Bachelorette Party and Sleepwear

[ChristinaM]

wondering whether the propagation of the species will happen in some people’s marriages

Is it really any of your business? Some of us prefer action to talk. And that’s all I have to say to that particular piece of rudeness.

Whenever I delurk on these boards, people never fail to remind me why I went back to lurking in the first place…

 

[masha]

I just don’t understand the concept of “modest” lingerie. Lingerie is one of those things that is appropriate (no matter how revealing and sexual) when worn for one’s spouse. It’s just silly to expect lingerie to be modest and appropriate to wear on the street, or in front of other family members - at that point it stops being “lingerie” and becomes a dress, or just plain pajamas. You step outside the need to be concerned with modesty when you’re in the bedroom with your spouse - not because modestly doesn’t matter, but because unless your inviting other people into your bedroom, nothing you do or wear can be immodest. If you try to apply the rules of modesty in the bedroom as they apply in the street, or even in the living room (figuratively speaking of course) then you are being prudish - and you are not respecting the special relationship you have with your spouse.

Trashy lingerie is in a different catagory - not because it’s wrong - it isn’t, if you and your husband like it, have fun. But there is a difference between sexy, classy lingerie and trashy lingerie - I generally think the difference is in the fabrics and colors. Natural fibers are way classier, polyester can’t help but be at least a bit trashy. I would say that trashy lingerie is something the couple should buy for themselves, if they want it; but when giving gifts, stick with classy, sexy lingerie.

 

[aggiecatholic85]

It’s a honeymoon, not a practice in modesty. Wear the sexy thong, push up bra, and break the bed. You have the rest of your marriage to wear the practical and unattractive things. When I get married, if someone gave me a robe, they would get this look . But I wear sexy underthings all the time, even in church, it makes me feel sexy, and no one knows. So it wouldn’t weird me out.

I have to agree with the responses to this…married love should always be a practice in modesty. Otherwise it turns into recreation…modern inventions like super sexy lingerie are really reminiscence of our porn society and if your husband has to be visually stimulated from you looking like a porn star rather than you looking like his wife (a REAL woman) then something is terribly wrong. Sure, there are little “sexy” things that are concealed only for hubby, but your description of a honeymoon as being a “no holes barred” night of raunchy sex is totally off. My first time was on my honeymoon, and 4 years of waiting for eachother still did resulted in a modest honeymoon night. Modesty does not equal prudery. It’s a respect for the personhood of your spouse. They are not a toy to be dressed up to promote our society-driven degradation of married love.

 

[kage_ar]

I just don’t understand the concept of “modest” lingerie. Lingerie is one of those things that is appropriate (no matter how revealing and sexual) when worn for one’s spouse. It’s just silly to expect lingerie to be modest and appropriate to wear on the street, or in front of other family members - at that point it stops being “lingerie” and becomes a dress, or just plain pajamas. You step outside the need to be concerned with modesty when you’re in the bedroom with your spouse - not because modestly doesn’t matter, but because unless your inviting other people into your bedroom, nothing you do or wear can be immodest. If you try to apply the rules of modesty in the bedroom as they apply in the street, or even in the living room (figuratively speaking of course) then you are being prudish - and you are not respecting the special relationship you have with your spouse.

Trashy lingerie is in a different catagory - not because it’s wrong - it isn’t, if you and your husband like it, have fun. But there is a difference between sexy, classy lingerie and trashy lingerie - I generally think the difference is in the fabrics and colors. Natural fibers are way classier, polyester can’t help but be at least a bit trashy. I would say that trashy lingerie is something the couple should buy for themselves, if they want it; but when giving gifts, stick with classy, sexy lingerie.

Perhaps many of you are very young and the schools do not enforce the real meaning of words?

Who ever said that modest meant one had to wear a papersack all day and night?

Someone on here said that one should not be modest on one’s honeymoon. That is not true. We are Christians here, we are to be modest in all we do, that includes in our relations with our husbands.

One can be buck naked and be modest, one can be wrapped in flannel from brow to toenail and be immodest.

A Christian wife should never be trashy, a Christian wife should never wear anything that would encite lust - and before you all go wonky on that, lust and attraction are two different things and lust IS a sin - it is fine to wear sleepware or underclothes that are pretty and feminine for your husband. Just watch the line and always remain modest.

