Page 1 of 1

That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:59 pm
by AnotherFairportfan
Those are not "pajamas".

"Pajamas" are garments you wear to sleep in.

Those are a "nightie" or "negligee".

Those are garments you wear for exercise before you sleep, probably in nothing.

Except, perhaps, a wet spot.

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:23 pm
by AnotherFairportfan
for those who didn't get a look while it was on display at eBay:

jammies.jpg
jammies.jpg (90.71 KiB) Viewed 1077 times

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:52 pm
by TazManiac
I agree, while you might slide by w/ the general umbrella term: 'PJs', pajamas are clearly way too definitive to define what she's wearing.

She'll have to take them off...

(Sorry, seeking distractions as a form of reset...)

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:52 pm
by DinkyInky
Pfft! Men.

I know quite a lot of women who consider an unwired cotton bra and short-shorts pyjamas.

Negligee leaves nothing much at all to the imagination, while this is rather tasteful.

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:43 pm
by Catawampus
Besides, do you want to be the one to make poor little Atsali sad at her first ever pyjama party by telling her that she's not wearing proper pyjamas? Eh?

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:59 pm
by Dave
DinkyInky wrote:Pfft! Men.

Hmmm. Given all of the focus in the media, in recent weeks, about males (prefer not to call them "men") who have been obnoxious, overly grabby, six-hands-going-everywhere, excessively touchy-feely, and so forth...

... maybe these garments serve a defensive purpose? Maybe they're paw-jammers?

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:31 pm
by TazManiac
DinkyInky wrote:Pfft! Men...
If I only had a Nickel for every time...

I still maintain while that's an 'Outfit', it ain't pajamas.

'Atsali wore her outfit to her first pajama party..' No conflict there.

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:59 am
by DinkyInky
Dave wrote:
DinkyInky wrote:Pfft! Men.

Hmmm. Given all of the focus in the media, in recent weeks, about males (prefer not to call them "men") who have been obnoxious, overly grabby, six-hands-going-everywhere, excessively touchy-feely, and so forth...

... maybe these garments serve a defensive purpose? Maybe they're paw-jammers?
Mother and Daddy gave me a particular skill-set after I had an 'issue' with a (insert expletives here)...that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore. I've also shared that with my oldest friends girls. Jerky boys tend to avoid them now.

I believe self-defense needs to be a thing taught in schools, as well as what no really means, despite whoever says it.

Oh, and I need this brassiere.

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:31 am
by TazManiac
(Thats funny). I was married to a Jessica Rabbit, plus for extra bonus points;
they included a free copy of 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' w/ my first Pioneer Laserdisk Player...

(Hi DInky) -waves-

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:30 am
by Dave
DinkyInky wrote:Mother and Daddy gave me a particular skill-set after I had an 'issue' with a (insert expletives here)...that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore. I've also shared that with my oldest friends girls. Jerky boys tend to avoid them now.

I believe self-defense needs to be a thing taught in schools, as well as what no really means, despite whoever says it.

How to do a really good finger lock? One which puts the jerk into just the right position to receive a swift kick in the pills? :?

As to teaching self defense, the right to it, and "no means no!" I agree and in fact I think it needs to go further than that. "Lack of competent Yes, means No." Without that, we still run into those nasty "get her really drunk" cases like the one at Stanford.

Re: That is not what those are.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:41 pm
by AnotherFairportfan
Like the frat at Rutgers that just got banned from the campus until 2020 - and then, if the national organisation decides to authorise a chapter, none of the people involved in the current one (i think - maybe it's just the ones suspected of drugging sorority girls at a party) will be allowed to participate.