A work colleague told she wore pyjamas today and it sent me off on a long rant about a former lover who had also worn ‘jim-jams’ as she affectionately referred to them.
I explained to the colleague that I now no longer trust people who wear pyjamas as they gave my ex the appearance of a demure and proper young home-maker who was about to head to bed with cocoa and muffins, whereas in reality she was an utter tramp in the bedroom (not that I was ever complaining).
My colleague looked at me and the penny didn’t drop until I realised she maybe thought I was by association also calling her an utter tramp in the bedroom. I tried to extricate myself by saying that it, of course, didn’t refer to her – which then of course meant I was calling her a prude. Bugger!
Anyway the conversation ended something like this:
‘Of course I am not calling you a whore in the bedroom just because you wear pyjamas but at the same time I also realise you are a very attractive woman who could doubtlessly possess whorish qualities should she or the occasion demand it. In fact I’m sure you could be pristine as a shiny new fivepence or as dirty as a dockside hooker – but that choice is, of course, yours. So well done!’
I think I got away with it…
No comments:
Post a Comment