 

[aggiecatholic85]

I think maybe we are differing on the definitions of modesty and prudishness. As far as I’m concerned, lingerie is in no way modest, and neither is nakedness. Refusing to wear suggestive clothing in the grocery store is showing modesty. Refusing to do so in the bedroom? Yeah, that’s prudish. It’s not about objectifying oneself. It’s about making yourself desirable and attractive to your partner. I fix my hair and wear makeup to bed on occasion too, it’s not about being immodest, it’s about making myself attractive to my husband in order to heighten the sexual experience for both of us. Men are visual and there’s nothing at all wrong with being visually stimulating to your husband.

Adam and Eve were naked and modest.
The human body is nothing to be ashamed of, but our fallen human nature has taken our nakedness and perverted it. Suggested reading would be Christopher West’s explanation of Theology of the Body. A person should be desirable because of their personhood, not because of their outward adornments. If you have to constantly “push the envelope” to “heighten your sexual experience” then sex has become a recreation, nothing more. And I think we give men too little credit…they are visual, yes, but as my husband is currently saying, the sexual perversion of the world has focused their visual stimulation to desire the artificial rather than what is there, i.e. a woman’s body made in the image of God.

 

[aggiecatholic85]

Perhaps many of you are very young and the schools do not enforce the real meaning of words?

Who ever said that modest meant one had to wear a papersack all day and night?

Someone on here said that one should not be modest on one’s honeymoon. That is not true. We are Christians here, we are to be modest in all we do, that includes in our relations with our husbands.

One can be buck naked and be modest, one can be wrapped in flannel from brow to toenail and be immodest.

A Christian wife should never be trashy, a Christian wife should never wear anything that would encite lust - and before you all go wonky on that, lust and attraction are two different things and lust IS a sin - it is fine to wear sleepware or underclothes that are pretty and feminine for your husband. Just watch the line and always remain modest.

My sentiments exactly! Lingerie CAN be modest in that it creates desire, but lust is a whole other story! The “porn star” lingerie incites lust by it’s very origin.

 

[aggiecatholic85]

AGREED! That’s really all I have to say. Much of this thread is leaving me speechless.

wondering whether the propagation of the species will happen in some people’s marriages

It’s not rocket science to procreate…however, to bring a child into the world through the mutual love and respect of you and your spouse’s bodies is a rarity. Just because, according to you, we’re not having porno sex, does not imply that our husbands would not touch us otherwise. Modesty is one of the big things lacking in our society and it is unfortunate that you wonder if modesty would result in a childless marriage. I suggest you read the lives of the saints especially the mothers. Marriage is more than just sex.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I haven’t read the entire thread…but their seems to be a confusion between the meaning of modest. Modest doesn’t mean “shame”.

While, it would be wrong to wear certain things in public, with one’s husband their is a different level of intimacy and comfort, that you don’t have with any other person in the world.

Lust does not belong in a marriage. And a husband and wife who love each other in a truly pure and holy way don’t lust each other, irrespective of the clothing worn, be it lacy, see through, or non existant.

Lust does not mean “desire”, lust means to objectify a person.

So…for the bachelorette party, if your sister objects to receiving any type of gift, then she should not receive it. Maybe, she can pick out a few things she would like, and then you ladies buy it for her, or something very similar.

By the way, do something fun for the bachelorette party! I went to one once to an Italian restaurant. The bachelorette of honor would get serenaded Italian love songs by the waiters and staff. Some of the singers were off key, which made it funny (they were supposed to be)

Have fun!

 

[masha]

Perhaps many of you are very young and the schools do not enforce the real meaning of words?

Ouch! Actually, I live in words, especially in the changing meanings of Catholic terms as they are affected by our decidedly Protestant American culture. Which I think is the problem in our inability to connect our definitions of modesty. Modesty is situational. If you’ll remember the CCC definitions of modesty (I think you posted those actually, but I can’t remember), “modesty is refusing to unveil what should remain hidden.” - what should remain hidden when enjoying at union with one’s other half? Nothing at all. In marriage we are to enjoy our spouse’s body - not simply unite for procreative reasons - really enjoy ourselves. There is nothing immodest about displaying our bodies at there most sexually enticing - in fact, we should be striving to look as inviting as possible - both men and women, because our bodies belong to each other.

There is a difference between sexual desire and lust. If my husband desires me in a pejorative sense - that is lust, if he desires me in a loving sense - that is a normal sexual desire. Unless my clothing causes him to think of me in a pejorative sense, it is not enciting lust, it is encouraging desire. My dressing in a sexually provocative way in private, for my husband does not cause him to think of my in a pejorative sense, though it may cause men who don’t know me to lust after me. That’s why I can wear sexually provocative clothing for my husband without being immodest. If I were to avoid dressing to encourage desire in my husband, I would be saying with my behaviour that either “I don’t trust you not to view me in a pejorative sense when I look sexy” or “I don’t see myself as a sexual being, therefore I see no reason to dress as one.”

Modesty, as the CCC states, is for protection. It protects the person’s dignity and mystery from misuse and exploitation. Between spouses, there should be no need for modesty, because there **should be **no fear of exploitation.

Who ever said that modest meant one had to wear a papersack all day and night?

I don’t think anyone did, I’m not sure what this is replying to. But the idea that a shapeless, ugly sack could even be modest is disturbing. A sack can’t be modest because it screams "look at me, look how pious and modest I am, notice how awful I look in this and appreciate my modesty. It fails modesty by failing to be discreet, and by demanding to be exhibited.

Someone on here said that one should not be modest on one’s honeymoon. That is not true. We are Christians here, we are to be modest in all we do, that includes in our relations with our husbands.

I would be interesting in knowing exactly what you mean when you use the word modest, I really would, because I’m a little confused right now.

One can be buck naked and be modest, one can be wrapped in flannel from brow to toenail and be immodest.

But can one be wrapped in red, silk lace and be modest?

A Christian wife should never be trashy, a Christian wife should never wear anything that would encite lust - and before you all go wonky on that, lust and attraction are two different things and lust IS a sin

Lust is a sin, but sexual desire is not, and the difference doesn’t come from my sexy lingerie, it comes from a healthy understanding of sexuality and a respect for the human person. Within a healthy marriage, things don’t encite lust, attitudes do, misunderstanding love does, but things encourage or discourage desire.

Modesty is an overused word, it’s insisted on in areas of our life that have no use for modesty - like the story of a Jewish woman who was so modest she never uncovered her head - even alone in the shower. I’m sure she was very proud of herself, but her husband was miserable and her hair was filthy.

Don’t draw lines where none exist, it makes life miserable.

 

[KitSileya]

I would think giving her tasteful lingerie that isn’t just two triangles of lace put together with ribbons would be an idea. It wouldn’t embarass you or her. Or you can give her tasteful underwear - everyday, tasteful underwear not meant for her honeymoon. After all, most women have underwear they wouldn’t show anyone, and when you get married I imagine some might have a slight panic about their ratty, but comfortable 10-year old cotton knickers. As an unmarried woman, I know I would want to weed out some of my stuff when I get married and the body I dress will be my husband’s gift (alongside my love and my enthusiastic cooperation, that is )

 

[Bluegoat]

Ouch! Actually, I live in words, especially in the changing meanings of Catholic terms as they are affected by our decidedly Protestant American culture. Which I think is the problem in our inability to connect our definitions of modesty. Modesty is situational. If you’ll remember the CCC definitions of modesty (I think you posted those actually, but I can’t remember), “modesty is refusing to unveil what should remain hidden.” - what should remain hidden when enjoying at union with one’s other half? Nothing at all. In marriage we are to enjoy our spouse’s body - not simply unite for procreative reasons - really enjoy ourselves. There is nothing immodest about displaying our bodies at there most sexually enticing - in fact, we should be striving to look as inviting as possible - both men and women, because our bodies belong to each other.

