Undergarments

[Lotus Butterfly]

On the weekends I don’t wear underwear around the house. So when I need to step out real quick to take the dog out, I’m still in my yoga pants w/o undergarments. My husband want a divorce because of this reason. He has thrown away all my leggings and yoga pants because he says they are too revealing. 

[central]

Give him the divorce.  He is too controlling and manipulative.  He may have a reasonable concern if you encounter people when outside, but that's more about his perception, and his standards are clearly different than yours.  (Or you could throw away all his underwear!)

[d0nnivain]

He's controlling but since you know this is an issue for him I don't see why you couldn't have put on a pair of panties long before now.  Are you an exhibitionist?  Did you dig in your heals on this issue just to spite him?  

Either way, it sounds like you will both be happier if you go your separate ways. You can go find a man who enjoys your little shows.  He can find a woman who respects his feelings & shares his views on modesty.  

[Wiseman2]

7 hours ago, Lotus Butterfly said:

when I need to step out real quick to take the dog out, I’m still in my yoga pants w/o undergarments. My husband want a divorce because of this reason. 

Let him walk the dog.

[chillii]

 

Well it's a damn shame l wasn't there to give a second opinion haha. But eh , l'd never throw out your leggins , god those things are hot. l know , women don't understand ti, so what's new.

[Taramere]

20 hours ago, Lotus Butterfly said:

On the weekends I don’t wear underwear around the house. So when I need to step out real quick to take the dog out, I’m still in my yoga pants w/o undergarments. My husband want a divorce because of this reason. He has thrown away all my leggings and yoga pants because he says they are too revealing. 

How long have you been married?  Is this the only reason he wants a divorce?  It sounds like the two of you don't see eye to eye on boundaries.  I wouldn't want to walk the dog in public wearing leggings and going commando underneath...but throwing another person's clothes away suggests that if it came to a "lacking boundaries" competition, he'd win hands down.  Who chucks other people's clothes out?  That seems more like the behaviour of a strict Victorian era "handlebar moustache bristling with outrage" father than of a modern day husband.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Taramere

[Happy Lemming]

23 hours ago, Lotus Butterfly said:

On the weekends I don’t wear underwear around the house.

If my significant other did this... I would have absolutely nothing to complain about.  EVER!!

Many years ago I was dating this woman (she was wearing this cute little black dress) and we were out at dinner at this nice restaurant. During the meal, she whispered (in a very sexy voice) that she wasn't wearing panties.  OMG!!  I couldn't think of anything else during the balance of the meal...

23 hours ago, Lotus Butterfly said:

. So when I need to step out real quick to take the dog out, I’m still in my yoga pants w/o undergarments.

How is this any different than wearing a bathing suit around a public pool or to the beach??  I mean you're covered.  Its not like you are "Flashing" people while you are taking the dog for a walk.

23 hours ago, Lotus Butterfly said:

My husband want a divorce because of this reason.

There has to be something else going on in the marriage...  I don't even see how this rates a discussion, much less a reason for divorce.

[FMW]

Lots of women wear leggings in public (including me).  Occasionally I skip wearing anything underneath.  Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone is going to know that you're not wearing anything underneath them unless they are so very tight that you have an obvious camel toe (I so hate that expression, but not sure how else to say it without being even more graphic).

I'm with the others that say there's got to be a lot more to his bringing up divorce than this one issue.  

[Blind-Sided]

I think there is way more to this story that we are getting.  I don't see this as controlling... I'm guessing this has been a battle for some time now.  If you actually care about your SO... then why not just wear something less revealing in public?   In most cases... I wouldn't say to just give in... but since it sounds like it is something questionable by society standards... maybe you should really be honest to yourself, and ask why you are doing it in the first place. 

Now... the only reason I'm saying this is... while normal yoga pants are thick, and would be fine without any underwear... I've seen more than my fair share of "Leggings" that really weren't meant to be worn as pants... and are a little on the small side for the girl wearing them.... and they are VERY see through. So... if you are continually doing this... are you doing it for the attention... or to just upset your husband? 

[Blind-Sided]

1 hour ago, Happy Lemming said:

How is this any different than wearing a bathing suit around a public pool or to the beach??  I mean you're covered.  Its not like you are "Flashing" people while you are taking the dog for a walk.

