Dressing for dinner

The original poster in this thread asked about Michigan Avenue restaurants where you could dine in shorts and tennis shoes. A couple of people responded with suggestions but said to call the restaurant to check on the dress code.

Just because a restaurant doesn't have a policy out-and-out banning very casual clothing doesn't necessarily mean I'd feel comfortable dressed that way there. One of the suggestions, after all, was RL, couturier Ralph Lauren's restaurant, next to his flagship store. (I suppose designer shorts might be all right, if paired with a Polo shirt.)

Chicago has only a handful of places that require a jacket for men, but there are plenty of others where a man in shirtsleeves would stand out. And I basically think shorts are suitable only for very casual family restaurants, storefronts and places that serve from the counter. (Perhaps unfairly, this applies especially to men -- who wants to look at hairy legs while they eat?)

Are my sensibilities old-fashioned? Do others feel comfortable being much more casually dressed than the average diner at a fine dining restaurant?

I feel very comfortable around the more casually dressed at less casual restaurants, largely because I'm often one of them.

To me, a restaurant that requires me to dress a certain way in order to give them money is almost always to be avoided. And those where I would get worse service because of how I'm dressed are similarly despicable.

There are restaurants I've dressed up for, but I found my enjoyment of my meal greatly hampered by being in a suit. So why should I?

I'm still looking for a convincing argument for a restaurant having a dress code.

An excellent topic. I agree with your point of view. My rule of thumb is that it's better to err on the side of overdressing rather than underdressing. The only time I've been to a fine dining place in shorts, displaying my hairy legs, was in Bermuda, but that's a somewhat different culture than here. Of course, hairy legs in a formal situation are displayed annually here at the Illinois St. Andrews Society’s Feast of the Haggis in November … but are hairy legs more noteworthy than seeing so many men in “skirts” (aka kilts)?

I don't know. Every time I've dressed up a little more for a place I thought was on the borderline, it tums out to be full of people dressed like I was before I changed. Nevertheless, I don't want to sit there feeling funny about how I'm dressed, so I usually put on the black peignor, thigh high zebra-skin boots and German army helmet before I go out, yes.

In the summer, I'd say that outdoor dining is basically dress code free at most places, even if the inside is a little posher. And lunch is even if dinner isn't.

I do remember going to MK with my wife and realizing we were the only ones in the place not wearing black.

But screw 'em. I'm there to eat, not to be noticed or to blend in.

I'm also 6'7" and no place I go into is going to have a 'lender jacket' for me.

gleam wrote:I feel very comfortable around the more casually dressed at less casual restaurants, largely because I'm often one of them.

To me, a restaurant that requires me to dress a certain way in order to give them money is almost always to be avoided. And those where I would get worse service because of how I'm dressed are similarly despicable.

There are restaurants I've dressed up for, but I found my enjoyment of my meal greatly hampered by being in a suit. So why should I?

I'm still looking for a convincing argument for a restaurant having a dress code.

I feel exactly the same way. Since I won't be in Chicago till next weekend, I really don't know how the restaurants there are. I read the descriptions of alot of the places on here, and think "sounds good, but I wonder what the dress code is like..." A pair of khakis and a polo is about as dressed up as I ever want to be, and even that is pushing it. Here in Savannah I can go to 98% of the restaurants in shorts and a polo without any problem at all.

Maybe it's just me, but I have never felt uncomfortable in a situation because of how I was dressed. I could sit down in a pair of shorts, a t-shirt, sneakers, and no socks in a room full of people dressed to the nines, and I could care less. I'm paying the same for the food and service, and I probably tip better than most people in the room, why shouldn't I be comfortable?

Somewhat recently, on the "Beyond Chicagoland" forum regarding Chambana I read

My one complaint is that if you are going to have a white tablecloth restaurant as this one is, and charge the prices that fit such a restaurant, that you MUST ask male patrons to take off their baseball caps when they walk in the door.

