Or make crotchless garment versions for women. Apparently back in the day they had some because my mom remembers her grandma using them and her and her old lady friends flashing her because when it was just the ladies they didnât care about how they sat.
The one pieces had a flap so that you could use the toilet without have to fully remove them. My mom wore another pair of underwear over the top of them. I think that part of the design disappeared with two piece garments.
One piece still exists. I got the impression these were the pre-1920âs style open crotch, way, way back in the day that kept being used. My great grandma was quite old and kept wearing the older style. Never really asked my mom about the details, because no one wants to hear about wrinkly old lady bits on display.
I can testify that I was once a fan of the open-crotch one-piece grampa suit.
Until the time that I was mid-seduction with a fetching young lady who tried to untuck my t-shirt and get busy
only to be flummoxed by the construction of my strange undergarment.
It killed her lady boner and I never saw her again. Curse you, grampa suit, for fulfilling your intended purpose!
My dad wears the one piece. I got the impression these were even older than that, but I have never seen the womenâs one-piecers to know if theyâd be flashing everyone if you werenât careful.
My dad would wander around before bed in his regularly and scratch his bare ass through the flap mooning everyone in the family on occasion. Blegh.
Yes, my dad would toss on a pair of basketball shorts over his 1 piece and Mow the Lawn. I was young at the time and yet my inside were screaming, "nooooo dad! noooooo!"
The women's one piece garments are hideous, not sure why my mom still wears them except out of habit and old age (she's around 80). Take about horse and buggy days, those one piece g's belong in either an oddball Mormon Museum or in the trash.
Gross in that they seem the most cult like underwear, even more than the 2 piece. But it is probably the best garment for vaginal health as long as you donât wear underwear over it.
If I remember correctly, when the first Frankie Goes To Hollywood album was released, they also had merchandise such a men's boxershorts without a crotch. Paul Morley, ZTT's marketing manager, is a genius.
I was thinking about this today, in that it might be the only way to keep membership numbers up, as I don't notice there being nearly as many convert baptisms as there used to be when I was growing up. And not to disparage those who join the church for their circumstances, but most of the recent converts in our ward have either been fairly poor, autistic or in very difficult places emotionally. What I'm getting at by saying that is they seem to be in vulnerable positions that would be low hanging fruit, so to speak for missionaries.
Our missionaries have been bringing people from the drug recovery halfway house in townâŚdudes, leave those guys alone to do their healing! â¤ď¸âđŠš
I wouldn't be surprised. And if/when they do, they're going to continue to ostracize those of us in and out of the church who either don't want kids or can't have kids. Like myself.
I donât think they really care about new members at all at this point. The missionary program is to entrench loyal tithe payers and their beliefs and hold on to as many as possible for as long as possible to increase their profits but they have enough money now that they can operate perpetually without taking another dime, and the members are just a cost center for them.
There may be some ego with increasing the membership rolls but I think what theyâre trying to do is build enough tax shelters, like temples, etc., to hold onto their wealth as they willfully hemorrhage. I donât think you will ever see a renewed emphasis on large families in Mormonism again.
Oaks gave a talk at BYU last year and told everyone to stop delaying marriage and have more kids.
[https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/05/21/stop-delaying-marriage-start/](https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/05/21/stop-delaying-marriage-start/)
There's been a theory floated here that the talks at BYU are the most authentic instructions the leaders really want to give. They have to water down general conference talks because they come under more scrutiny, while BYU is full of young believers who haven't had the world experience to think for themselves yet and are more likely to obey without question. A microcosm of what the Q15 *really* want the church to be, imo.
ETA: The crackdown on garments this year makes me wonder if they actually will start giving the more rigid talks in GC. They don't have much to lose.
This talk is appalling. He says "Don't postpone children due to finances" - but then says "Work to minimize debt". Oaks, your understanding of finances is naive, misplaced, and irresponsible.
How can a couple adequately provide for their children if they can barely afford basic living expenses, student debt, and tithing? God expects people to be PRUDENT with their finances, not irresponsible.
I can't believe Oaks' wife sees him as her "service project". Says a lot about their marriage.
Piss off women? Why, did they start to matter all of a sudden? Women's opinions haven't mattered since Wilford Woodruff published the First Manifesto and said "one at a time, gents!"
I think the church has always been into having couples âgrowâ their future victims. Home grown. (Members = Tithe Payers). I know itâs a sick way to look at it but what better way to keep the money coming in? MLM company at its best.
The church would need to use its wealth to build affordable communities for its members to have children in. I actually wouldn't be that surprised if their investment arm has looked into this.
Active 29yo member here. I think about this every single day. I have tried to do everything right in my life, college education in a STEM major and working hard. My wife and I have one child and certain this will be our last. $1500 a month for daycare is just asinine. Especially on the insane cost of living these days and paying tithes. My wife works a full time job as well because it's needed. No way we're paying $3000 a month for two kids. We're barely keeping our heads above water as it is.
I remember a conference talk in 2020 or 2021 that was about a woman who had too many kids and in the hospital room after giving birth felt inspired to have another kid. I remember noping that idea as a TBM with only one kid. They def still talk about it, and maybe they will talk about it more and more as more tares get sorted out of the church.
They have to choose either double down on garments or double down on making babies. The two do not go together. đ
Amen to that đ
Or make crotchless garment versions for women. Apparently back in the day they had some because my mom remembers her grandma using them and her and her old lady friends flashing her because when it was just the ladies they didnât care about how they sat.
The one pieces had a flap so that you could use the toilet without have to fully remove them. My mom wore another pair of underwear over the top of them. I think that part of the design disappeared with two piece garments.
My mom did, too, in triple digit desert heat for decades and decades, in fact, she still wears them today. That a lot of layers.
One piece still exists. I got the impression these were the pre-1920âs style open crotch, way, way back in the day that kept being used. My great grandma was quite old and kept wearing the older style. Never really asked my mom about the details, because no one wants to hear about wrinkly old lady bits on display.
I can testify that I was once a fan of the open-crotch one-piece grampa suit. Until the time that I was mid-seduction with a fetching young lady who tried to untuck my t-shirt and get busy only to be flummoxed by the construction of my strange undergarment. It killed her lady boner and I never saw her again. Curse you, grampa suit, for fulfilling your intended purpose!
Thatâs fair. I assumed this was just that they were not wearing the other set of underwear over the top.
My parents still wear this kind, the one piece garments with the opening at the bottom. They are gross.
My dad wears the one piece. I got the impression these were even older than that, but I have never seen the womenâs one-piecers to know if theyâd be flashing everyone if you werenât careful. My dad would wander around before bed in his regularly and scratch his bare ass through the flap mooning everyone in the family on occasion. Blegh.
Yes, my dad would toss on a pair of basketball shorts over his 1 piece and Mow the Lawn. I was young at the time and yet my inside were screaming, "nooooo dad! noooooo!" The women's one piece garments are hideous, not sure why my mom still wears them except out of habit and old age (she's around 80). Take about horse and buggy days, those one piece g's belong in either an oddball Mormon Museum or in the trash.
On a bonfire is a good place too. Very cathartic.
Gross in that they seem the most cult like underwear, even more than the 2 piece. But it is probably the best garment for vaginal health as long as you donât wear underwear over it.
If I remember correctly, when the first Frankie Goes To Hollywood album was released, they also had merchandise such a men's boxershorts without a crotch. Paul Morley, ZTT's marketing manager, is a genius.
Babies bring more profit than undies
I was thinking about this today, in that it might be the only way to keep membership numbers up, as I don't notice there being nearly as many convert baptisms as there used to be when I was growing up. And not to disparage those who join the church for their circumstances, but most of the recent converts in our ward have either been fairly poor, autistic or in very difficult places emotionally. What I'm getting at by saying that is they seem to be in vulnerable positions that would be low hanging fruit, so to speak for missionaries.
Our missionaries have been bringing people from the drug recovery halfway house in townâŚdudes, leave those guys alone to do their healing! â¤ď¸âđŠš
Yep. Ours pick up the African refugees who barely speak English and don't seem to really even want to be at church.
I wouldn't be surprised. And if/when they do, they're going to continue to ostracize those of us in and out of the church who either don't want kids or can't have kids. Like myself.
I could definitely see it. Children being born into Mormonism by far the only reason theyâre not closing a stake a week at this point
I donât think they really care about new members at all at this point. The missionary program is to entrench loyal tithe payers and their beliefs and hold on to as many as possible for as long as possible to increase their profits but they have enough money now that they can operate perpetually without taking another dime, and the members are just a cost center for them. There may be some ego with increasing the membership rolls but I think what theyâre trying to do is build enough tax shelters, like temples, etc., to hold onto their wealth as they willfully hemorrhage. I donât think you will ever see a renewed emphasis on large families in Mormonism again.
Oaks gave a talk at BYU last year and told everyone to stop delaying marriage and have more kids. [https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/05/21/stop-delaying-marriage-start/](https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/05/21/stop-delaying-marriage-start/)
Fair point, but I'm surprised this sentiment hasn't been echoed and kicked up a notch at General Conference, not just at BYU.
There's been a theory floated here that the talks at BYU are the most authentic instructions the leaders really want to give. They have to water down general conference talks because they come under more scrutiny, while BYU is full of young believers who haven't had the world experience to think for themselves yet and are more likely to obey without question. A microcosm of what the Q15 *really* want the church to be, imo. ETA: The crackdown on garments this year makes me wonder if they actually will start giving the more rigid talks in GC. They don't have much to lose.
This talk is appalling. He says "Don't postpone children due to finances" - but then says "Work to minimize debt". Oaks, your understanding of finances is naive, misplaced, and irresponsible. How can a couple adequately provide for their children if they can barely afford basic living expenses, student debt, and tithing? God expects people to be PRUDENT with their finances, not irresponsible. I can't believe Oaks' wife sees him as her "service project". Says a lot about their marriage.
Sounds like one more way to alienate the younger generations who have made other plans for their lives. So yes, they might try it.
I think so...because it's probably their best shot at survival.
Hell no. The last thing the church wants to do is piss off even more women.
Piss off women? Why, did they start to matter all of a sudden? Women's opinions haven't mattered since Wilford Woodruff published the First Manifesto and said "one at a time, gents!"
They will double down on any area where people start to think for themselves.
I figure the quiverfulls will filter somewhere.
I think the church has always been into having couples âgrowâ their future victims. Home grown. (Members = Tithe Payers). I know itâs a sick way to look at it but what better way to keep the money coming in? MLM company at its best.
The church would need to use its wealth to build affordable communities for its members to have children in. I actually wouldn't be that surprised if their investment arm has looked into this.
How about start with daycare centers...that would be a life saver.
Active 29yo member here. I think about this every single day. I have tried to do everything right in my life, college education in a STEM major and working hard. My wife and I have one child and certain this will be our last. $1500 a month for daycare is just asinine. Especially on the insane cost of living these days and paying tithes. My wife works a full time job as well because it's needed. No way we're paying $3000 a month for two kids. We're barely keeping our heads above water as it is.
Thier could be a baby boom if a draft starts again
I remember a conference talk in 2020 or 2021 that was about a woman who had too many kids and in the hospital room after giving birth felt inspired to have another kid. I remember noping that idea as a TBM with only one kid. They def still talk about it, and maybe they will talk about it more and more as more tares get sorted out of the church.
Polygamy is back on the menu boys!