gleam wrote: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 guess it makes sense to expand this discussion then to address the merits of any rule in any establishment.

For example, at Hot Doug's you are not allowed to take a seat before you order. He started this rule because he feels it is much more efficient and comfortable for his place. There's nothing idiotic about this rule. It makes his customers more comfortable and creates the atmosphere that he wants.

Doug is creating his product when he makes a sausage, decorates his walls, and sets the rules about seating. Charlie Trotter is doing the exact same thing with a dress code. In my mind, there's nothing idiotic about creating your product or protecting your brand.

gleam wrote:

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."

Touché.

Well, I didn't make that assumption.

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?

You know the piercing place was good, but it wasn't as good as the all-nude place. I say go nude, but skip the piercing (if you don't already have it).

As we are now dining at The Reductio at Absurdum Pointe, it's clear that resolution is unlikely. Suffice it to say that I consider any number of accommodations to the whim of a restaurant part of the deal of having the experience they wish to create for me. Who am I really cheating if I go to Alinea and ask them to skip the next three foams and just bring me a bacon cheeseburger, if I ask them to put the Bears game on for me while I dine, if I bring my Big Gulp of Mountain Dew into the restaurant and sip that all through the evening while tapping out messages on my Treo? They wil most assuredly make sure I pay all the same, so they aren't deprived of anything.

I recognize that for lots of people, dressing up winds up being associated with starchy behavior and tedium. I understand why, I just know that it doesn't have to be, and it really is a pleasure to look as nice as you can look once in a while, and go slummin' on Park Avenue.

Mike, the difference is that in this case you are making requests of them that they can refuse. In the dress code instance they are making requests of me that I am attempting to refuse.

I want to reiterate that I accept the right of restaurants to refuse service to whomever they wish for virtually any reason (aside from those like race, etc). And, indeed, at restaurants that have a dress code I will make an attempt to meet it. I have a suit that I look very good in, and that is not wholly uncomfortable, and I've worn it out before.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this, or that I won't patronize any restaurant that does.

I'm saying I wish they didn't. Just like a smoker wishes restaurants weren't non-smoking nowadays.

And I will say that VI looked very snappy last time I saw him wearing a hat indoors. Not at all uncouth.

For example, at Hot Doug's you are not allowed to take a seat before you order. He started this rule because he feels it is much more efficient and comfortable for his place. There's nothing idiotic about this rule. It makes his customers more comfortable and creates the atmosphere that he wants.

Yes, and it is an immense pleasure when you come back from the drink machine, having already ordered, and somebody rushes to save the table you're eyeing, and Doug boots them out and you get to sit down with the most wonderful feeling of smug superiority and justice.

gleam wrote:And I will say that VI looked very snappy last time I saw him wearing a hat indoors. Not at all uncouth.

Are you kidding!?! That guy's a total uncouth yahoo.

Yes, and it is an immense pleasure when you come back from the drink machine, having already ordered, and somebody rushes to save the table you're eyeing, and Doug boots them out and you get to sit down with the most wonderful feeling of smug superiority and justice.

Sometime ago, Ourpalwill described getting a hamburger at In-and-Out around Fisherman's Wharf. He said the regulars waited in line, got their food, then got a table. This harmony was disrupted by tourists who'd grab seats before their order was even taken.

It's great Doug knows what's best for his business.

Regards,

The Me Generation is alive and well and eating in Chicago.

I don't know that I've seen one concept introduced yet, and there's another I'll get to in a bit. For myself, I chafe at dress codes at work, where frankly I can go days without seeing my boss and weeks without seeing my boss' boss, who laid down the edict, and don't ever see anyone from outside. That's purely nonsensical -- the clothing has nothing to do with how I do my job.

Social occasions are different. You're picking not just how to spend your time and money but whom you interact with. And if you are in the same room as other people, you are interacting with them, however much your worldview begins and ends with you. There is such a thing as respect still. If you cannot see that your slob ass will affect the enjoyment of others, you have not developed it. (Well, respect. You may well have developed your slob ass to a very enhanced degree.)