I was a bit shocked. If anything, and rarely, I'd worry about being underdressed. I can't imagine a restaurant situation where I would call for a restaurant to increase the rigidity of their dress code. As long as a person and their clothes are clean what's the beef?

I don't think we have a problem at the truly classy restaurants this poster should stick to. Hell, this restaurant is in a giant university town, and the people in ball caps are probably students, slightly hung over, or delirious from the pace of their studies.

If I have a cap on its because I'm having a bad hair day. If we meet and do lunch, do not expect me to remove my hat, for its most likely preferable than the mess under it.

The hat protocol is extremely agist. I can remember distinctly being taught the rules of decorum -- how to be polite. Frankly, I don't remember the hat lecture. I know there are rules, but how did all those men, in the days when all men wore hats, sit at the table with hat head?

-ramon

LAZ wrote: (Perhaps unfairly, this applies especially to men -- who wants to look at hairy legs while they eat?)

Why do you think this applies unfairly to men? Are the hairy legs of women somehow more appealing to view while one eats?

Ramon wrote:I know there are rules, but how did all those men, in the days when all men wore hats, sit at the table with hat head?

When they arrived, they checked in their hat and coat. Often there is a mirror in the coat check area where they combed their hair or nipped into the bathroom for the same purpose. While they were carefully groomed, I doubt they ever considered 'bad hair' as any excuse to keep their hat on.

My goodness, this topic gets me riled up. I am in many ways the most bleeding heart liberal, understanding, ridiculously supportive and free-thinking person I know; I actually tick off Mrs. JiLS with great frequency in this regard, even myself on occasion. But when it comes to matters of dress, I just can't shake certain predilections and preferences, some of which I simply feel are sacrosanct. One is, men do not wear hats indoors, and women should think about it, too (i.e., only "fashion" hats indoors; take off the woolen ski hats, etc.). Why is that? I don't know, but I just instantly take a dislike to any man wearing a hat indoors; I realize it is a prejudice, but first impressions can be important, and my first impression is "what an uncooth yahoo." Can anyone enlighten me as to why a man wearing a hat indoors (ESPECIALLY a backwards baseball cap) is anything but a yahoo? Hats are designed to keep off the weather from the top of your head (and baseball caps have bills ... IN THE FRONT ... to keep the sun out of your eyes). I can be converted; just give me a good reason for it. And your inability to properly groom your own hair (a "bad hair day" -- as if the condition fell upon you from the heavens) is definitely NOT an excuse. Take a shower, wash and comb your hair. It takes 10 minutes. Set your alarm earlier if you need to; anything else is ludicrously self-indulgent. (And please note that I work 7 days a week, 12 or more hours a day, and I still find time to shower and groom my hair every day; if I can do it, so can you. I am really a lazy man at heart.)

I think a major point of consideration in this matter is the frequent use of the singular personal pronoun in most of these posts. That is, individuals have preferences and tolerances for their own dress and that of others. What "works" is what makes the wearer AND those around the wearer comfortable. Many have no problem with very casual dress in a room full of better dressed folks; if so, you probably realize the scorn being directed toward you, and simply do not care, which is an inarguable position. To our friend from Savannah; hey, I've lived in the South, too, and you really need to know that dress codes and standards DO mean something in the North (at least in urban centers of the North) in a way they do not in so much do in the South. You can and should adapt -- unless you find, after months or years of experience here -- that you just don't give a crap, even when surrounded by a higher percentage of "dresser-uppers" than you are used to in Savannah. And know that the pressure WILL be more obvious here than there. That said, I will continue wearing a jacket and tie when I dine at restaurants that encourage it, and will enjoy doing so. Dress codes make dining an event that exceeds the food itself. And I think the old rule of dressing one level below your server is not so hard to live up to (tuxedoed waiter? Suit and tie. Waiter in suit? Sport coat or at least a very nice dress shirt and slacks. Waiter in dress shirt and slacks? Polo shirt and khakis probably O.K. Waiter in polo shirt and khakis? Just make sure it was washed recently.)

JiLS

Good, Jim said all the things I would have said about baseball caps in nice restaurants. You might as well hang a sign around your neck that says "I am not a grownup yet and thank God Dad is still picking up the check for me to go out and eat." The wearer of such things indoors may think he's being hip and rebellious and countercultural, but that just means that he hasn't figured out yet that there's nothing so conformist as youthful rebellion in this culture.

Generally speaking, on the subject of the disconnect between one's own image of how one looks and how other people see you, one would do well to remember the passage in P.G. Wodehouse's great anti-fascist novel The Code of the Woosters, in which Bertie Wooster gives what for to Sir Roderick Spode, the wannabe Fuehrer modeled on the odious Oswald Moseley: "The trouble with you, Spode, is that because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of halfwits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone. You hear them shouting 'Heil Spode!' and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: 'Look at that frightful ass Spode, swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher!'" I believe I have myself used the phrase "Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher" a few times within the earshot of someone having brunch at the Ritz-Carlton in FCUK T-shirt and Cubs hat and flip-flops.

(Actually, I believe I've sat for hours, just saying that and other Wodehousisms to myself, for the sheer pleasure of it: "Spode, qua Spode, is a spent egg" or "Unlike the male codfish, which, suddenly finding itself the parent of three million five hundred thousand little codfish, cheerfully resolves to love them all, the British aristocracy is apt to look with a somewhat jaundiced eye on its younger sons." Fortunately, like all the other crazy people in America these days, I wear a cell phone earpiece so that my talking to myself and cackling goes unnoticed.)

As far as regional differences, I was brought up short a few years ago in France in a way that made me realize how things have changed in this country. My wife and I dined at a couple of nice restaurants in the provinces, always dressing up (France is still quite formal, women dressing in what we would call cocktail party clothes every day) and I would wear my jacket to dinner thinking it was likely required, only to find that people were knocking back Lynch-Bages in their shirtsleeves. When we got to Alain Ducasse in Paris, I felt a bit warm and relieved myself of my jacket, only to find a waiter standing at my side more or less instantaneously, speaking to me in a manner that said it would be most appreciated if monsieur would pull his pants back up and get down off the chandelier immediately. I realized, qua embarassment, that of course in France, as in any normal country, the capitol is more formal than the provinces; only in America have we reached the odd reverse state where you are required to wear a jacket to Prime Rib Night at the Whispering Hills Country Club in Woonsocket, Maine, but would seem positively ridiculous wearing one or even tucking your short-sleeved silk shirt in to your jeans while dining with billionaire studio chiefs in Beverly Hills. So the issue is complex, in this country-- but it seems to me that we are able to live and work in such a state of slovenliness day to day that one ought to seize any opportunity to dress up to the nines, banish the ball cap, comb the hair, and put on the Ritz.

Mike G wrote: someone having brunch at the Ritz-Carlton in FCUK T-shirt and Cubs hat and flip-flops.

Oh please, PLEASE do not get me started on flip-flops. I don't even think they are appropriate at the beach (come on, you wimp; walk on the F-ing sand in your F-ing bare feet, and LIKE IT.) And especially please don't mention Cubs (or Sox or Big 10 School) caps (backward turned) -- the devil's own tailor designs and (more important) warps young minds re: the need for these sartorial atrocities. God help us all, they are saying men should buy velvet suits this year; I propose instead simply burning hundred dollar bills while wearing baseball caps backward and picking our teeth with our fathers' credit cards at Spiaggia. Just a thought.

I guess this is one of those things people are just going to disagree on. No one can give me a good reason why there should be a dress code to go out and eat. Most reasons revolve around "that is the way it has always been" or "it makes the people around you comfortable" Well to be completely honest, unless you are paying for my meal, I feel no need to make your dining experience better. Is that selfish? I'm sure it is, but so be it. I don't mind dressing up for work, they are paying me to be there, and they have every right to tell me what to do. I don't mind dressing up for special occasions, in fact I like to dress up on these occasions, but to eat? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I probably shouldn't have replied to this right now, I'm tired, I just skimmed over the replies that follow my original post, and my grammer may we worse than usual, so I'm going to get some sleep, and actually read them tomorrow.

