DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am the mother of a 17-year-old daughter. I was also, some number of years ago, a Playboy bunny.

It's been my custom to not mention that fact because of the reputations of Playboy bunnies. However, in my case being a bunny meant I had money for college, graduate school and a yearlong trip to Europe.

My daughter has approached me about being allowed to tell her friends. She says they see all these gorgeous women on television and in magazines and her friends feel better when they realize just normal people (like me) can look like that. It seems a reasonable request, but I'm concerned about what her friends' parents will think. I don't want to swear these kids to secrecy about my (very) past life, but I don't want to be thought of as a slut either.

I'd appreciate any opinions you might have (and I bet you have a few) on how to best handle this. Am I just being silly and old-fashioned?

GENTLE READER: Let us hope so. An old-fashioned lady who is a bit flustered when it becomes known that she wasn't a totally old-fashioned girl and, before that, an old-fashioned baby, is charming. It adds just enough spice to keep her respectability from being cloying. And it makes her infinitely more charming than a mother who makes a point of showing how modern and racy she is.

Miss Manners means no slight to your daughter when she says that you might as well let her tell, because she is bursting with it -- if, indeed, she hasn't already told all her friends in strictest confidence. That would be the same strictest confidence in which they all told their mothers. You may take it as a given that even trustworthy people who swear never to tell anyone else are exempting their intimates from that category.

So (to use the ploy by which reporters pry quotes from those trying to duck public attention), don't you want to get the true story out there?

Your version cannot be that this was a universally innocent occupation, because there are too many other bunnies' stories out there. On the contrary, you need to explain that it was possible to hold this job without engaging in any immoral behavior.

And while the financial angle is relevant, you do not want to let your daughter think that money nullifies all questions about how it is earned. You can cover that by saying, "Looking back, perhaps I might have made a different choice."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What does one do with Christmas carolers? They are quite marvelous, but I never know quite how to react.

Wonderful young people who come in great good spirits to sing carols at one's front door -- do I stand at the open door, listening while I freeze and the house grows as cold as an Arctic igloo, or do I stay inside the warmth and smile through the window, or do I try to bring them all in out of the cold (to sing inside) and hope that I have some cookies or something to offer?

GENTLE READER: You are allowed to peek and wave from the window if, when they finish, you open the door to thank them. But Miss Manners wonders why, if you are fortunate enough to have caroling neighbors, you might not have cookies and hot punch on hand to offer them.

:

Along with holiday greetings, the mail is surging with belligerent invitations.

As Miss Manners recalls, offers of hospitality used to be written in a charmingly suppliant tone. Would-be hosts didn't simply invite people, they begged, pleaded and cajoled:

"Please come ... we would be so happy if you would join us ... it would be such fun to have you here ... I would be thrilled ... We were hoping ... " Even the most formal invitations emphasized what a pleasure the guests' company would be or what an honor their presence.

Some of this ingratiating wording is retained through habit, but Miss Manners fears that the spirit is lost. The modern invitation soon turns to snarling:

"Reply by December 16."

"Dress creatively."

"Female guests should not wear black, red, white or orange."

"Adults only."

"By invitation only."

"No smoking."

"Promptness requested."

"Send in an original poem for our memory book."

"Submit a square for our quilt."

"Bring a dish that serves eight."

"Bring a food donation for the cause."

"Bring your checkbook."

"Cash bar."

"Currency only."

"Monetary gifts preferred."

And a new one on Miss Manners to which a Gentle Reader reports being subjected: "Leftover food and drink welcome."

She recognizes that part of this bossiness -- the part that isn't screaming greed -- is the guests' own fault. If they behaved themselves, it wouldn't be necessary to bark orders at them. Hosts turn surly when they are fed up with guests who habitually put off replying (in many cases forever), dress incongruously, arrive late, leave in the middle for other parties, bring along uninvited children and friends, offer minimal thanks and are never heard from again.

Perhaps all that has contributed to the greed factor. The conceit that it is the guest who confers a favor by agreeing to allow someone else to plan and prepare his or her entertainment, not to mention cleaning up afterward, gets less and less plausible.

"Why should I do this for those ingrates?" is an understandable question. Many hosts unfortunately stop right there, and thus the graciousness of home entertaining is becoming rare.