I haven't yet been to a restaurant that doesn't have a little flexibility in its dress code. Most places seem to have ranges rather than rules. If even that level of discretion is unworthy of your attention, what other distinctions the restaurant makes are going to fly by you unnoticed?

But still the restaurant is merely setting forth the guideline, and as its patron you pick up on it because you respect it, you respect yourself, your respect your companion or companions, and you respect the general populace that wishes to enjoy that evening there. You respect that, even if to you "hey, it's just food" (gah!), the other patrons may be marking significant moments in their lives. That's all? That's more than enough. If not, I hope someone's SBD floats over the frozen carrot globe at Moto just before your girlfriend sees the diamond ring you've had them hide in it.

And perhaps by asking about age, people are trying to dodge the level of maturity, not unrelated but not the same, this takes. If I can tweak Mike's comment just a bit, I don't see it as part of the show but as part of the deal. It's a social contract, a bargain that we all make: I won't make you miserable if you don't make me miserable. (The cynic's version of the Golden Rule.)

And hey, I'm from outside Boston too -- disrespect doesn't come from there.

Bob S. wrote:And hey, I'm from outside Boston too -- disrespect doesn't come from there.

Again thanks for the replies, some good dialog is always appreaciated. I'm going to think about some of the points that have been made, and respond later (like when the wife will let me play with the computer for more than a min)

Bob S. -- where are you originally from? I'm from the South Shore, a town called Hanover.

SSDD

If I could add few thoughts to add to this intriguing discussion, some of them echoing what others have said:
1) With a few exceptions, I believe that most of those chiming in on this topic have been male (sometimes offering opinions of significant others along with their own.) I’m wondering if the female diners out there have different ideas to add. I do know that I was most desirous of “fancy eating” when I had babies in the house – spending all day changing diapers, doling out baby food, wearing baggy sweatshirts accented by fresh spit-up stains: for the first time in my life I really, really wanted to put on a silk blouse and heels. Feeling slovenly and steeped in Sesame Street, I wanted only to see elegant, sophisticated people (or at least those I could imagine to be) at the chi-chi establishment of my choice. It is pleasant to get dressed up sometimes (maybe especially for those of us who work at home) and to take in other nicely-dressed folks as you dine. (And, as far as I’m concerned, if you don’t have to wear pantyhose, men, you’ve got nothing to complain about when you dress for dinner.) I can’t imagine getting dolled up to go a place like Everest, say, and walking in to find everyone else there wearing shorts and t-shirts (and, as a parent, don’t get my started on what messages people find appropriate to broadcast on their attire – had to explain to a 6-year-old the other day what “I’m too busy to FCUK” was all about.) It would undermine my dining experience, at an establishment like that, since some of the pleasures derives, in those breathers between courses, in observing the other diners – and what they’re wearing.
2)Class, of course, enters into this discussion, but as was mentioned above, it doesn’t always play out in expected ways. The places I have felt the most underdressed have not been “high-dollar” restaurants (phrase courtesy of a former roommate from Texas) but more modestly-priced establishments, like the supper club we stopped in on the road in Montana, bleary from the drive and dressed in jeans, while the rest of the patrons, locals all, were enjoying their superb prime-rib meals dressed formally for dinner (some of the men wore string ties, to be sure, but they looked good – and none of those ranchers wore their hats inside, I’ll just point out.) Then there was the time a while back when we decided to have an early dinner at Pearl’s Place, on the south side, on the way home from a Sunday visit to the Museum of Science and Industry. Once we entered, we realized that everyone else there was elegantly attired in their Sunday best, having just come in from church. In both cases, no one did or said anything that suggested to us that we had done something wrong by dressing differently than the regulars. But I felt that we appeared to be disrespectful to the restaurants and to the patrons by looking like we did. So, while “dressing for dinner” may be elitist on some levels, it isn’t always the elites who embrace this concept. Before the advent of business casual, one could grossly generalize that upper-class people dressed up for work and down for social occasions, but the opposite was true for working-class people. Things have changed somewhat, but I do think, as the writer above emphasized, that one important element at play here is displaying respect for others around you.
3)The one time, though, I agree with the no dress coders is at vacation spots – at places like the Banff Springs Hotel, for instance, the fanciest restaurant there won’t allow you in without a jacket and tie, and who wants to pack that? No room for your hiking boots if you do. I have no desire to ever go on a cruise, but maybe they still require you to pack formal wear, so that you can be suitably attired for dinner with Leslie Nielson or whoever the captain is. But if the boat turns over you'd be better off in jeans and tennis shoes.