FYI ... While I currently live in Savannah, I'm originally from just outside of Boston, so my attitude isn't do to me being from the South. I can throw out a generalization in your direction as well, I would be willing to bet that you are from at least my parent's generation, if not from their parent's generation. I mean no disrespect by inquiring about your age (one of the few things I learned in the military was to give respect until given a reason not to), but I think it does make a difference in attitude, at least as much as regional differences do.

Everyone sleep good, it's just food after all!

SSDD

No one can give me a good reason why there should be a dress code to go out and eat.

Mike, now that might be a funny reason, but it is not a good one. I will not argue that fact that a man (I'm going to have to be sexist here, it seems like this conversation is almost entirely about men, young or otherwise), will almost always look his best in a suit. But just looking your best still isn't a good enough reason, for me at least, for a dress code.

Maybe if I got tied up in what other people looked like, I would care more about how I fit in with them? If I see someone dressed to kill I spend about two seconds thinking "I could wear that" and then back to my regularly scheduled thought process. Same with some dressed like a slob, "wow, what were they thinking?", and then continue on with my life. How someone else is dressed does not impact my experience


There was a post earlier in this thread along the lines of "I don't want to see hairy legs while I eat" So if I shaved my legs, would that make me wearing shorts expectable? Cause I take all the hair off my legs in a heartbeat if it would. But somehow I think it wouldn't make a difference.

If the old rule states that you should dress one level down from your server, and he is wearing a tux, and I wore a powder blue polyester suit, somehow I think that people would still have a problem with it. Now why is that? Thirty years ago I would be dressed to kill, now the only way to kill wearing that is if someone had a heart attack from laughing so hard. Things change.

When it comes down to it, I still haven't seen a good reason for a dress code. I've read about people's personal preferences and hang-ups, but no real reasons for a dress code in this day and age. Are there any owners/managers/front of the house staff from a restaurant with a dress code that can shed some light on this?

This is a great topic and one I hope to post a bit more on soon (or someday), but let me just say this for now. I agree with the sentiments and spirit behind what JiLS is saying, but I also think that there are men's hats, or better put, men who can where hats as part of their "look" and it is not uncouth or or uncool. I know on one hand, it is a way for the Hollywood set to hid their baldness--what do you like better Steven Van Zandt in the scarves or the Soprano's toupe, ok bad example, but Samuel Jackson pulls it off well and surely at every Katrina concert these days, the big armed Aaron Neville makes a hat seem right. Oh, and after all these years, I've finally grown to like it on Mr. Edge.*

*Odd how some of these things are. Back in 82 when my college roomate was all over U2, I liked them. Then from about 88 until about 8 months ago, I found them pretty insufferable, but something subliminal perhaps in Vertigo, I now find myself likeing them again. Which makes me think of the funny that my kidz showed me, from AOL Music:

Do you think this bad [picture of U2] will be big?

This question was running a few weeks ago.

headcase wrote:Well to be completely honest, unless you are paying for my meal, I feel no need to make your dining experience better. Is that selfish?

A qualified yes. You have no responsibility to make others experience better, but you do have a responsibility not to make their experience worse.

Call me old fashioned if you like, but I still say please and thank you, don't wear hats indoors, hold open doors for women of all ages, let little old ladies, and little old men for that matter, go ahead of me in line, attempt to speak in full sentences, overtip in coffee shops, don't use cell phones in restaurants or while interacting with cashiers/sales people, use my blinkers when making turns and any number of, what some seem to think, are outdated polite conventions.

Far as dressing appropriately, I may not be a fashion plate, though my wife dresses very well, but I don't want to be the worst dressed guy in the room either.

In my opinion polite, and being cognizant of what constitutes polite, make the world a better place.

headcase wrote:it's just food after all!

Just food?

