For Christmas, Santa brought me the DVD Van Wilder in my stocking. I had never seen it before. A review of said film shall be left for another place and time. Suffice it to say, I indentified with certain aspects of the film. Its about a guy who goes to college for seven years and has a lot of parties.
Anyway, I have oft times of late, lamented the fact that Jammy Jam sadly comes but once a year, and have struggled to find themes for other Maverick Jams for the other 364 days.
One of the parties from Van Wilder got me to thinking. What about a Dyslexic Jammy Jam? Essentially, this is just like the regular Jammy Jam, only men dress up in nighties, and women wear the t-shirts and boxers or t-shirts and briefs… whatever. I could have it six months out of phase with the regular Jammy Jam.
Then I got to thinking more, sui66iy‘s father, Kent, had noticed a black evening gown in Mike’s closet and asked him what it was for. Mike said “it’s mine” and Kent simply decided not to judge and left it at that. Actually, Mike has had that dress from several halloween parties back. But then I thought? Why stop at just dyslexic pj’s? what if I had an all out drag party? How would that go over?
Which party would people be more interested in attending? Would people participate? There would of course, as always be exciting and valuable prizes. Inquiring minds want to know. sui66iy and beststephi what do you guys think?
I’d rather see women in skimpy women’s sleepwear than in men’s sleepwear.
Unless, of course, they’re going to dress like you do, in a thong with no shirt, in which case your idea sounds great.
That is so gay
Needless to say, I’m there. I might prefer regular drag, since I’m not sure I can pull off sexy lingerie, but I’m pretty sure I can look good in a dress.
Scary idea…
You could repost the question to. See what they think…
(It’s a rebuilding year.)
I’m in
Sounds like fun to me . . . . although I think women in men’s jammies are going to be sexier than women in men’s regular clothing (a la drag) . . . but just my opinion . . .
em 🙂