There is a difference between sexual desire and lust. If my husband desires me in a pejorative sense - that is lust, if he desires me in a loving sense - that is a normal sexual desire. Unless my clothing causes him to think of me in a pejorative sense, it is not enciting lust, it is encouraging desire. My dressing in a sexually provocative way in private, for my husband does not cause him to think of my in a pejorative sense, though it may cause men who don’t know me to lust after me. That’s why I can wear sexually provocative clothing for my husband without being immodest. If I were to avoid dressing to encourage desire in my husband, I would be saying with my behaviour that either “I don’t trust you not to view me in a pejorative sense when I look sexy” or “I don’t see myself as a sexual being, therefore I see no reason to dress as one.”

Modesty, as the CCC states, is for protection. It protects the person’s dignity and mystery from misuse and exploitation. Between spouses, there should be no need for modesty, because there **should be **no fear of exploitation.

I also tend to think you are misunderstanding what the CCC is saying. In saying that modesty means covering what should remain hidden, it does not mean that one needs to cover what should not remain hidden. So sexual intimacy in marriage, with nakedness, is ok, because there is no call to hide nakedness in that situation.

In fact, as the CCC says, what is appropriately modest also varies by culture. So in some cultures nakedness might even be perfectly modest in some public situations.

The important point is the dignity of the human being. Is the clothing, language, or act respectful of that, or does it degrade it? It is, alas, quite possible for spouses to do this as well as others.

Even in marriage, it is quite possible for sexuality to become a problem, in that the married couple use it in a disordered way. There are so many examples of this that it would be hard to begin to list them. But certainly immodest use of clothing could contribute to that - for example by creating/buying into the illusion that sex is essentially recreation. If the couple has the right attitude,the clothing wouldn’t likely be a problem - but the overwhelming cultural messages we get reinforce that, and certain ways of dressing can be associated with it, and it can be very difficult to totally overcome that kind of cultural influence. Even if we are sensitive and aware of the problem, it can be difficult to know sometimes if certain things are titillating to us because of cultural associations that are essentially disordered.

 

[aggiecatholic85]

I also tend to think you are misunderstanding what the CCC is saying. In saying that modesty means covering what should remain hidden, it does not mean that one needs to cover what should not remain hidden. So sexual intimacy in marriage, with nakedness, is ok, because there is no call to hide nakedness in that situation.

In fact, as the CCC says, what is appropriately modest also varies by culture. So in some cultures nakedness might even be perfectly modest in some public situations.

The important point is the dignity of the human being. Is the clothing, language, or act respectful of that, or does it degrade it? It is, alas, quite possible for spouses to do this as well as others.

Even in marriage, it is quite possible for sexuality to become a problem, in that the married couple use it in a disordered way. There are so many examples of this that it would be hard to begin to list them. But certainly immodest use of clothing could contribute to that - for example by creating/buying into the illusion that sex is essentially recreation. If the couple has the right attitude,the clothing wouldn’t likely be a problem - but the overwhelming cultural messages we get reinforce that, and certain ways of dressing can be associated with it, and it can be very difficult to totally overcome that kind of cultural influence. Even if we are sensitive and aware of the problem, it can be difficult to know sometimes if certain things are titillating to us because of cultural associations that are essentially disordered.

Great advice!!! Thanks.

tickers.baby-gaga.com/p/car090pb___.png

 

[tampagrl]

I’m going to pass on the wonderful words of wisdom my husband’s grandmother gave to his sister before her wedding.

Picture this: We are in the store, grandma, my MIL, my SIL and myself. MIL wanted to buy SIL a pretty nightgown for her wedding night. My SIL and her soon to be husband had waited for each other for their wedding night and she wanted something special and tasteful. So as we are looking grandma looks at my very shy SIL and says and I quote " don’t waste your time and money on these things…just run at him naked"

There are very pretty nightgowns out there. Maybe something long, with a satin robe would be nice.

that is TOO funny!

To the OP, I kind of agree w/staying away from buying her lingerie to give to her at the party. If you want to buy her something frilly or cute like that, do it when you’re alone w/her. For the party, maybe something from Bath & Body Works - something to help her feel pretty while she’s on her honeymoon - like a bath set or some of their awwwesome lotions…if you tell them what you’re looking for, they’ll help you put a set together for her.

 

[shannyk]

how about a gift card for a place that sells such items as lingerie, peignoir sets etc.

I always feel like buying any kind of clothing for others is so hard, even if you know their size. Right size doesn’t mean right style that flatters that person. And lingerie is even more difficult in that department… just a thought.