Enjoy,
Gary

Dress codes have their origins in distinctions of social standing. There is a common conceit in this country that such social or class distinctons are less relevant here and now than they have been in the past and are nowadays elsewhere. There is a little truth to that but only a little.

For those who oppose the custom of dress codes in restaurants, there seems to be at issue a question of individual freedom, which we all can understand and sympathise with to a certain degree. But dress is, in effect, an aspect of behaviour, and I believe that dress codes are not simply concerned with static appearances but rather with the overall behaviour of patrons: the clothes are, of course, the only easy way to make some measure of prediction about and to exercise some control over the behaviour of patrons.

Is there something inherently elitist at play here? Perhaps, but that's hardly all there is to it. The old saying "the clothes make the man" contains a certain amount of truth. In general, someone wearing an expensive suit, surrounded by others dressed similarly, is less likely in my experience to burp and fart and cuss and guffaw and throw spit-balls and say lewd things to women they don't know and get disgustingly drunk and start a brawl than someone wearing a t-shirt and baseball cap and gym-shoes or flip-flops. The dress code is then both a way of keeping out some percentage of riff-raff that either cannot or will not accede to societally imposed norms. But it is also a way of making those who are willing to play the game remember that there is a tacit ageement amongst those in the dining room regarding behaviour generally.

Before the incompehending assault me, let me say explicitly that I AM NOT saying that people who sometimes or even often wear t-shirts and baseball caps and flip-flops etc. etc. are necessarily rude barbarians; that is most obviously not true. Nor do I claim that everyone who can afford Armani suits is well-behaved by any measure or stretch of the imagination.* But I am saying that for most people, there is a sense of a relationship between certain modes of behaviour and certain styles of dress. So it has always been and, I'm sure, so it will always be, whatever changes of detail may occur. And acceptable behaviour in places where the most informal apparel is appropriate is different from acceptable behaviour where traditionally formal apparel is appropriate. Precisely the same sort of relationship is found in language: there are situations in which one style or register is appropriate and others where the one isn't and another is.

Now, some of you are people who can go to a formal dining room in informal dress and will not in the slightest degree be tempted to behave badly; you can adjust your behaviour independently from your dress. But I hope you can recognise that not all people are able or willing to do that.

So then, I accept, appreciate and even applaud such minor social institutions as dress codes. But let me add that I take a rather dim view of those who regard such 'rules' as if they are equivalent to moral imperatives. To behave well, the barbarian relies on simplistic rules, whereas the civilised can rely on knowledge, good sense and taste.

Antonius

* I must add too that the most depressing trend in this regard is the increasing number of people who accept the idea of dress codes, presumably in the vulgar sense that they equate fashion with wealth and see wealth as the measuring rod for human worth, and then think that their appearance is the only concession they need to make concerning behaviour. Here I have in mind the asses who dress up and go to a formal setting and burp and guffaw and talk loudly on their cell-phone, etc., etc.

To echo VI, excellent thread.

In this argument, I fall on the side of dress codes where appropriate, and dressing appropriately. I am one, when unsure, prefers to err on the side of over-dressing. I have never, ever felt out of place at a dinner in a jacket and tie.

I don't care about lables or clothing. I don't even shop for clothes (this is one of the best perks of finding a bride--She brings home the clothes). But, the most important lesson I have learned about dressing myself is that people treat you exactly how you expect to be treated, and one of the elements of expectation is clothing. Dressing appropriately helps to garner an appropriate response, whether in restaurants, business meetings, or social gatherings.

In defense of dress codes:

Along with the food, a restauranteur is also selling you an experience: service, ambiance, atmosphere. The appearance of the room, and the customers therein, are a large factor in the atmosphere of the restaurant. If I am spending hundreds of dollars on a meal for a very special occasion, as Gary said, I don't want people at the table next to me damaging the atmosphere, making my experience worse. If I put on a suit and tie and my companion put on an evening gown and her best jewelry, the guy at the next table wearing jeans and a backwards baseball cap is making my evening worse.