Well... unless it's a beach community... you wouldn't wear a reveling bathing suit to a store, or out in public.  AND... in the case of leggings... they can be very see-through. I'm guessing this is where the issue is.  

[Happy Lemming]

6 minutes ago, Blind-Sided said:

you wouldn't wear a reveling bathing suit out in public.

A "public" pool is in the "public".  And unless its a private gated beach, the beach is public, as well.

My girlfriend wears yoga pants in public, going to the store, etc.  I never checked to see if she had panties on or not, personally I don't care, either way.  I don't think she has a pair of "leggings", but I wouldn't care if she wore those either. 

If wearing her yoga pants makes her feel sexy and her "kibbles and bits" are legally covered up, go for it.  If other guys look, what do I care... I know I'll be the one next to her at night.

[mark clemson]

Speaking generally, for a LTR to work smoothly, both must be willing to calmly discuss issues, and be willing to make reasonable compromises and accommodations to help address the needs, concerns, and in some cases the insecurities of the other.

Edited May 3, 2021 by mark clemson

[Timshel]

5 hours ago, FMW said:

I'm with the others that say there's got to be a lot more to his bringing up divorce than this one issue.  

Yep...thong panties were invented to prevent a panty line. Lot's of people go commando. If a person is appropriately clothed...no one knows, it's not a thing.

[MsJayne]

As long as you're not doing the downward dog on the neighbour's front lawn I'm not sure what the problem is. Perhaps throw out his mutza suit by way of response. 

[Miss Peach]

I don't get the problem either. Obviously he hasn't tried to find underwear that don't show lines under yoga pants.

 

Are there jealousy issues. I had an ex that used to get jealous over the strangest things like what underwear I wore or whether I buttoned my cardigan.

[glows]

This is only on weekends and how is it even noticeable. 

You don't need new pants. You need a new husband.

Edited May 5, 2021 by glows

[d0nnivain]

6 hours ago, glows said:

This is only on weekends and how is it even noticeable. 

Are you kidding?  Camel toe can be quite pronounced in yoga pants, especially in the lighter colored ones.  It's like a neon sign.   Panties add an additional layer & smooth things out, drawing less attention to that part of the body.  

Hey if the OP gets off on walking around like that, it's her body.  But since her little sexy shows make her husband nuts, if she cared about him she'd curb her exhibitionist behaviors.  Similarly if he cared about her, he'd find a way to enjoy the show.   But since they have both decided to be entrenched over this issue, it's best to separate.   

[glows]

58 minutes ago, d0nnivain said:

Are you kidding?  Camel toe can be quite pronounced in yoga pants, especially in the lighter colored ones.  It's like a neon sign.   Panties add an additional layer & smooth things out, drawing less attention to that part of the body.  

Hey if the OP gets off on walking around like that, it's her body.  But since her little sexy shows make her husband nuts, if she cared about him she'd curb her exhibitionist behaviors.  Similarly if he cared about her, he'd find a way to enjoy the show.   But since they have both decided to be entrenched over this issue, it's best to separate.   

That's a lot of assumption when no one has seen any evidence of what this looks like or whether anything is showing. If anything, that was quite rude and disrespectful to throw out someone's belongings. Calling her exhibitionist is a little extreme as is what her husband did. 

I agree they could have worked this out better. Since they did NOT, I am responding to his extreme reaction towards what she wears or doesn't wear.

[d0nnivain]

I agree with you that hubby's reaction was extreme.  But it made me think about what preceded that.  How many times did he ask (beg) her to stop doing a behavior that made him crazy?   If more than a few times, his action was probably a last resort.  However, it continues to show that they belong apart.  

[glows]

Certainly does sound like he was at his wits' end! Maybe the OP can help shed some more light.

 

[emprosnet7]

We must have a visual before we can make any comments..

[Uruktopi]

Throwing away her clothes was abusive and shouldn´t be tolerated.

About divorce, it may benefit both if they are not in the same page related  to their views on how a relationship should be, where what was posted here (her clothing, his reactions) may be an emergent incident of a wider disagreement.

This, without making not enough informed judgements on whom of them is right or wrong (exception made of the first line of my answer, his severe fault)

What I perceive is that a lot of debate in this and other threads can be attributed more to a clash of of different sets of values (misndsets, relationship "cultures", priorities....) than to what is posted with probably incomplete or biased information about what may be relevant.