A Brief Trauma Dump on Briefs - and the Bigger Issues Underneath it All

There was “big” new in Mormonism a month ago with the redesign of women’s garments. For those not in the know, the garment is a sacred item in the faith, pieces of underclothing worn to prompt continuous remembrance of the beliefs and commitments of the wearer. While often mocked and maligned, many religions incorporate some kind of sacred clothing, from vestments to head coverings. The titters and interest in Mormonism’s unique take come from the fact that its sacred clothing is an undergarment, and American culture is inherently adolescent. But also, let’s be honest, because they are ugly and uncomfortable as hell!

Mormon women have been talking and writing about this for generations! The synthetic material options were infamous for enabling infections, extra layers are obviously hot and uncomfortable for many, and stylistically they have long been a nightmare of layering or covering up visible lines and creases. This last point has historically been dismissed as virtuous women are not supposed to prioritise fashion…which of course has never been the case. Women (and men!) have always cared about presentation and comfort. As a conservative religion, the tension between “modest” dressing (shoulders and knees covered, and no cleavage) and style/comfort is a real one. Add in American consumerism and you have a perfect storm of a conundrum, and that was before the Mormon Mommy Blogger era when these women became the vanguard of social media influencers encouraging us all to shop more!

Semi-related, but next week is my 16th wedding anniversary. Please enjoy this photo of me being very normal in my very pretty, garment-compliant wedding dress. We were babies. INFANTS. Who let us get married that young?!

All of which is to say, that issues of policing women’s dress for modest and piety reasons is built into the faith, but also a constant debate. The design of the garment has been modified many times since the 19th century, so in isolation another change or update isn’t that newsworthy…but the fact that this time the church has finally introduced a sleeveless option is actually a big deal. To women like me who were raised to never show their shoulders, and whole generations of Mormon feminists also including me who organised protest movements and moments around clothing specifically, this feels significant. Without a lot of fanfare or announcement, the Church is effectively rolling back a major cultural expectation around women’s dress, but trying hard to avoid substantive discussion on what this means for its past teaching and expectations around women’s modesty and associated behaviour.

This is annoying and has attracted a bit of (in my opinion warranted) criticism, but it’s also very typical for the Church. In my lifetime I have now witnessed waves of messaging or cultural changes, some of which have been loudly communicated, some of which have been aggressively downplayed to reverse previous communications. The biggest one was the “I’m a Mormon” PR campaign in the 2010s to reclaim and normalise the cultural term for the faith, which has been retconned now by subsequent leadership who view the term as derogatory. It’s hard to keep track of what’s kosher or not.

But as a woman who is nearly 40 years old and is STILL unpacking body shame and insecurity, who struggled with claiming her own desires and sexuality after a lifetime of messaging about modest presentation and behaviour, was told as a child that covering her body would protect her from predatory men (false) and also was an important demarcation of devotion, for whom the term “porn shoulders” was both a joke and a fact, and who was told by someone who was supposed to be a mouthpiece of God that immodest dressing (including exposed shoulders) would make me “walking pornography” to men…

…watching the launch and discourse of sleeveless garments is complicated and aggravating.

For faithful women, it’s another pivot that they have to bend and twist to incorporate past teachings and second order effects into their worldview. Guilt and shame don’t just vanish because you can wear tank tops now! And for those who have left the faith, it’s another topic to add to a long list of messaging flips that feel hypocritical and may add to a sense of indignation or frustration over restrictions that we adhered to for what appears to be no very good reason.

The faithful will say this is leadership listening to women about their comfort and convenience - which is probably true! They will say it’s an organic update to shifting fashions and expectations - also true. It will be a welcome change and I’m sincerely happy for those for whom this will make their devotional commitments no less profound but still more easily incorporated into modern living.

But for those who say it’s another example of how the Church can make changes to even very sacred and important devotional norms and simply choose NOT to most of the time…yeah. Feels not great to be right about that again. When my friend organised the “Wear Pants to Church” day event and received very real death threats for her perceived disrespect to the church, only for the church to adapt its dress guidance for women a few years later, this feels ugly and way too late. They could have messaged differently then, but it would have entailed accepting criticism and challenge - something an inherently patriarchal structure is intrinsically resistant to, especially when it comes from women.

Making changes, even good ones, without honestly confronting the implications of a past paradigm is a job half done. And American culture, including its offshoot religious movements, is BAD at it. It’s a huge reason for all the political and culture war issues we’re contending with here in 2025. The backlash to #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, LGBT protections and the whole discourse around gender roles and issues is based on half-assing progress and shying away from dealing with the damages of past errors or even acknowledging them. We often want the benefit or credit for progress, without having to admit we were ever wrong to begin with.

Organisations and people who claim higher orders of truth obviously have higher stakes that those who don’t, but the problem of ego is a deeply human one and one I have a lot of empathy for…but not sympathy. If you claim a higher order of truth, I feel the moral imperative to acknowledge and atone (a deliberately chosen religious term here) for past errors or negative second order impacts is likewise greater.

My original Mormonism still deeply informs my values, including my politics. In addition to modesty, I was taught that part of responsibility is the duty of repentance and repair: that part of sincere penitence for past harm or violation was acknowledgement of the transgression, restitution where possible, an an earnest desire to not repeat those errors. I’d be dishonest if I couldn’t acknowledge that this informs how I look at institutions and power structures of all types, from Jim Crow era segregation to garden variety patriarchal norms.

I want powerful organisations of good faith who are sincere about being a force for good in the world, whether governments or churches, to do better. And once again I’m not surprised but disappointed anew in yet another missed opportunity. It’s small in isolation, but part of a larger narrative whole, which reveals something significant about cultural character and how progress will continue to be limited until we are better able to confront our own discomfort with our past selves. And it 2025, the signs aren’t promising that we’re anywhere near learning this lesson.