Certain types of dining carry a certain expectation of atmosphere. People go to Trotter's, Alinea, whatever for a special evening and the restauranteur uses a dress code to ensure that their product feels special. They are completely justified in doing so.

Best,
Michael

headcase, as the general manager of a Loop restaurant, I'll weigh in. We get anywhere from 1-10 phone calls per day inquiring about our dress code. We don't have one. My standard response is "we do not have an official dress code per se, however, most people come dressed business casual." The caller's next question is usually "so I can wear jeans?" Or, "so I can wear shorts?" Well, yes. My goal is for all of our guests to feel comfortable in the restaurant, enjoy the atmosphere, food, service, etc... Some people can't do that "dressed-up" and some people can't do it without being "dressed-up." We attract guests of all ages, ethnicities, and cultures and do our best to accomodate everyone. Have I seen older guests give younger male guests in baseball caps a "look?" Yes, but I don't think that it damaged their overall dining experience. These same older, male, guests don't seem to be bothered by the lack of a dress code allowing for the occasional younger female guest to be rather scantilly attired. Personally, if I could ban just one thing, it would be those damn flip flops - and I don't care if they have cute little flowers on them, or rinestones, or whatever & they cost $60 - flip flops are for the beach! (And don't tell that's just 'cause I'm old - I'm in my mid-30's.)

G Wiv wrote:Call me old fashioned if you like, but I still say please and thank you, don't wear hats indoors, hold open doors for women of all ages, let little old ladies, and little old men for that matter, go ahead of me in line, attempt to speak in full sentences, overtip in coffee shops, don't use cell phones in restaurants or while interacting with cashiers/sales people, use my blinkers when making turns and any number of, what some seem to think, are outdated polite conventions.

I might called you old fashioned, but not because of most of what you said here. I do most of those things. In fact the only thing there I don't do with any sort of regularity is let people in front of me in line, at least because of there ago. If I'm shopping and I have a full cart, and you have only a few items, I'll generally let you go in front of me, regardless of age or gender. I will offer someone my seat on public transit if it looks like they need it more than I do. But I will not get up until they say they want to sit down, I've had people steal the seat I was trying to give away, but because they don't feel like standing, not because they can't.

I guess I just don't see how I'm dressed can effect someone else's experience. Antonius pointed out that a dress code is one of the only ways that a restaurant can exercise some control over the patrons. He goes on to say in his experience people dressed a certain way are less likely to act a certain way. Well, I generally feel this is more of a reflection on the type of clientele that a restaurant attracts vs the dress code changing or modifying behavior.

I agree with the next statement, I don't like it, but I agree with it:

Antonius wrote:The dress code is then both a way of keeping out some percentage of riff-raff that either cannot or will not accede to societally imposed norms.

I guess my problem is that I feel that this is a Catch 22. I feel that a dress code was originally an elitist ploy to keep the lower classes out of certain places, and now it has become the "norm", which to some seems elitist, and so on and so on.

Antonius wrote:
But let me add that I take a rather dim view of those who regard such 'rules' as if they are equivalent to moral imperatives. To behave well, the barbarian relies on simplistic rules, whereas the civilised can rely on knowledge, good sense and taste.

I like it!

eatchicago wrote:Along with the food, a restauranteur is also selling you an experience: service, ambiance, atmosphere. The appearance of the room, and the customers therein, are a large factor in the atmosphere of the restaurant. If I am spending hundreds of dollars on a meal for a very special occasion, as Gary said, I don't want people at the table next to me damaging the atmosphere, making my experience worse. If I put on a suit and tie and my companion put on an evening gown and her best jewelry, the guy at the next table wearing jeans and a backwards baseball cap is making my evening worse.

That's all well and good, and that's just about the only justifiable excuse for a dress code I've ever heard.

But it's not a good one, because it assumes there is no damage to MY experience by being required to wear a suit or a jacket. But there is. I almost always enjoy my meal less when I'm wearing a suit instead of my normal garb (slacks and a polo shirt).

So the question is, what's more important, me enjoying every aspect of my meal, or you not enjoying one particular aspect?

Basically the dress code vs no dress code debate really does boil down to "It makes other people like/respect/want to sleep with you more" and "That's the way it's been done for generations, dammit!"

And neither of those matter too much to me. I'm going to a restaurant to enjoy great food. If I walked into Moto or Alinea or Avenues and saw someone wearing shorts and a Coed-Naked-BBQ ("We do it WHILE smoking") t-shirt I wouldn't bat an eye. And it certainly wouldn't harm my dining experience. In fact, I might respect him/her more for doing what I do: being comfortable enough to fully enjoy what is, I imagine, a phenomenal meal.

My manners are, in fact, rather good. I say please and thank you more than the businessman in the $5,000 suit next to me; I tip better; I don't burp or fart, bellow at the wait staff, or talk on my cell phone. I am generally a lower-maintenance and more courteous customer than most.

The assumption that someone's clothes dictate who they are, or what their personality is, or whether they are worth talking to is perhaps the most flawed assumption there is.

If the restaurants are really paranoid about losing customers because I'm sitting there in a polo shirt and khaki pants, they should make a "No Suits" section, just like the "Smoking", or "Big Ears", or "Painted Fingernails" section. That way we can all be judged at once.

LynnB and eatchicago - Thanks for replying and I'll read and comment later, but now I have to get back to getting ready for the movers to come on Tuesday. You know the deal, cleaning, throwing lots of accumulated junk out, and so on.

I really do like to read everyone's responses, they probably won't change my mind, but it's good to hear anyway.

I would like to get an idea of the average age of the posters around here, maybe I'll start a poll later....

LynnB wrote: Personally, if I could ban just one thing, it would be those damn flip flops - and I don't care if they have cute little flowers on them, or rinestones, or whatever & they cost $60 - flip flops are for the beach! (And don't tell that's just 'cause I'm old - I'm in my mid-30's.)

It's 'cause you're old

I have no objections to flip flops whatsoever. Beth says they're among the most comfortable things she can put on her feet, and that's good enough for me.

And for headcase's survey, I'm three days into my 25th year (that is, I just turned 24 on Wednesday).

Anyway, I'll sum it up by saying this: For a group that claims it's "all about the food", very few of you seem to actually believe it.

For a group that claims it's "all about the food", very few of you seem to actually believe it.

Would Alinea be the same if it was a drive through and you got everything in styrofoam containers?

Of course it's not all about the food. Every restaurant is an experience, too. Good food in lousy surroundings doesn't taste as good. Decent food that's served in a place that feels like you've stepped into Bavaria or the middle east, and served with the warmth that says you're a guest in their home, is always better than slightly better food served in a place that has all the elan of a Greyhound station.

Dressing up for a nice meal is fun. Okay, I admit the fun has been beaten out of it a lot of the time, but in theory at least, duding up and acting like swells should be fun, not stuffy. And if you're not enjoying it on that level, well, you're just missing part of the show in such places. You're failing to hold up your end of the show. I wish standards of acceptable dress were less conservative than they are. I would happily dress in Regency costume, complete with snuff box (as long as I'm seated in the snuffing section), or in a Nudie suit (no, it doesn't mean what you think it means; click the link) if one could wear such things without people thinking you were a perfect perisher.

By the way, LynnB, it is entirely possible for the male of the species to both enjoy, and disapprove of, skimpy dress in an upscale setting at the same time. Totally different parts of the brain at work....

gleam wrote:

eatchicago wrote:Along with the food, a restauranteur is also selling you an experience: service, ambiance, atmosphere. The appearance of the room, and the customers therein, are a large factor in the atmosphere of the restaurant. If I am spending hundreds of dollars on a meal for a very special occasion, as Gary said, I don't want people at the table next to me damaging the atmosphere, making my experience worse. If I put on a suit and tie and my companion put on an evening gown and her best jewelry, the guy at the next table wearing jeans and a backwards baseball cap is making my evening worse.

That's all well and good, and that's just about the only justifiable excuse for a dress code I've ever heard.