eatchicago wrote:

gleam wrote:And I will say that VI looked very snappy last time I saw him wearing a hat indoors. Not at all uncouth.

Are you kidding!?! That guy's a total uncouth yahoo.

I agree in that instance. And Hammond is another obvious example. Anyway and however, keep in mind my original point was with regard to my own first impressions of strangers, not people with whose level of couthness I am already familiar. And I know that if I actually got to know the indoor-hat wearing strangers I often observe in restaurants, I would find 9 out of 10 to be fine people (if a bit misguided in their habits of dress). But in a restaurant, I am not likely to have the time or inclination to strike up conversations with everybody I see, hat-wearing or not. As a result, all these folks must remain strangers to me and, like the wallpaper or a flickering TV over the bar, subject to the whim of my gaze. (For those keeping score, I believe that may be a quote from Sartre.)

I'm sure I daily look like a right idiot to lots of people, and none of them bother to say anything (O.K., most of them don't). Rather than just not thinking about it, my preference is to take steps to avoid the situation -- and dressing to fit in (plus remaining silent) is the most effective camouflage for my idiocy I've found to date. Plus everything Mike said about it being fun to dress up.

And in that regard, being used to regularly wearing (and maintaining) dress clothes sure helps a lot when it comes time to dress for dinner. For the first 10 years of my working career, I wore a suit to work almost every day. I owned about 7 or 8 suits, because I had to. Now, I have casual day every day that I'm not meeting a client, a government representative, etc. and only have two suits (at least ones that fit). But years of commuting, talking, walking around, working -- and, yes, EATING -- in a suit acclimated me to it. So maybe with that baseline, it's easier for me to find pleasure in wearing a suit. And I'll also just add here that no woman I've ever spent time with, Mrs. JiLS included, has failed to "warm up" a little when they see me in a nice looking suit -- so don't overlook that fringe benefit, either. Now, if I learned Mrs. JiLS just LOVED me wearing a backward IU cap to Alinea ... I would be most conflicted.

Oh, incidentally, lest I look too snooty, snotty, or snobby, I'll 'fess up that I play the game passive-aggressively myself, mostly not going to places where I think I might be uncomfortable with the level of dress -- but that's more of the moment than of the broader situation. I'm pretty sure I took my tie off at Moto, but that was a special case as we had a private room; upstairs I likely would've left it on.

But if I'm making a reservation or even just included in one, I'll ask in advance not what the dress code is but how they'd like me to dress. That right there sets it up as a negotiation rather than a rule and give both sides some flexibility, but still gives them the chance to lay down the law if they must.

Backtracking a bit, I see Mike also used the "part of the deal" phrase as we wrote roughly simultaneously, so I'll ride his coattails on that one, so to speak. Also, as far as hats are concerned, can we agree that Hammond's an outlier?

Oh, headcase, I didn't know Hanover well, though I had a friend from there and so I played a couple poker games at his place. (So what I saw was mostly at night.) I grew up in Arlington, then lived in Watertown and finally my beloved Davis Square, Somerville, before heading out here in '97. My sister's lived on the South Shore since she moved out, though -- she's currently in Weymouth. I think there are a couple other Boston expatriates here too.

