know you, so I'm in no position to either like or dislike you. My general inclination is to like people. But you've made it quite obvious in the past that you adore the idea of plural marriage and wish it were currently a commandment.
  13. If you order online, your LDS Account knows that you're endowed.
  14. Tacenda included the link in her original post.
  15. So don't tuck them in. I certainly don't. Have you always tucked your undershirts into your underpants? I think that sounds horrible (and a bit geeky). I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't have any ribbons on my garment tops (or bottoms). I don't think garments have had ribbons since around the 1950s, possibly earlier?
  16. Untucked from what? You'd prefer needing to drive to a shop somewhere? But the bottoms don't? The garments I'm wearing now were purchased (online!) nearly two years ago. The set I had before that were purchased in 2010. It took seven years for the first holes to appear.
  17. I just checked our local 'cheapo' department store's website. The price of a single pair of boxer shorts (whether bought singly or in a multipack) is identical to what I pay for garment bottoms, and the price of an undershirt is almost 50 per cent greater than what I pay for a garment top.
  18. Yeah, I saw the announcement on the Church's website. I have zero interest in being bound up in form-fitting, 'supportive' underclothing. The male body is designed so that certain parts are able to hang free and move about. As I've noted in a previous thread, there might be specific reasons why American men (inlcuding your husband) may prefer this new style. I personally can't think of anything more comfortable than a loose, light, breathable undershirt coupled with a similar pair of boxer shorts.
  19. Same! They are both physically comfortable and spiritually comforting. I've long said that one of the most painful things of excommunication for me would be losing access to the garment.
  20. Indeed. There is always a way back and a way forward for anyone who wishes there to be. No one falls outside the love of God or the grace of the Son. This is precisely why it is a doctrine of devils to teach people to accept (even celebrate) who they are right now as some sort of fixed state instead of teaching them to look forward with the eye of faith to who God intends for them to be. Amen and amen!
  21. I think people understand you quite well. The problem is that what you've been telling us 'over and over again' -- that SSA is a term used almost exclusively by the Church of Jesus Christ and a small handful of other conservative churches in an attempt to marginalise people, that it is not used broadly, and that it is a pejorative that 'gay' people almost universally find offensive -- just doesn't stack up to information that is publicly available through a simple internet search.
  22. No clue, but as I noted above -- without any apparent recognition on your part -- my Google search of this term turns up nothing but academic and government sites on the first page of results. I therefore strongly suspect the use of this term may be just a bit broader (and less 'offensive') than you repeatedly assert it is ...
  23. I realise that Google localises search results, but I just tested your claim by Googling 'same-sex attraction'. The first page of search results for me is all links to government and academic sites. Not a single Church or religious site even came up.
×
×
  • Create New...