But it's not a good one, because it assumes there is no damage to MY experience by being required to wear a suit or a jacket. But there is. I almost always enjoy my meal less when I'm wearing a suit instead of my normal garb (slacks and a polo shirt).

My point is that you make a particular choice when you dine out. You are purchasing the food, the service, and the atmosphere. You can't make a reservation and say, "I'd just like to pay for the food, but the atmosphere there really makes me uncomfortable". If dining out at a place that requires a jacket will harm your evening, then don't go there. If you don't like the product, don't buy it.

eatchicago wrote:

gleam wrote:

eatchicago wrote:Along with the food, a restauranteur is also selling you an experience: service, ambiance, atmosphere. The appearance of the room, and the customers therein, are a large factor in the atmosphere of the restaurant. If I am spending hundreds of dollars on a meal for a very special occasion, as Gary said, I don't want people at the table next to me damaging the atmosphere, making my experience worse. If I put on a suit and tie and my companion put on an evening gown and her best jewelry, the guy at the next table wearing jeans and a backwards baseball cap is making my evening worse.

That's all well and good, and that's just about the only justifiable excuse for a dress code I've ever heard.

But it's not a good one, because it assumes there is no damage to MY experience by being required to wear a suit or a jacket. But there is. I almost always enjoy my meal less when I'm wearing a suit instead of my normal garb (slacks and a polo shirt).

My point is that you make a particular choice when you dine out. You are purchasing the food, the service, and the atmosphere. You can't make a reservation and say, "I'd just like to pay for the food, but the atmosphere there really makes me uncomfortable". If dining out at a place that requires a jacket will harm your evening, then don't go there. If you don't like the product, don't buy it.

Do Moto and Alinea do take-out?

gleam wrote:The assumption that someone's clothes dictate who they are, or what their personality is, or whether they are worth talking to is perhaps the most flawed assumption there is.

Ed,

Respectfully, I think you may be jumping to a conclusion here. I don't think anyone made that particular assumption (Antonius was particularly careful to dispel that notion). I want to re-iterate my point that the dress in an clientele is not a matter of personality or personal worth, but a matter of atmosphere. Whether it's a road-house BBQ joint or a 4-star degustation, I enjoy my meal partially because of the atmosphere.

Best,
Michael

Mike G wrote:

For a group that claims it's "all about the food", very few of you seem to actually believe it.

Would Alinea be the same if it was a drive through and you got everything in styrofoam containers?

No, but that affects enjoyment of the food. I don't see how other people wearing jeans and a t-shirt affects enjoyment of the food.

If the dress code were reversed, and the finest restaurant in the world required all diners to be nude, would you be so accomodating to their whims? What if it required all diners to have their genitals pierced?

Would you avoid that restaurant altogether? I wouldn't. I'd find myself a nice skin-colored thong and a clip-on prince albert.

I don't think I enter into any sort of bargain with the other diners when I go to a restaurant. I certainly have no recourse against them if they don't hold up their end, and they have no recourse against me, so all we have in common is a shared sense of What Should Be. But we don't, because your sense of What Should Be is, apparently, very different from mine.

The reason, it seems, everyone is so willing to bend to these rules is because it's not terribly uncomfortable for them to do so. For some of us it is.

And of course it's fine to say "If you don't like the rules, don't eat there", but that's not the point of this discussion. This, I thought, was a theoretical discussion about the merits of dress codes.

I don't think they have any merit whatsoever. That does not mean I won't sometimes bend to them. It just means I think they're utterly idiotic.

eatchicago wrote:

gleam wrote:The assumption that someone's clothes dictate who they are, or what their personality is, or whether they are worth talking to is perhaps the most flawed assumption there is.

Ed,

Respectfully, I think you may be jumping to a conclusion here. I don't think anyone made that particular assumption.

Best,
Michael

JiLS wrote:I don't know, but I just instantly take a dislike to any man wearing a hat indoors; I realize it is a prejudice, but first impressions can be important, and my first impression is "what an uncooth yahoo."