Hi,

I used to read Bob Greene who would occasionally highlight how things have changed. One was how riding on an airplane was a special occasion where people wore dresses and suits with ties. Whereas today's airline travel patrons often look like they just arrived from or are about to depart to a day at the beach. After reading articles on what to wear to survive a plane crash, I won't go the stocking and heels route. I do wear lots of cotton and flat shoes, though it's of classic styling to wear anywhere.

On another occasion, Bob Greene observed going to the movie theater was a suit, tie and dress affair. Where going to the Drive-In one could wear casual clothing. Every since when I see pictures of audiences from the 50's, sure enough those in theater are dressed and those at the Drive-In are casual.

My preference when I don't have a sense of situation is to overdress. You can always claim to be going to another occasion while mentally crossing your fingers. If you show up like you're ready to cut the grass, there is no good way to dig yourself out of your faux pas.

Remember how quickly the Northwestern girls lacrosse team's photo at the White House with the President flashed around the world after someone thought it wasn't appropriate to wear flip flops. If it had been simply bad-hair-day it would not have made the press.

Regards,

Adjusting one's behaviour -- and that includes one's dress -- to fit a variety of social contexts is an essential part of being a civilised adult. The recent trend in this country to reject such sensitivity to context is hardly limited to restaurants. Increasingly, Americans think it is their right to wear their preferred informal clothes under any and all circumstances, from university gatherings to church services to audiences with the president.

As I tried to indicate in my previous post in this thread, I think there is a two-way relationship that makes these social customs worth upholding. The person who rejects them and, for example, dresses 'down' for some occasion, may well have just as much respect as anyone for institution or persons involved, but the dressing down by some encourages dressing down by others and at a certain point, the general awareness of a 'specialness' of the situation is gone. And with that, there is no longer a sense that any special adjustment of other aspects of behaviour need be made.

A context where this deterioration of behaviour is, in my opinion, readily apparent is in the classroom. And the 'democratisation', the deformalisation of the classroom is, to my mind, not wholly unrelated to the considerable dumbing down of the general populace.

I don't intend to argue that people who don't like dress codes are necessarily people who behave badly, but I do think that those who claim that there should be no customs regarding appropriate dress for different social situations haven't thought very deeply about how civilised society works.

Antonius

Again, just because these societal norms exist doesn't make them RIGHT, and it doesn't mean I have to like them. I tend to conform to them, because I'm a sheep, but I don't enjoy it. If I had my way, we'd have a much more open and honest and comfortable society.

I'm looking at this as a theoretical discussion. My ideal world would involve no weight being given to clothing. As Antonius's list makes clear, though, this is not my ideal world.

I, personally, think most men look worse in suits than in more casual clothing, and I think most women look worse in evening dresses than in more casual clothing. But I'm attracted by women dressed in comfortable clothing.

gleam wrote:I, personally, think most men look worse in suits than in more casual clothing, and I think most women look worse in evening dresses than in more casual clothing. But I'm attracted by women dressed in comfortable clothing.

That, gleam, is what it's all about. As I hinted at above, sexual attraction (or the attempt to enhance it) is inextricable from decisions regarding fashion. "Civilised" or not, social functions like dining out are at least in large degree about mating, looking for mates, deepening your bonds with the mate you have chosen. And, once again: Mrs. JiLS really likes how I look in a nice suit. 'Nuff said. Your opinion that most men look worse in suits probably is just a result of your own distaste for wearing suits; men in suits probably make you feel itchy and constrained just to look at them. You are certainly not alone in that.

gleam wrote:I'm looking at this as a theoretical discussion. My ideal world would involve no weight being given to clothing. .

Societies that have gone far in the direction of minimising expression through clothing are typically militaristic and dictatorial in nature... Maoist China comes to mind. Now, I assume you're not advocating that but rather objecting to hyperjudgemental and very simplistic attitudes about people and clothes, exemplified perhaps by the statement earlier in this thread about headwear.

