Whatever happened to "coat and tie required"?

[LizzieMaine]

Interesting line of discusson. I work with a wide range of audiences in my job, and I find that while *generally* a well-dressed audience is less likely to be crude and rude than a sloppy-dressed audience, that's not 100 percent the case. We get a very well-heeled, well-dressed crowd for our classical/opera presentations, much more so than for our regular movies. But what crowd do you think leaves us with the worst mess to clean up afterward -- trash on the floor, messes in the bathrooms, all such as that? The upscale people tend to think "oh leave that on the floor, they pay people to clean that up." While the T-shirt and flip flop crowd will generally police their own area after the show and carry their own trash out.

 

[Tango Yankee]

I really can't understand how "peace" has anything to do with dress. Loud and obnoxious comes in all shapes and sizes, and I can reassure you, in suits and ties.

I guess some of what bothers me about this discussion that dress correlates with "manners" or "class."

I do not disagree that loud and obnoxious can come in any form of dress, but I do disagree with the assumption that I am correlating dress with "manners" or "class" specifically. In the Air Force we used to say "Look sharp, be sharp." In my perhaps limited experience I have found that in general when people do go to a place where a certain level of dress and decorum is expected they do behave accordingly and appropriately. If you want to call that a correlation, go ahead but I do not agree that the opposite would be true. What I intended to infer is that in an establishment that has such a dress requirement loud and obnoxious would tend to be discouraged by the staff/management if not by the surroundings themselves.

What I do not understand is the hostility towards the idea that some of us miss being able to go to an establishment that does include certain standards of dress as part of their ambiance. Why do you (by "you" I mean those who have reacted so negatively against the idea, as if we're trying to deprive people of "rights") insist that everyone should be allowed to wear (or not wear, in some cases) whatever they please in every establishment out there, no exceptions? For the most part that's already the case. I doubt I could find a "coat and tie required" restaurant within 75 miles of where I live, if not farther.

If an establishment does have "coat and tie" required it does not infringe on anyone's rights as everyone has a choice: conform with the requirement and enter, or don't and don't. Simple.

This discussion isn't that different from another one from a while back, where it was discussed how difficult it is today to actually find a quiet restaurant. It seems that most have wide-screen TVs scattered throughout the establishment, not just in the bar area, often with the sound on so you have several different channels blaring at once. Again, it's about the ambiance.

Bottom line: some of us miss being able to go out to dinner in establishments that have a minimum dress code of "coat and tie required" as part of their ambiance. The fact that we do so, and even the fact that such places may still exist albeit in such few numbers that they are difficult to find, does not in any way infringe upon anyone's "rights". The fact that they are difficult to find and these days are apparently mostly limited to the highly expensive restaurant is likely due to the "casualization of society" which has also been discussed elsewhere in this forum. The general public these days apparently rarely gets dressed up for anything at all and eating and drinking establishments have adjusted their ambiance accordingly. That, to myself and others here, is another loss and not necessarily a step forward.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Pompidou]

I think it's more the way some things have been said regarding people who don't dress up that spawned the condemnation, rather than simply pining for a high dress code establishment. If the argument stopped at, "I wish there were still places where everyone had to wear at least a coat and tie, like the old days," I know I for one wouldn't disagree. Variety is the spice of life, they say. It was the categorization of people who don't wear such as loud and obnoxious, as well as comments that they make people lose their appetites that met my disapproval. Dressing nicely is good. Letting such fuel a sense of superiority isn't so good. Losing ones appetite in the presence of the commoners reminds me of the dinner scene in Kingdom of Heaven, where Guy de Lusignon was "very particular about my company" and was "afraid I no longer have much of an appetite" when he discovered the lesser Balian of Ibelin was seated at his table. Just temper the disdain of the average Joe and everything will be great.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Losing ones appetite in the presence of the commoners reminds me of the dinner scene in Kingdom of Heaven, where Guy de Lusignon was "very particular about my company" and was "afraid I no longer have much of an appetite" when he discovered the lesser Balian of Ibelin was seated at his table. Just temper the disdain of the average Joe and everything will be great.

I thought I was an average Joe but apparently expecting people to dress somewhat decently when they go out to dinner makes me a snob.Have you ever seen the website "People of Wal-Mart" or something like that? I've seen people dressed in similar fashion in the local restaurants, and yes, it can have a negative effect upon one's enjoyment of the meal. If it doesn't bother you, more power to you, but I make no apologies for it. Sometimes casual can go a bit too far.

 

[Effingham]

People of Walmart is one of those things that absolutely blows my mind.

