<p>From time to time, I see major regional differences that are brought to light by various CC topics. I think this is one of them. I really think the cultural mores around clothing probably really differ from region to region. Here on the West Coast, it’s pretty casual. I think one’s definition of what is acceptable or not is influenced by what the norm is where one lives.</p>
<p>HarvestMoon - Don’t worry, if you got that - you got the whole of it, the rest are just more descriptive names of the same.</p>
<p>mimk6 - I don’t know about the ENTIRE west coast. I think Bay posted that she’s from the west coast too.</p>
<p>camel toe is that look that occurs when a woman is wearing pants that are too tight in the crotch. If you look at a picture of a camel’s hoof, you will probably get it.</p>
<p>To clarify, it is not a matter of being offended by sweats; rather it is being offended (and maybe “offended” and “hurt” are too strong of words - I have trouble coming up with proper adjectives at times), by a person’s lack of effort or consideration in selecting proper attire, because it conveys to those around him/her that s/he does not care enough about others’ to make an effort to look good or appropriate.</p>
<p>I actually think my standards are pretty low. I’ve only specifically objected to pajamas and “sloppy” sweats, while noting that there are cross-over sweats that look quite nice. And yes, its all a matter of opinion. And remember, this thread was about wearing sweats every day to class; not once in a while to the store or always to the gym, which is fine.</p>
<p>I do live in CA, and while I agree that we are quite casual here, I think (again, my impression) is that the mainstream is quite clothing conscience and anti-sloppy, unless one is intentionally going for the L.A. grunge look, and in that case they’ve put some thought and effort into it.</p>
<p>I think I understand, Bay. You talked about your H wearing an old slouchy sweatshirt ad nauseum, and then making an adjustment when you brought it to his attention.</p>
<p>Kind of the same as if i wear curlers in my hair, no make up and a cotton nighty for half a day every day on the weekends around the house. That might show a disregard for my husband or a lack of respect for his feelings. Do I have it? </p>
<p>So, you would extend this same courtesy prior to going out into the world by considering who will be there, and doing your best to dress appropriately (insert social norms and such here) for whatever setting you expect to be in. You consider this polite. When it appears that others have not given the same thought, you consider that impolite.</p>
<p>That simple.</p>
<p>Is that about right?</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>Which is why I wrote way back in the beginning of this thread: Proper attire = proper etiquette.</p>
<p>At the same time, I understand that many people do not care about etiquette or my feelings.</p>
<p>Would you be willing to entertain the notion that there may be differing paramaters on what is proper social etiquette in varying regions?</p>
<p>I think someone mentioned what is rude in Singapore or Thailand, for example. </p>
<p>I get the feeling you acknowledge this, and that you would be polite by your terms in whatever region you went to.</p>
<p>I DO this, btw. For example - I do NOT wear sweats in NYC or in Paris, or in LA either for that matter.</p>
<p>^Yes, I gave an example of traveling to Fiji and covering up for their sake. </p>
<p>Of course, there are different norms everywhere. But I am willing to draw a line at pajamas and “sloppy” attire anywhere here in the U.S., and say both of those things are a no-no in public, even if a lot of people are doing it. You may disagree with me, and that is fine. But it doesn’t make my opinion <em>wrong.</em></p>
<p>I will draw that pajama line with you, and agree to disagree on “sloppy” since it’s subjective IMO.</p>
<p>However, Bay, I will shake your hand (figuratively of course), and thank you for giving me a new and different viewpoint.</p>
<p>I believe one point of contention is what Bay et al feel are “acceptable dress norms” in order to be “polite” or otherwise “not offend” others strikes many folks IME outside of some upper-middle class suburban/neighborhoods like NYC’s Upper-East side as extremely “old-fashioned” at best or at the very worse, exhibiting notions one is extremely pretentious and entitled…even in thought to wish others dress according to their standards in every area of their lives…even in venues to which they’re not entitled. </p>
