Disgruntled thoughts upon getting dressed in the morning

I am going to complain about my garments.  Stand back, dear readers, there could be lightning involved.

I'm not the only person who has ever said, "I'm not sure they ever actually fit these to a human being when they design the pattern."  In fact, I'm pretty sure someone said it on Daughters of Mormonism.  It is a widespread gripe among those who have been through the temple that garments are ill-fitting and unattractive to the point of being borderline--or straight up--impractical for everyday wear.  Nevertheless we wear them because we have covenanted to do so and we are held accountable for that covenant in order to return to the temple.  Any damage to self-esteem or spousal arousal be damned.

If there was a secular company that said, "You can only purchase your underwear from us.  You may no longer make them yourselves--even from our patterns--or alter the design, even if it makes you itch.  You have to build your entire wardrobe in order to accommodate our line, no matter how poorly it actually fits your body, and no you may not try things on before purchase to see whether you like it or not," it would go out of business.  (Never mind that people have been defecting from activity/membership in the Church in droves over the past several years................)

When Heather started the Green Garment Campaign, one of the complaints people made about it on the event page was that if the Church were to invest in more sustainable fabrics, it would drive the price of garments up from a whopping $2.20-5.10 per piece, which would put a strain on the poor and/or lead to classism between those who could or could not afford certain fabrics.

So, yes, changing styles and improving the available fabrics would cost money.  I totally understand that.  However.

The Church just spent approximately $2 Billion building the City Creek Center mall, and an additional $3 billion on downtown revitalization for Salt Lake.  (That's a whole other rant.)  I think it can safely divert some of its vast holdings toward bolstering up Beehive Clothing in the name of subsidizing that extra cost.  Seriously.  I'm not an economist or anything, so I'll admit that I could be wrong, but it seems like it should be feasible.  If Heather's guesstimate of two million active garment-wearers is anywhere close to accurate, the subsidies would have to swallow $1000 per wearer to approach what was spent on the mall.

Most people I know only buy about 7-10 days worth of tops and bottoms every year or two.  (I have to hand it to Beehive: garments do tend to be sturdy and long lasting.)  That's maybe $100 per year at current prices, tops.  With better designs and sustainable fabrics, let's be super generous and say that rises to $200 per year.  (I do not think that's a realistic estimate at all, by the way.)  Yes, that would be a problem for the poor and that would be wrong, but why can't the Church subsidize that for those who cannot pay?  It wouldn't be everyone.  It wouldn't be every year.

I'm ready to step down from my soapbox, I just got rather annoyed as I got dressed this morning because the underwear I'm obligated to wear throughout my life does not fit me well, and I have no other options without going and breaking a bunch of rules that I'm not sure how anyone would enforce them, anyway.  I dislike the corporatism of it and I think the Church would do well to invest in revamping the garments so they're more practical, so the form of them doesn't suck, and so this outward expression reflects both our inner commitment and and the beauty thereof.