Pajamas in public...

[LizzieMaine]

Did the 20's-40's blur the line between bed wear/slopping or entertaining around the house wear/resort wear? I originally assumed the guys were objecting to women's night clothes that weren't ... friendly. Now I'm thinking that wearing pj's to bed was the equivalent of wearing sweatpants and a hoodie to bed.

The pajama fad of 1931-33 was about loungewear, not necessarily sleepwear -- such things as "Beach Pajamas" and "Hostess Pajamas" were designed and cut as casual clothing, in fabrics and styles that would have been a bit much to actually try and sleep in. You'd wear beach pajamas to the beach, and you'd wear hostess pajamas while entertaining at home -- the "something more comfortable" that women in movies are always going off to slip into. You would not wear beach or hostess pajamas at your job, unless you worked as a demonstrator in a department store window, or unless you were Huey Long.

There were also "formal pajamas," which had a skirt effect from the back and were wide-legged pants from the front, and these had nothing to do with sleepwear at all. They were so called because of their cut, not because you wore them to bed. "Pajama" originally meant the wide-legged pants worn by various South Asian dignitaries, and the name was adapted for the wide-legged pants that became a fad in the early thirties. It's that wide-legged cut that made a garment "pajamas," not the idea that it was worn to bed.

 

[RodeoRose]

I really don't think beach pyjamas were limited to society's upper echelons in America. I have an original early 1930s pair (seen here) that was clearly handmade; they're well-worn with numerous period mends, and appear to have been made from feedsack or an inexpensive cotton. And yes, I wear them to the beach, but personally I'd feel odd wearing them outside of that context.

There is also this fascinating post at Wearing History on the subject. This lady seems to have been just an average farm woman:

Of course, as LizzieMaine and others have clarified, they were leisure and beach wear, and generally not seen on the street.

 

[Warden]

The question is what to wear? The Harris tweed?

Well after reading this BBC news report about how the good people of Cardiff like nothing more than popping down to the supermarket in a pair of PJ’s and comfortable slippers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8484116.stm

I thought tomorrow I will be mostly wearing pyjamas.

Well why not?

 

[Justin B]

I think the main issue here, at least as far as I have gathered, is that what once was termed Pajamas versus what is now being worn are two totally different things. Were I to see a lady wearing what the reference pictures from the 20-30's I'd not be offended in the slightest. Fashionable, decently cut, and worn in appropriate situations. This is not the case for the travesties being worn today.

 

[rue]

I think the main issue here, at least as far as I have gathered, is that what once was termed Pajamas versus what is now being worn are two totally different things. Were I to see a lady wearing what the reference pictures from the 20-30's I'd not be offended in the slightest. Fashionable, decently cut, and worn in appropriate situations. This is not the case for the travesties being worn today.

Bingo!

 

[Paisley]

Our office has officially jumped the charitable giving shark by our managing partner and operations manager attending this event in their pajamas:

http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_17264152

The operations manager was even at work--wait for it--in. Her. Pajamas. At a large, downtown CPA firm. If I were paying $300 an hour for accounting services and saw some nitwit in her PJs, I'd pick myself up and go to a competitor.

 

[PoohBang]

wasn't it all for charity? and for one day?

 

[Paisley]

Yes, and yes. But they could have just written a check.

You didn't see this sort of thing in the halls during the Dave Cribari (of our office) administration.

 

[Connery]

Our office has officially jumped the charitable giving shark by our managing partner and operations manager attending this event in their pajamas:

http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_17264152

The operations manager was even at work--wait for it--in. Her. Pajamas. At a large, downtown CPA firm. If I were paying $300 an hour for accounting services and saw some nitwit in her PJs, I'd pick myself up and go to a competitor.

It looks like Gov. John Hickenlooper gave "Causal Friday" a whole new meaning. Next thing we will see PajamaJeans as the new standard during an IRS audit.

 

[sheeplady]

wasn't it all for charity? and for one day?

I agree- when I was in school we had pj day and backwards clothing day for charity- you had to bring in a canned good. A local school here recently had "wear a ball cap day" where if you paid a dollar, you could wear a hat. They raised $3,000 for a young girl's family (she was killed by a drunk driver and it helped cover her funeral costs.)