 

[royal_archer]

If you don’t mind a fella chiming in, I would say you go right ahead and give her the warm jammies or nightshirt. In the first place, who says that nice warm, soft and pleasent to the touch flannel is not sexy?? I’m sure that by doing a bit of shpping you can find an attractive outfit that is modest and comfortable and still be attractive.

You are jeapordizing your man card with the flannel endorsement.

While in the first few years of a marriage flannel outfits may be sexy, and they do offer a level of intimacy more than regular clothes, in many relations they become synonymous with “not tonight”.

While I would never deny liking to see my lady in a “skanty little number” for some special occasion, I have never disliked her in a flannels. It’s about the closeness and Love - Not the tittlation.

While in the first few years of a marriage flannel outfits may be sexy, and they do offer a level of intimacy more than regular clothes, in many relations they become synonymous with “not tonight”.

As a Final note, She may well appreciate your warm and cosy gift most of all since everyone else will likely get her things too light for northern nights. Remember, she’ll need to get up once in a while on her honeymoon. It ould be nice to have a cosy warm Robe to pull on.

You ar a thoughtful sister - and a realist.

Just my 2c

Peace
James

Her is some nice sleepwear that you should not wory about getting any woman.
softsurroundings.com/Clothing/Sleepwear_&_robes/

As the perspective of a man who has been married for a long time: Sexy lingerie is not approrpriate for the honey moon. If the couple has been chaste through the engagement, this is step one. There are things like first kisses where even though the relation may not go stale over time, the escalation to a new level of the relationship is special. During the first few years of a relationship the couple should enjoy the paced escalation. Save the lingerie for later.

As for modesty, ask if the attire is appropriate for the situation. If the wife wears something sexy because otherwise her husband won’t find her attractive enough then it is being immoddest. However, if the wife were willing to wear something more sexy than usual to mark a special occasion or to periodically fan the flames and she is doing it as a way to communicate her love, then it is a different story.

Back to the wedding gifts, don’t consider the trashy stuff except as a gag gift. Instead, consider something that will fuel the emotional side of the relation such as a gift card to a romantic restaurant.

 

[happymommy]

Back to the wedding gifts, don’t consider the trashy stuff except as a gag gift. Instead, consider something that will fuel the emotional side of the relation such as a gift card to a romantic restaurant.

This is a good idea. A nice basket with a bottle of wine, bottle opener, a couple of pretty glasses, some chocolates, maybe a candle and a nice cd of music, can be a great gift! We were given something similar for our wedding and took it with us on our honeymoon. Another wonderful gift we were given was tickets to the theater and money for dinner. The tickets were for a few months after we were married. Our friends knew how important “date night” was going to be and wanted to give us something we could enjoy later on. So we got to go into the city, we went to a great restaurant that had limo service for those going to the theater after dinner. It was so neat to pull up in a limo, all dressed up. It was an awesome gift! Very romantic and kept the focus on us a couple! Think outside the box.

 

[moon1234]

I have always found bachelorette parties distasteful. I have never been to a clean one, as you describe though. My opinion of my sister-in-law is forever tarnished from having attended hers. I never understood the purpose. It used to be the bride would have only a civilized wedding shower. It always seemed to me that the advent of bachelorette parties stems from the feminist attempts to be just like men.

But since you are going to one anyway, I guess I wouldn’t give lingerie if you think it may embarass. I wouldn’t want the sacred topic of sex to be discussed in any kind of cavalier or casual way. Opening the lingerie might give rise to that. Maybe give her some kind of book that would help her to be more loving wife–“Fascinating Womanhood” or something like that.

Actually it may not be bad to talk about sex. It depends on how it is talked about. A bride to be can be nervous about her first time. If the friends are civil it can help to discuss what the married ladies first times were like, what to expect and how to relax.

 

[kage_ar]

Actually it may not be bad to talk about sex. It depends on how it is talked about. A bride to be can be nervous about her first time. If the friends are civil it can help to discuss what the married ladies first times were like, what to expect and how to relax.

Very true.

Heck, just saying “it is okay if you are toooo exhausted after your wedding and wait” can help.