But where people associate freely, there will be expectations of behaviour --sartorial, verbal, hygenic, etc. -- in certain settings and different expectations in other settings. That is supremely normal, indeed, innate social behaviour for most of us apes.

And with that, all I can say is...

!Viva la revolución!

Antonius

Antonius wrote:
Societies that have gone far in the direction of minimising expression through clothing are typically militaristic and dictatorial in nature...
Antonius

Hmmmm, that is a good point, I wonder if the military is were my disgust of dress codes came from?

Zero Six - PT's - Summer = Military issue shorts, and t-shirts
Winter = the above plus Sweat pants/Sweat Shirt. Real cold days = all of the above plus Black knit cap and black leather gloves.

Zero Eight - BDU's, soft cap (later replaced by the black beret), Shined leather boots, sometimes with Gorex coat and Black leather gloves.

Other misc functions : Class B's light gree short or long sleeve shirt, with or without awards, darker green pants, highly shined black shoes, garison cap (later replaced with black beret) . Or you could go all the way to Class A's with the Jacket which is always worn with all the various awards and insignia and everything else that is listed under Class B's.

Antonius wrote:Societies that have gone far in the direction of minimising expression through clothing are typically militaristic and dictatorial in nature... Maoist China comes to mind. Now, I assume you're not advocating that but rather objecting to hyperjudgemental and very simplistic attitudes about people and clothes, exemplified perhaps by the statement earlier in this thread about headwear.

But where people associate freely, there will be expectations of behaviour --sartorial, verbal, hygenic, etc. -- in certain settings and different expectations in other settings. That is supremely normal, indeed, innate social behaviour for most of us apes.

Wait, wait, wait.. how did we go from me not wanting any weight given to clothing to me wanting a society where a particular dress code is mandatory? I thought I made it clear that I had a strong distaste for dress codes, be they government or restaurant or workplace imposed.

I don't want people to not express themselves through clothing, I just don't want them to force their ideal dress style on ME. What could be less dictatorial?

gleam wrote:Wait, wait, wait.. how did we go from me not wanting any weight given to clothing to me wanting a society where a particular dress code is mandatory? I thought I made it clear that I had a strong distaste for dress codes, be they government or restaurant or workplace imposed.

I don't want people to not express themselves through clothing, I just don't want them to force their ideal dress style on ME. What could be less dictatorial?

I agree with your distaste for dress codes, but I am more tolerant of workplace codes, since like I said before, they are paying me. While I'm at work I'm on their time, when I'm on my time I like to dress how I want.

For instance, I just booked tickets to see Chicago @ the Cadillac in December, my wife and I will probably do an early dinner, and we will more than likely dress up for that occasion. The key point for me is that I am dressing up for my wife, not because of a restaurant's dress code.

There was mention of sex being a key to how people dress in the age thread I started (and probably in here as well) maybe part of my "problem" is that I have been with my wife for just over 10 years in one sort of relationship or another. I never felt the need to impress any one, and I guess it is even less now.

gleam wrote:

Antonius wrote:Societies that have gone far in the direction of minimising expression through clothing are typically militaristic and dictatorial in nature... Maoist China comes to mind. Now, I assume you're not advocating that but rather objecting to hyperjudgemental and very simplistic attitudes about people and clothes, exemplified perhaps by the statement earlier in this thread about headwear.

But where people associate freely, there will be expectations of behaviour --sartorial, verbal, hygenic, etc. -- in certain settings and different expectations in other settings. That is supremely normal, indeed, innate social behaviour for most of us apes.

Wait, wait, wait.. how did we go from me not wanting any weight given to clothing to me wanting a society where a particular dress code is mandatory? I thought I made it clear that I had a strong distaste for dress codes, be they government or restaurant or workplace imposed.

I don't want people to not express themselves through clothing, I just don't want them to force their ideal dress style on ME. What could be less dictatorial?

Now, I assume you're not advocating that but rather...