While I don't like the idea of hiring an attorney wearing pjs, if I heard it was for charity I'd be willing to hire them. It's not just a gimmick if one person sees the pj wearer and then wants to give a donation because they learned about something new.

I'm the least likely person ever to wear pjs in public, but if I could get sponsers to give $2,000 to a charity I support for wearing pjs for the day? PJs all the way.

 

[Paisley]

To my mind, it's a sad thing when someone will pay a dollar to wear a baseball cap but not to help a classmate's family with funeral expenses--or they need some sort of compensation for doing so. With the PJ event, for the right price, you get to network with bigwigs, get face time with the mayor, and possibly get your name in the paper. There's an accounting term that describes this perfectly: goods and services in kind. In other words, it's not entirely charity.

Thankfully, there are good causes out there raising money without resorting to publicity stunts or asking their donors to throw away their dignity.

 

[John in Covina]

Convenience rules the day. I'm pushing for trendy college students to take up wearing "Depends" so they won't be encumbered with those annoying bathroom trips.

 

[Edward]

I agree- when I was in school we had pj day and backwards clothing day for charity- you had to bring in a canned good. A local school here recently had "wear a ball cap day" where if you paid a dollar, you could wear a hat. They raised $3,000 for a young girl's family (she was killed by a drunk driver and it helped cover her funeral costs.)

While I don't like the idea of hiring an attorney wearing pjs, if I heard it was for charity I'd be willing to hire them. It's not just a gimmick if one person sees the pj wearer and then wants to give a donation because they learned about something new.

I'm the least likely person ever to wear pjs in public, but if I could get sponsers to give $2,000 to a charity I support for wearing pjs for the day? PJs all the way.

Exactly. I've known quite a few people working in the charity sector, and it is a constant, constant battle. Especially when it comes to things that are essential to their functioning - such as petrol costs to transport people to take art classes, or take folks on a day out or whatever - as opposed to obvious, physical objects that can get somebody's logo in the local paper. And heaven help you if your cause falls out of fashion, or something like the Olympics takes away your funding opportunities. In those sort of circumstances I'd be a lot less concerned about "dignity" if it brought in the money the organisation needed!

 

[sheeplady]

To my mind, it's a sad thing when someone will pay a dollar to wear a baseball cap but not to help a classmate's family with funeral expenses--or they need some sort of compensation for doing so. With the PJ event, for the right price, you get to network with bigwigs, get face time with the mayor, and possibly get your name in the paper. There's an accounting term that describes this perfectly: goods and services in kind. In other words, it's not entirely charity.

I really don't even know how to respond to the statement that a grieving community of children would "pay a dollar to wear a baseball cap but not to help a classmate's family with funeral expenses."

I've been in small close knit communities when a young person has been lost. A good portion of the faith I have in humanity comes from those times and those experiences cannot be distilled down to accounting terms.

 

[dnjan]

Convenience rules the day. I'm pushing for trendy college students to take up wearing "Depends" so they won't be encumbered with those annoying bathroom trips.

As someone who teaches a morning class with a two-hour lecture, and who notices the students getting fidgety at about the 50-minute mark, I will endorse your suggestion!

 

[Noirblack]

Convenience rules the day. I'm pushing for trendy college students to take up wearing "Depends" so they won't be encumbered with those annoying bathroom trips.

The college kids would only be catching up with the slot machine players who don't like to leave their lucky machines.

 

[Salty O'Rourke]

Of course, some people can make it work...

 

[Edward]

As someone who teaches a morning class with a two-hour lecture, and who notices the students getting fidgety at about the 50-minute mark, I will endorse your suggestion!

I used to be able to keep track by how twitchy the smokers were, but they seem to be a dying breed. Figuratively, as well as literally.

Of course, some people can make it work...

He dresses well; shame he's a sleaze. Like Peter Stringfellow on a bigger budget. Yuck.

 

[PoohBang]

I don't see Hugh as a sleaze... he's actually done a lot to promote culture over the years.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

Please don't post pictures showing how Hef's done that, PoohBang; you'll get this thread closed down! :eeek: In all seriousness, I'd give the man a plus for his nice leisurewear in that pic, and for what he's done for our classic films, but how many minuses for what can only be described as pornification of popular culture. (Sorry, just my 2p and another thread entirely.)