Seriously... what can those people be thinking? I can only hope the problem is organic, as I really hate to think that those clothes are the product of a properly functioning mind.

 

[sheeplady]

What I intended to infer is that in an establishment that has such a dress requirement loud and obnoxious would tend to be discouraged by the staff/management if not by the surroundings themselves.

What I do not understand is the hostility towards the idea that some of us miss being able to go to an establishment that does include certain standards of dress as part of their ambiance. Why do you (by "you" I mean those who have reacted so negatively against the idea, as if we're trying to deprive people of "rights") insist that everyone should be allowed to wear (or not wear, in some cases) whatever they please in every establishment out there, no exceptions?

Bottom line: some of us miss being able to go out to dinner in establishments that have a minimum dress code of "coat and tie required" as part of their ambiance. The fact that we do so, and even the fact that such places may still exist albeit in such few numbers that they are difficult to find, does not in any way infringe upon anyone's "rights". The fact that they are difficult to find and these days are apparently mostly limited to the highly expensive restaurant is likely due to the "casualization of society" which has also been discussed elsewhere in this forum. The general public these days apparently rarely gets dressed up for anything at all and eating and drinking establishments have adjusted their ambiance accordingly. That, to myself and others here, is another loss and not necessarily a step forward.

Regards,
Tom

In certain circumstances I am more than ok with restricting clothing (such as being an owner of an establishment- I said so in my previous statement. I never said that there were no exceptions. I never said individuals had rights to wear whatever they like in all instances without consequences). I would argue that owners DO have the right to determine the atmosphere of their organizations, including what their customers wear. If that means casual, that means casual. (There should be some limitations on this, but I think that owners have a right to create the atmosphere that they want (public safety/ health/ or clearly prejudiced being outside this scope)).

Perhaps the place that I live is some type of odd occurance, but there are plenty of small restaurants that a couple can eat out for under $50 (entree, desert, drinks, and a tip) that meet your definition of quiet. Because they are family owned, they tend to have very controlled environments. They DO have families and people in jeans, but they have much of the types of things that you mention.

I would argue that if the places you frequent are noisy or do not meet your expectations, you shouldn't frequent them AND you should let the management know why. Nothing talks better than money, and taking your money elsewhere. As a customer, this is your right.

As far as the "coarsening of society" I would say that it was a mixed bag. Some bad behaviors of today are much worse then they used to be and thankfully some of the bad behaviors of yesterday are no longer as common.

EDITED TO ADD: I apologize in that I confused Tom's casualization comment with another comment using the term coarsening. I think that the point in my last statement still stands, but I do apologize to Tom for changing the term that you used.

 

[JimWagner]

What I do not understand is the hostility towards the idea that some of us miss being able to go to an establishment that does include certain standards of dress as part of their ambiance.

If it stopped right there, no problems. As many of us have stated. But there has been this idea expressed several times or at least heavily implied in this thread that people shouldn't be "allowed" to dress any way they care in general. And that is what has provoked some of that hostility you have seen.

 

[John in Covina]

There is also a certain backlash of being totally non-judgemental and tolerant.
There is a fine line between not judging and a Lack of judgement.

Just as some people see a cannabalistic society such as in the South Seas but are unable to make any condemnation of such a practice which "legitimasizes" it and brings a moral equivilancy to cannabalism.

There is the "broken window" effect that leads to a general decline.

I have seen poorly dressed people act poorly and well dressed people act poorly percentage wise i'd say there is a correction to the percentages.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Perhaps the place that I live is some type of odd occurance, but there are plenty of small restaurants that a couple can eat out for under $50 (entree, desert, drinks, and a tip) that meet your definition of quiet. Because they are family owned, they tend to have very controlled environments. They DO have families and people in jeans, but they have much of the types of things that you mention.

I would argue that if the places you frequent are noisy or do not meet your expectations, you shouldn't frequent them AND you should let the management know why. Nothing talks better than money, and taking your money elsewhere. As a customer, this is your right.

Sadly, the area I live in has very few places such as you describe. The majority of the eating establishments are fast-food or chain restaurants and chain restaurants have their themes and stick with them. There was a very good small restaurant only seven miles or so from our house, but it was in a dry township and when the owner's attempt to get voters to allow them to serve beer and wine was shot down by three votes they gave up and closed. They told me that the people who were in the township that voted down the issue were not, for the most part, their customers. Most of the voters in the township lived in what's referred to as "the bottoms" which is a rather poor, crime and drug-ridden area of a very small town. Most of their customers drove in from elsewhere. The restaurant didn't have a dress code but they did have great steaks.