Read, lad, read! And I thought you said you were taking this as a 'theoretical' discussion.

As for your last paragraph... well, what could be more off the point. You are not forced to go to any particular restaurant (yet).

A certain sympathy I have for your dislike of dressing up, and I would say too that there are specific instances of dress codes that make little sense, but a general rejection of the notion of dress codes transcends the realm of the unrealistic and enters the world of the misguided, in my opinion...

Should people feel constrained to dress in a certain way for a funeral? I think so. But why? The dead don't see who's wearing what...

Antonius

Well, don't get me started on funerals..

headcase wrote: Here in Savannah

Headcase,

As an interesting diversion from age, dress etc., might I suggest starting a thread on your favorite Savannah restaurants. My wife is going to Savannah next weekend with a friend and would find the information quite useful.

Thanks in advance,
Gary

eatchicago wrote: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.

While I started this thread to discuss appropriate dressing at restaurants without formal dress codes, I will comment that I once heard exactly this justification from a restaurateur who had just instituted a dress code at his costly restaurant. This was at the end of the 1990s, so there were a lot of dot-com-ers and others who'd acquired money without the habits of dressing up. The restaurateur commented that while some of these people ate at restaurants like his frequently, for others it was a special-occasion restaurant: "So I've got a couple who's saved up all year to come here on their anniversary, and at the next table there's a guy in a polo shirt and jeans. I didn't think that was right."

Interestingly, he was risking the business of people who might come in once or twice a month in favor of elevating the experience for someone who might visit only once a year, but he was also setting a tone for the restaurant.

And count me with those who think that, if you don't belong to a religion that requires a head covering at all times, men should take their hats off indoors.

Oddly enough, one of my very first restaurant memories involves a dress code. My mother and grandmother had taken me with them shopping in downtown Detroit. They stopped for lunch at Forbidden City, an elegant Chinese restaurant. Both adult women were dressed to the nines. In the 1960s, women still dressed up to go shopping downtown. But I was wearing slacks. The maitre d' nearly didn't let us in. I was 7. (The occasion was memorable to me more because it was my first experience with Chinese food.)

If a restaurant today banned women in pants (let alone little girls), it would make headlines. Women do have it easier when it comes to standards of dress -- standards bow to fashion, and women's fashions change more than men's. The various periods when "hot pants" were fashionable have inured restaurants to women in shorts. (The changability of women's fashions has serious drawbacks, too, but that's not relevant to this thread.)

However, I don't think age has much to do with judging people by dress. If we add nightclubs to the mix, you'll find that places that cater to young people are far more likely to have a particular "look" in mind and if you don't meet it, you'll languish in line outside forever. (For that matter, teenagers have more rigid standards of dress than any adults. They're not the same standards, but anyone dressing differently than the generally agreed on fashions will be derided and outcast.)

Restaurants have ways of dealing with those who don't meet their standards of dress even if they don't have a formal policy. Take a look around you and see who's seated at prime spots and who's behind the kitchen door.

Oddly enough, one of my very first restaurant memories involves a dress code. My mother and grandmother had taken me with them shopping in downtown Detroit. They stopped for lunch at Forbidden City, an elegant Chinese restaurant. Both adult women were dressed to the nines. In the 1960s, women still dressed up to go shopping downtown. But I was wearing slacks. The maitre d' nearly didn't let us in. I was 7. (The occasion was memorable to me more because it was my first experience with Chinese food.)

Blythe Danner was in a television series in the late 1960's whose name I have long forgotten. Yes, I could google it but I want to relate what I do remember. There was an episode where a woman was rejected from a country club type restaurant because she had on pants. The Blythe Danner character challenged this by wearing a pant suit. When the maitre d' declined to seat her, she wiggled out of her pants in defiance. The top of the pant suit was long enough to be considered a mini-dress. She was then seated in the restaurant with the other patrons applauding.

In the late 70's or early 80's, we went to the 95th for lunch and were turned away because some of us wore jeans. Everyone else who was seated was in business attire; which was the clientelle and atmosphere they wanted to retain.