<p>It is precisely that form of entitled conformity by those who prefer more formality in dress than supposed “slobs” or those they think are “raised in a barn” that was a factor in the countercultural baby boomers to protest and fight to loosen what was a much more restrictive formal dress code in venues ranging from classrooms to even the public street. </p>
<p>Imposing it in one’s business*, institutional settings, occasions, or one’s home is one thing. </p>
<p>Expanding that to include the public street or venues where there isn’t a dress code like grocery stores for the sake of “not being offended” by someone else dressing like a “slob” is not too different from a petty tyrant being overly presumptuous by trying to impose his/her authority/matters of taste in venues/places where he/she’s not entitled. There’s a good reason why such folks make good stock characters in comedies. </p>
<p>IMO, a live and let live(a.k.a. Don’t give 2 figs) attitude towards how others dress on public streets or areas where there isn’t a dress code is a much better and less stressful approach. </p>
<ul>
<li>Regarding businesses…the dress code can only be maintained so long as there’s sufficient support through adequate business. Saw many demonstrations of ritzy high-end restaurants ($70-$200/person lunch/dinner) relaxing their once formal dress codes due to the post-2008 economy. Heh, even attended one wearing shorts and t-shirt due to it being a last-minute thing on a hot summer day. Got the stinkeye from some snooty fellow patrons, but as the establishment welcomed all the business they could get…got great service and thanks to my halfway decent conversationalist skills…won over those with the stinkeye. :D</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. Southern California…especially LA can really give the NE/South a run for its money in the fashionista/judging others by dressy appearances.</p>
<p>Aw, c’mon cobrat - I was making peace here! LOL</p>
<p>I don’t think Bay’s trying to “mandate” anything for anyone - she’s just got her own strong opinion.</p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>Funny part is that my main dispute with Bay is the scope of one’s entitlement to take offense at someone else’s not dressing to one’s standards’ </p>
<p>Mine happens to be extremely narrow whereas Bay et al’s tend to be far more expansive.</p>
<p>cromette - nice post.</p>
<p>"Funny part is that my main dispute with Bay is the scope of one’s entitlement to take offense at someone else’s not dressing to one’s standards’ </p>
<p>Mine happens to be extremely narrow whereas Bay et al’s tend to be far more expansive."</p>
<p>Yea, mine too. Those of us that are still in the fight are a pretty opinionated bunch, I think. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that Bay has a right to her opinion, and to be just as absolutely offended as she wants to be by whatever she deems offensive - and we’re not likely to change her mind.</p>
<p>Just as she’s not likely to change our minds that in our areas, sweats, athletic shorts, t-shirts and other items that might be viewed as “sloppy” by Bay are just fine by us.</p>
<p>As you said, “Live and let live”.</p>
<p>Yes, cobrat, there was peace and understanding happening here. </p>
<p>Who are you to dictate that bay or any of us are not allowed to have a particular feeling? How tyrannical to force anyone to accept your norm internally…</p>
<p>Thanks, oldfort. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That statement is no different in substance from arguments some fundamentalist protestant Christians use when they say “their rights are being violated” because they’re no longer allowed to use public schools or other government organs to propagate or otherwise impose their religious perspectives on others…especially those who don’t share those perspectives.</p>
<p>Ironically, both use the First Amendment as the basis for their arguments. However, only one allows the greater preservation of rights than the other.</p>
<p>I think, in general, people start chunking rocks (figuratively again) at the other guy when they feel unduly or wrongly judged. You know, hurt people hurt people? I know that sounds trite, but when people get offended by verbiage they tend to lash out. That’s all.</p>
<p>I think, actually, that Cobrat would not WANT to force anyone to accept his/her norm internally. I think Cobrat is just reserving the right to Cobrat’s own opinion (very adamantly) </p>
<p>There is still peace and understanding. </p>
<p>Sssshhhhhhh</p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>You’ve got it! :)</p>