These days if we want a decent steak dinner we have to go to Dakotas, one of the chain restaurants that tend to be very noisy. There is one 15 miles to the north of us, and another about 20 miles to the south. There was a decent locally-owned place several miles past the north Dakotas but their quality went downhill and they closed. It was recently reopened, but we haven't had the opportunity to try them since then.

Other than that, to find the type of place you're describing would probably mean driving 80-90 miles at a minimum to get to a city. From what I've seen, small-town southern Ohio for the most part just doesn't do that sort of thing. The small, family owned eating establishments tend to be "dairy bars". My wife tells me that back when she was a child there were places in town where you were required to dress well to enter, but those are long gone along with the former prosperity of the region. To get a bit more variety in chain restaurants we do drive about 40 miles, but that's getting to be far enough to drive for dinner.

Regards,
Tom

 

[rue]

Other than that, to find the type of place you're describing would probably mean driving 80-90 miles at a minimum to get to a city. From what I've seen, small-town southern Ohio for the most part just doesn't do that sort of thing. The small, family owned eating establishments tend to be "dairy bars". My wife tells me that back when she was a child there were places in town where you were required to dress well to enter, but those are long gone along with the former prosperity of the region. To get a bit more variety in chain restaurants we do drive about 40 miles, but that's getting to be far enough to drive for dinner.

Regards,
Tom

I know exactly what you're talking about. In order to get dinner at something other than a few chain restaurant or fast food, we have to drive north about 90 miles to Columbus or 90 miles South to Cincinnati and it's just not worth it. I rarely miss California, but this is one instance where I do.

 

[Tango Yankee]

I know exactly what you're talking about. In order to get dinner at something other than a few chain restaurant or fast food, we have to drive north about 90 miles to Columbus or 90 miles South to Cincinnati and it's just not worth it. I rarely miss California, but this is one instance where I do.

That's it specifically. I'm due south of Columbus, hit the southern edge of it at about the 75-80 mile mark and about 90 miles east/slightly southeast from the eastern edge of Cincinatti. If we want a larger selection of chain restaurants to eat we go to Chillicothe.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Tango Yankee]

If it stopped right there, no problems. As many of us have stated. But there has been this idea expressed several times or at least heavily implied in this thread that people shouldn't be "allowed" to dress any way they care in general. And that is what has provoked some of that hostility you have seen.

I've gone back through the thread and I'm not sure I can find where that position has been put forth, though there are places where people such as yourself have reacted as though it has been. I think that forgetting that the context of this discussion is specific to the rarity of establishments that have any sort of a dress code has contributed to that misconception. No one is advocating laws be passed dictating what people can and cannot wear.

But since you put "allowed" in quotes I will say that as it stands now many people already feel that they are not "allowed" to dress how they wish in general (coat and tie standards) when they go out to dinner because that violates the current societal norm where casual and even "ultra" casual is acceptable but wearing a tie is not. You read it all over the Lounge where people say they would like to, but are subject to ridicule/peer pressure to conform/etcera when they do dress nicely for an event.

In that sense societal norms do "dictate" what is acceptable and what isn't and people in general do conform to the norm. I would not be disappointed if the societal norm were to swing back to where ultra-casual wear in restaurants or in public in general is strongly discouraged and dressing nicely is encouraged and expected. I do not expect to see it in my lifetime. If you wish to interpret that as my saying people should not be "allowed" to dress anyway they care to in general, go right ahead as long as you understand that the "allowed" is in quotes and I'm referring to the changing of the social norm and not changing of actual laws. That is, I believe, not an uncommon position around here but none of us truly expect it to happen.

Regards,
Tomn

 

[sheeplady]

Other than that, to find the type of place you're describing would probably mean driving 80-90 miles at a minimum to get to a city. From what I've seen, small-town southern Ohio for the most part just doesn't do that sort of thing. The small, family owned eating establishments tend to be "dairy bars". My wife tells me that back when she was a child there were places in town where you were required to dress well to enter, but those are long gone along with the former prosperity of the region. To get a bit more variety in chain restaurants we do drive about 40 miles, but that's getting to be far enough to drive for dinner.

Regards,
Tom

Having grown up in a very rural area, I have to admit that my ideas of driving are somewhat skewed. The area I grew up in (several miles outside of a village of under 200 people) driving the types of distances you mentioned was not uncommon. I often went on "play dates" with people who lived 15 or 20 miles away. My parents have to drive 30 miles to get to a store that carries groceries (a Walmart) and another 10 for a true full-grocery store (when I was a kid we drove the 40 miles). There is a new 50s-themed burger joint that opened 15 miles from them, and a bar that serves limited food (burgers and fries only) about 5 miles away. To get to chain "fast food" they regularly drive 40 miles, and it is not uncommon for them to drive 80 miles (one way) to get to a nice restaurant that serves good food. Now my parents don't do this very often, but about 4-5 times a year. When you live in a rural place all your childhood, driving 100 miles is not what driving 100 miles is like to someone who lives in the city.

The area that my parents live in (and I grew up in for most of my childhood) is just very rural and can't support restaurants. There's no money. It's one of the prices you pay for living where less people live. I have to say, there were never any places like you mention where they live, mainly because once you get past where my parents live, it gets MORE rural. "Going out to eat" is not something that people in that area do on a weeknight, it requires planning, and most often, an entire day of travel. (You can't do 50 MPH on country roads).

So to me, driving the 30 or more miles to get to a place in my area is really nothing (and we do drive these distances to get to some of the places we like to eat), and I know I am quite fortunate right now to live in a city that has 3 or 4 places within an hour's travel that are quiet. (I live in a city of about 150,000 people with the surrounding areas). I'd still eat at these places if I moved a ways away, just because you need to travel to here to get to these types of places where I live. It's a fact of life.

I think that what you mention about the prosperity is the root of the problem. I can't think of a single coat and tie place here in my city (even the one fancy $50 a plate place downtown), and that's probably because we've been economically depressed since the 70s.

 

[JimWagner]

But since you put "allowed" in quotes I will say that as it stands now many people already feel that they are not "allowed" to dress how they wish in general (coat and tie standards) when they go out to dinner because that violates the current societal norm where casual and even "ultra" casual is acceptable but wearing a tie is not. You read it all over the Lounge where people say they would like to, but are subject to ridicule/peer pressure to conform/etcera when they do dress nicely for an event.

I have seen that in some posts, but mostly in posts from younger FL members - students mainly. That's an age group where peer pressure seems to be most obvious. Have you personally experienced that as a mature adult?

Other than the occasional "Why are you so dressed up.", "Going to a funeral?", or "Going to an interview?" from people I know who are just trying to be funny (and I ignore) I certainly haven't experienced anything remotely like peer pressure to dress down. The times I've been out with my wife to good restaurants (or other places) where we did dress up for the occasion because we wanted to, we certainly have experienced the second looks from staff and other customers because we did stand out, but never any kind of comment. Better service maybe.

The point is that if you want to dress up there's no one to say otherwise and you don't need anyone else's permission or approval. Do so more often and you might actually be influential or a role model for some who are hesitant to dress up. If you (and I mean the broad you, not you personally, Tom) worry about what others think about your clothing choices then you have deeper problems.

 

[Pompidou]

I've gone back through the thread and I'm not sure I can find where that position has been put forth, though there are places where people such as yourself have reacted as though it has been. I think that forgetting that the context of this discussion is specific to the rarity of establishments that have any sort of a dress code has contributed to that misconception. No one is advocating laws be passed dictating what people can and cannot wear.

But since you put "allowed" in quotes I will say that as it stands now many people already feel that they are not "allowed" to dress how they wish in general (coat and tie standards) when they go out to dinner because that violates the current societal norm where casual and even "ultra" casual is acceptable but wearing a tie is not. You read it all over the Lounge where people say they would like to, but are subject to ridicule/peer pressure to conform/etcera when they do dress nicely for an event.

In that sense societal norms do "dictate" what is acceptable and what isn't and people in general do conform to the norm. I would not be disappointed if the societal norm were to swing back to where ultra-casual wear in restaurants or in public in general is strongly discouraged and dressing nicely is encouraged and expected. I do not expect to see it in my lifetime. If you wish to interpret that as my saying people should not be "allowed" to dress anyway they care to in general, go right ahead as long as you understand that the "allowed" is in quotes and I'm referring to the changing of the social norm and not changing of actual laws. That is, I believe, not an uncommon position around here but none of us truly expect it to happen.

Regards,
Tomn

This is a pretty good argument for taking societal norms off the pedestal. The problem with societal norms is they get enforced from the top down and oppress the minorities. Rather than long for the day when the norms return us to domination, so that rather than them telling us, how inappropriate we are, we can do the telling, maybe shoot for a day when nobody is telling anybody any such thing? I don't want people picking on my outfit. I don't want to pick on theirs. We already violate societal norms, just as the precursors of the modern society did when such were becoming norms. I wear what I want. So do we all, I hope. Let's make that the societal norm. I certainly don't want to see the day when people like me are the ones telling others (or wanting to, I should say) they don't dress right. God forbid I'm ever the societal norm.

 

[John in Covina]

Slouching Towards Bethlehem