Maybe 10 years ago, I went into a family restaurant in Champaign. I had spent the day repairing and painting a house. I was pretty tired and while I did my best to clean up, I look pretty grubby. Where did they attempt to seat me? By the kitchen door, which I knew the connotation. I asked and received another table. If they had declined, I would have found somewhere else.

Like it or not, we are judged by our exterior when they sort out where to seat people.

Regards,

I would be willing to bet that you are from at least my parent's generation, if not from their parent's generation.

I am possibly from your parent's generation, depending on old you are and how early they got to generating, though on average I am probably still a little young for that; but this is how the future King's Thursday and I dressed for a night out when we were in our early 20s:



Well, it is true, we did not dress like that ALL the time. In this case, my friend Ken and I happened to run across a mall tuxedo place selling off, at $10 a shot or something, its stock of early 70s tuxes-that-looked-like-spacesuits-from-2001, in a truly hideous polyester, with insanely wide black lapels. (Of course, even at that they were far from the worst the 70s had to offer in formalwear.) It occurred to me, however, that if one pinned back the wide lapels, one could fake, reasonably, the rounded lapel which was a sign of 50s hipsterdom when worn by Vegas crooners, Motown acts in matching red satin suits, etc. And so, accompanying my future wife to a sorority party as her co-dates ("She's with Rex and Roy, the co-captains of the football team" --Nabokov, Lolita), we did it up feeling like Lana Turner and Johnny Stompanato at the Copa while the others just wondered what the hell planet we were from and if anybody had a fake ID so they could go get some more Coors.

Ah, those were the days. Rebelling against youthful conformity by dressing up.

As my mom has entered her 80s she's suddenly taken an objection to my ball cap at the dinner table. At first I fought this as old fashioned. Now I comply out of respect for her, though not out of respect to her specific objection. Now I am the one made to feel uncomfortable despite the fact that I have done all the shopping, cooking, and clean up -- because she is unable to do so and unable to see past the hat. It is simpler to humor the dottering rather than enlighten.

After reading all this, if I were to attend an LTH function, I would leave the cap at home for similar reasons.

-ramon

JiLS:

If you contact me I'll gladly pass along her email address. I don't feel its my right to publish anyone's personal address on a public forum.

I'm not a child, afraid of you telling my mom. Frankly, despite Alzheimer's, I think my mom would understand my (thought-to-be) witty comment better than you. I meant that, just like my mom (whom I LOVE) I have enough respect for the members of LTH (including you) that I would go out my way to not make you all uncomfortable -- despite personally thinking the whole thing silly. Honestly, the post was meant to be taken with chiding humor. I guess I was not sucessful. As I mentioned before, I missed the hat lecture as a kid. I'm shocked at your's (and others) revulsion to this whole cap idea. While I don't think I'll ever understand it, I've come to rethink the practice. And sometimes ... that's enough.

Now that Mike G has outed me as a sorority girl, I feel I have to weigh in. Also someone earlier indicated that most of the responses are from men. I love to dress up--I think it is fun and adds to the experience. Why do I feel that way? I'm not too old (41), but my parents are in their late 70's and mid 80's. I think it was just how I was raised. My father has never owned a pair of jeans in his life, ever. You can guess how thrilled he was when the overalls craze hit in the 80's--"You want me to pay good money for overalls?!?!" My parents still dress up to go "downtown." My mother was (is still) a knockout when she dresses up.

When I go out to a nice restaurant, I like to enjoy nice food, nice company, and see everyone, including my dinner companions, dressed nicely. Others have said it before, but to me it is just part of the package.

Oh, and as for those flip-flops, I don't think you should wear anything to a nice restaurant, let alone the White House, that can also be described as "shower shoes."

King's Thursday wrote:I don't think you should wear anything to a nice restaurant

Isn't here a clothing-optional dining site somewhere that also supports this point-of-view?