But the solution of making so-called guests pay their own way is a crass one. Cooperative parties and fund-raisers are viable social forms if properly labeled, but do not replace the ancient and sacred ritual of exchanging pure hospitality.

There is a certain amount of direction that hosts must legitimately provide. They set the date, time, place and style of the event, and get extra credit if they throw in how to get there and where to park. And as a sad commentary on human behavior, requesting a reply has crept into the language of both formal and informal invitations. It used to be obvious that if someone asked you over, you had to reply, yes ("I'd love to") or no ("Oh, I'm so sorry, that's the day I wash my beard").

Additional orders, especially any concerned with money or presents, are rude. Miss Manners lives in hope that guests will tire of hearing them and just go ahead and do their duties.

After all, it only took a decade or two for everyone to learn to wait for the beep before attempting to leave phone messages. Some day, perhaps, people will know to turn off their cell phones in the theater. Wouldn't it be worth it to be spared all that nagging?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Do you think if you have guests coming for the Christmas holidays you are thereby required to decorate your home and buy a Christmas tree?

My mother is joining me and my husband for another Christmas season and, although I am looking forward to the time off to spend with her, I just don't want to get a tree this year.

Normally, it falls on me to decorate and generally carry the festive attitude throughout the visit, but this year I just don't feel festive enough and am giving myself a break. I plan to make merry and will probably decorate in some fashion, but just not a tree this year. My mom reckons I should have a tree for my "guest." I say she is a woman visiting her daughter for the holidays and that should be enough.

GENTLE READER: So your mother wants a Christmas tree, and you don't feel like getting her one. But as you pose your question in general terms, Miss Manners has to admit that no, there is no etiquette requirement that hosts provide Christmas trees.

But your mother wants one. Can't you ask yourself how you would have felt as a child if she had told you she didn't feel festive enough to get one for you?

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: The tradition of Christmas cards is slipping away: We have no time to write them, it costs too much to send them, and they are ultimately thrown into a landfill. Somebody has suggested a telephone call to everyone on the Christmas card list, observing "people will enjoy it more" and the money would be put to use elsewhere.

All true, as far as it goes, but a couple of points in favor of an old-fashioned, pretty card:

One of the joys my brothers and I share when we visit our parents during the holidays is a leisurely browse through the holiday cards they receive. A phone call would be nice -- but the card touches more than the person who answers the phone. Many old family friends and even relatives don't stay in regular touch with the extended family -- but Mom and Dad will get cards from out-of-town great-aunts, etc., who we rarely hear from except at Christmastime. Even the much-derided "mass letter" is a treat (I think the derision comes from cynics who don't want to write them, more than folks who don't want to read them).

On the other hand, folks who only send cards to people who send THEM cards should probably stop sending any cards at all. If holiday greetings are meted out as rewards for good behavior, they're a little insincere, aren't they? Or am I just lost in Irving Berlin Land?

GENTLE READER: You were fine until you got to the part about it being insincere to stop pouring greetings into a void. Miss Manners, who practices charity toward all, assumes that one can be sincere and even jolly-spirited without feeling the urge to spread greetings to people who never greet back. Even those people might be sincere, jolly-spirited folk who are racking their brains trying to remember who their greeters are.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: All our sons are married and I want to write out one Christmas check to each couple, addressed to "Mr. and Mrs." My wife has insisted that we give the sons a check addressed to them individually and that we write a separate -- and substantially smaller -- check (totaling about 4 percent of what we gave the boys) to each of their wives.

Since all the boys are happily married and we know the money will go into one pot, I don't understand why we would send a separate check that carried with it a potentially insulting or belittling message. My wife argues that since it all went into one pot, it didn't make a difference.

I believe it does make a difference. After all, she does not work outside the home, but I would never suggest that the gift was just from me, since I, technically, earned the money. Although the couples each end up with $200 more when we take my wife's approach, I feel that writing just one check to the couple is, ultimately, more generous. What is your opinion?

GENTLE READER: That if your sons are happily married, you should not behave as if you were worried that the daughters-in-law could get their hands on the money in defiance of their husbands or in divorce settlements. What Miss Manners finds worse is the clear statement of worth you assign your sons, and the discounted rate you put on their wives.

: