johnart said:

NDRU said:

seriously, I get where you guys are coming from, but it seems a bit arbitrary if I really think about it closely.

Inherently there is no reason you should not wear PJ's in public. That is only a societal convention. And there are LOTS of societal conventions that I think are silly.

And I get the intellectual argument you're making. I truly do.

But I think reality outweighs any of that.

As a business owner I would not hire someone who came in in jammies or looked unkempt. Not because I thought any less of them as a person or would not be their friend but because I would be hiring them in order to run a successful business and in most cases an "I just don't give a shit" look would simply not fly with clientele. That would be the reality of the situation. I wouldn't need anything more concrete than that to make my decision.

I happen to be in the arts, which is far more forgiving. Would I hire someone with a face full of metal to run a gallery for me? Sure, I would. If their demeanor was professional and they had the rest of their look together and presented themselves (outwardly as well as in personality) in an adequately professional manner for my field.

of course. I admit my POV is mostly theoretical. I work in a casual office, but a guy once interviewed with me and wore shorts. I thought it proved he was a complete moron and did not even consider him for the job. In a job situation you are looking for them to show you can fit into a system, not that you question all social conventions.

And if I threw a nice party I would want people to make an effort to look good.

But if I worked in Starbucks and someone (who did not stink) politely ordered coffee in some PJ's (that were decent), I don't think I would care.

FauxReal said:

johnart said:

And I get the intellectual argument you're making. I truly do.

But I think reality outweighs any of that.

As a business owner I would not hire someone who came in in jammies or looked unkempt. Not because I thought any less of them as a person or would not be their friend but because I would be hiring them in order to run a successful business and in most cases an "I just don't give a shit" look would simply not fly with clientele. That would be the reality of the situation. I wouldn't need anything more concrete than that to make my decision.

I happen to be in the arts, which is far more forgiving. Would I hire someone with a face full of metal to run a gallery for me? Sure, I would. If their demeanor was professional and they had the rest of their look together and presented themselves (outwardly as well as in personality) in an adequately professional manner for my field.

But some sort of dress code is pretty much expected in the workplace, so it's reasonable to expect someone to show up in something resembling what the dress code of the workplace would be if they are looking for employment. That's different than just walking into the gas station or the post office or something.

Dress code? Yes. And it's legal to require employees to follow them. Tattoos, piercings and ESPECIALLY hair are much more touchy issues. I've worked many places here in CA in the last fifteen years where everyone was required to wear business professional attire (suit and tie, pant suits, appropriate length and style of skirt, blazers, dress shoes, etc. - no jeans, no tennis shoes, ever!), but many of the people I worked with (myself included, actually) still had ink, facial jewelry, dreadlocks or shaved heads (women, that is). Legally, for any number of reasons, it's much more difficult to for employers regulate those things. There's certain levels of accepted no-nos, like tattoos on the face and in some cases the hands (like tattooing "fuck you" across your knuckles ). And too much jewelry is generally frowned upon, but I've worked with people who had nearly as much as the mookie monster.

Granted, I'm in the Bay Area and liberal has it's own meaning. But still, regulating what somebody wears is not the same as regulating what they do to their own bodies.

NDRU said:

johnart said:

And I get the intellectual argument you're making. I truly do.

But I think reality outweighs any of that.

As a business owner I would not hire someone who came in in jammies or looked unkempt. Not because I thought any less of them as a person or would not be their friend but because I would be hiring them in order to run a successful business and in most cases an "I just don't give a shit" look would simply not fly with clientele. That would be the reality of the situation. I wouldn't need anything more concrete than that to make my decision.

I happen to be in the arts, which is far more forgiving. Would I hire someone with a face full of metal to run a gallery for me? Sure, I would. If their demeanor was professional and they had the rest of their look together and presented themselves (outwardly as well as in personality) in an adequately professional manner for my field.

of course. I admit my POV is mostly theoretical. I work in a casual office, but a guy once interviewed with me and wore shorts. I thought it proved he was a complete moron and did not even consider him for the job. In a job situation you are looking for them to show you can fit into a system, not that you question all social conventions.

And if I threw a nice party I would want people to make an effort to look good.

But if I worked in Starbucks and someone (who did not stink) politely ordered coffee in some PJ's (that were decent), I don't think I would care.

Well no. I wouldn't truly care (in the sense that it wouldn't ruin the rest of my day ) but I'd have a catty thought or mentally roll my eyes.

Because that is what Baby Jesus and Cher would expect me to do.

Also, the reason you should not wear pajamas in public is because they're pajamas. I don't understand how this isn't clear. By definition, they're for sleeping, not going to the grocery store. Not to mention it makes you look lazy and unkempt.

Cerebus said:

Also, the reason you should not wear pajamas in public is because they're pajamas. I don't understand how this isn't clear. By definition, they're for sleeping, not going to the grocery store. Not to mention it makes you look lazy and unkempt.

Scroll back into the thread a bit, Cere.

johnart said:

Cerebus said:

Also, the reason you should not wear pajamas in public is because they're pajamas. I don't understand how this isn't clear. By definition, they're for sleeping, not going to the grocery store. Not to mention it makes you look lazy and unkempt.

Scroll back into the thread a bit, Cere.

I tried to read the whole thing... I should have forced myself to do so. I always miss or repeat something when I don't.

well at least i wear pjs and dont sleep NAKED. what would i go to the food store in then?

Cerebus said:

johnart said:

Scroll back into the thread a bit, Cere.

I tried to read the whole thing... I should have forced myself to do so. I always miss or repeat something when I don't.

When threads go too long before I join in, I seldom read them in full either.

johnart said:

NDRU said:

of course. I admit my POV is mostly theoretical. I work in a casual office, but a guy once interviewed with me and wore shorts. I thought it proved he was a complete moron and did not even consider him for the job. In a job situation you are looking for them to show you can fit into a system, not that you question all social conventions.

And if I threw a nice party I would want people to make an effort to look good.

But if I worked in Starbucks and someone (who did not stink) politely ordered coffee in some PJ's (that were decent), I don't think I would care.

Well no. I wouldn't truly care (in the sense that it wouldn't ruin the rest of my day ) but I'd have a catty thought or mentally roll my eyes.

Because that is what Baby Jesus and Cher would expect me to do.

Jesus wore his PJ's too!! And Cher...

Seriously, I actually agree, I just think it is more about my being a slave to the system than any inherent reason to disapprove. Uncage your mind, man, and let me tell you about the sixties!

[Edited 1/10/11 15:46pm]

purplemookiebut said:

well at least i wear pjs and dont sleep NAKED. what would i go to the food store in then?

Pants?

Cerebus said:

johnart said:

Scroll back into the thread a bit, Cere.

I tried to read the whole thing... I should have forced myself to do so. I always miss or repeat something when I don't.

LOL how could you skip a single word?

Cerebus said:

FauxReal said:

But some sort of dress code is pretty much expected in the workplace, so it's reasonable to expect someone to show up in something resembling what the dress code of the workplace would be if they are looking for employment. That's different than just walking into the gas station or the post office or something.

Dress code? Yes. And it's legal to require employees to follow them. Tattoos, piercings and ESPECIALLY hair are much more touchy issues. I've worked many places here in CA in the last fifteen years where everyone was required to wear business professional attire (suit and tie, pant suits, appropriate length and style of skirt, blazers, dress shoes, etc. - no jeans, no tennis shoes, ever!), but many of the people I worked with (myself included, actually) still had ink, facial jewelry, dreadlocks or shaved heads (women, that is). Legally, for any number of reasons, it's much more difficult to for employers regulate those things. There's certain levels of accepted no-nos, like tattoos on the face and in some cases the hands (like tattooing "fuck you" across your knuckles ). And too much jewelry is generally frowned upon, but I've worked with people who had nearly as much as the mookie monster.

Granted, I'm in the Bay Area and liberal has it's own meaning. But still, regulating what somebody wears is not the same as regulating what they do to their own bodies.

I'm just referring to wearing pajamas publicly. Comparing a job interview (or even just looking for employment) to going out to pick up a few odds and ends is not really a fair comparison, IMO.

I wouldn't wear pajamas publicly in either case, personally.

Cerebus said:

FauxReal said:

But some sort of dress code is pretty much expected in the workplace, so it's reasonable to expect someone to show up in something resembling what the dress code of the workplace would be if they are looking for employment. That's different than just walking into the gas station or the post office or something.

Dress code? Yes. And it's legal to require employees to follow them. Tattoos, piercings and ESPECIALLY hair are much more touchy issues. I've worked many places here in CA in the last fifteen years where everyone was required to wear business professional attire (suit and tie, pant suits, appropriate length and style of skirt, blazers, dress shoes, etc. - no jeans, no tennis shoes, ever!), but many of the people I worked with (myself included, actually) still had ink, facial jewelry, dreadlocks or shaved heads (women, that is). Legally, for any number of reasons, it's much more difficult to for employers regulate those things. There's certain levels of accepted no-nos, like tattoos on the face and in some cases the hands (like tattooing "fuck you" across your knuckles ). And too much jewelry is generally frowned upon, but I've worked with people who had nearly as much as the mookie monster.

Granted, I'm in the Bay Area and liberal has it's own meaning. But still, regulating what somebody wears is not the same as regulating what they do to their own bodies.

I'm just referring to wearing pajamas publicly. Comparing a job interview (or even just looking for employment) to going out to pick up a few odds and ends is not really a fair comparison, IMO.

I wouldn't wear pajamas publicly in either case, personally.

PS stepping out of the house in sweats. Talk to you all later. The gym is calling me.

NDRU said:

sextonseven said:

I can. It looks tacky.

I agree, but that is purely a matter of taste & conventional thinking. And style is a good thing, but how important is it, especially in terms of judging others (as opposed to simply choosing to exercise your own style) as somehow doing something wrong?

I can't think of a concrete reason that wearing something that is shaped like pants, functions like pants, is made of the same material as pants, but is far more comfortable shoud be frowned upon for wearing in public because it has pictures of dinosaurs on it.

Well, let me clarify that I do my best to not judge people except on the few occasions when they're being asstarded enough to make it appear as if that's what they're looking for. In that case, fuck 'em! But I never judge a book by it's cover. The person could be completely and totally awesome. We could have a thousand things in common. They could be my soul mate! I do actually have friends who regularly wear those flannel pajama pants in public. But I would still think they (the stranger or my friends) were lazy that day because they didn't put on some proper pants, shorts - at LEAST some sweats... if you have to. And I'll still think they look unkempt because that's how my mind processes people wearing pajamas in public.

johnart said:

purplemookiebut said:

well at least i wear pjs and dont sleep NAKED. what would i go to the food store in then?

Pants?

yes but they will more then likly be a crazy design print from hot topic in skinny leg that prince would love.....

everyday is halloween

FauxReal said:

Cerebus said:

Dress code? Yes. And it's legal to require employees to follow them. Tattoos, piercings and ESPECIALLY hair are much more touchy issues. I've worked many places here in CA in the last fifteen years where everyone was required to wear business professional attire (suit and tie, pant suits, appropriate length and style of skirt, blazers, dress shoes, etc. - no jeans, no tennis shoes, ever!), but many of the people I worked with (myself included, actually) still had ink, facial jewelry, dreadlocks or shaved heads (women, that is). Legally, for any number of reasons, it's much more difficult to for employers regulate those things. There's certain levels of accepted no-nos, like tattoos on the face and in some cases the hands (like tattooing "fuck you" across your knuckles ). And too much jewelry is generally frowned upon, but I've worked with people who had nearly as much as the mookie monster.

Granted, I'm in the Bay Area and liberal has it's own meaning. But still, regulating what somebody wears is not the same as regulating what they do to their own bodies.

I'm just referring to wearing pajamas publicly. Comparing a job interview (or even just looking for employment) to going out to pick up a few odds and ends is not really a fair comparison, IMO.

I wouldn't wear pajamas publicly in either case, personally.

PS stepping out of the house in sweats. Talk to you all later. The gym is calling me.

Whoa, double post. How do people do that? I can't. The board won't let me.

I was writing a comment addressing this very thing when you posted this. Pajamas are for sleeping, lounging in the bedroom or around the house. They don't go to the store.

johnart said:

Cerebus said:

I tried to read the whole thing... I should have forced myself to do so. I always miss or repeat something when I don't.

When threads go too long before I join in, I seldom read them in full either.

I skimmed. I didn't see anything that I thought was exactly what I wanted to say, so I went for it. Umm, I was wrong. Sincerest apologies to those whose fine observations I stole, repeated or otherwise trampled on.

purplemookiebut said:

johnart said:

Pants?

yes but they will more then likly be a crazy design print from hot topic in skinny leg that prince would love.....

everyday is halloween

FauxReal said:

Cerebus said:

Dress code? Yes. And it's legal to require employees to follow them. Tattoos, piercings and ESPECIALLY hair are much more touchy issues. I've worked many places here in CA in the last fifteen years where everyone was required to wear business professional attire (suit and tie, pant suits, appropriate length and style of skirt, blazers, dress shoes, etc. - no jeans, no tennis shoes, ever!), but many of the people I worked with (myself included, actually) still had ink, facial jewelry, dreadlocks or shaved heads (women, that is). Legally, for any number of reasons, it's much more difficult to for employers regulate those things. There's certain levels of accepted no-nos, like tattoos on the face and in some cases the hands (like tattooing "fuck you" across your knuckles ). And too much jewelry is generally frowned upon, but I've worked with people who had nearly as much as the mookie monster.

Granted, I'm in the Bay Area and liberal has it's own meaning. But still, regulating what somebody wears is not the same as regulating what they do to their own bodies.

I'm just referring to wearing pajamas publicly. Comparing a job interview (or even just looking for employment) to going out to pick up a few odds and ends is not really a fair comparison, IMO.

I wouldn't wear pajamas publicly in either case, personally.

I think we're just kind of throwing it all out there. Not necessarily comparing one to the other. There's definitely degrees of wrongness.

For example:

It's 4 am your kid (or you are) sick and you need to hit the CVS for medicine.

Not ideal (but neither is illness) but Acceptable

It's 4 in the afternoon and you're watching Oprah when you decide you can't go on living another minute without shoving some Cheeto's from the 7-11 or Walmart into your face so your lazy ass can't even muster up the effort it takes to put on pants (because after all, having to actually deal with a button and a zipper can be exhausting). And while you're at it, you skipped pants, so why not just go in your slippers.

Unacceptable

johnart said:

FauxReal said:

I'm just referring to wearing pajamas publicly. Comparing a job interview (or even just looking for employment) to going out to pick up a few odds and ends is not really a fair comparison, IMO.

I wouldn't wear pajamas publicly in either case, personally.

I think we're just kind of throwing it all out there. Not necessarily comparing one to the other. There's definitely degrees of wrongness.

For example:

It's 4 am your kid (or you are) sick and you need to hit the CVS for medicine.

Not ideal (but neither is illness) but Acceptable

It's 4 in the afternoon and you're watching Oprah when you decide you can't go on living another minute without shoving some Cheeto's from the 7-11 or Walmart into your face so your lazy ass can't even muster up the effort it takes to put on pants (because after all, having to actually deal with a button and a zipper can be exhausting). And while you're at it, you skipped pants, so why not just go in your slippers.

Unacceptable

i guess u missed when i said the store just opened and i only seen one other customer from 2--30 ft away

purplemookiebut said:

johnart said:

Pants?

yes but they will more then likly be a crazy design print from hot topic in skinny leg that prince would love.....

everyday is halloween

Don't even get me started on Hot Topic.

We walked past it this weekend and Ron pointed at one of the t-shirts so we stepped in.

I immediately said, I need to go, I'm too old (past the age of 16) to be shopping in this place.

purplemookiebut said:

i guess u missed when i said the store just opened and i only seen one other customer from 2--30 ft away

I must have also missed the part where you were buying emergency medication.

[Edited 1/10/11 15:59pm]

maybe it's just this guy that makes it okay

johnart said:

purplemookiebut said:

yes but they will more then likly be a crazy design print from hot topic in skinny leg that prince would love.....

everyday is halloween

Don't even get me started on Hot Topic.

We walked past it this weekend and Ron pointed at one of the t-shirts so we stepped in.

I immediately said, I need to go, I'm too old (past the age of 16) to be shopping in this place.

My neice is (THANKFULLY!) starting to get into high fashion and dressing up as much as she can. But my nephew still loves that store. Although 75% of everything he wears is black, so I can't hate too much on his wardrobe choices.

NDRU said:

maybe it's just this guy that makes it okay

I think I'm one of like, 6 people on the planet Earth who doesn't like that movie. And honestly, I loathe it. I just don't get the appeal at all. It's my least favorite Coen Bros film by a mile.

Cerebus said:

NDRU said:

maybe it's just this guy that makes it okay

I think I'm one of like, 6 people on the planet Earth who doesn't like that movie. And honestly, I loathe it. I just don't get the appeal at all. It's my least favorite Coen Bros film by a mile.

That movie really ties the room together, dude.

Cerebus said:

NDRU said:

maybe it's just this guy that makes it okay

I think I'm one of like, 6 people on the planet Earth who doesn't like that movie. And honestly, I loathe it. I just don't get the appeal at all. It's my least favorite Coen Bros film by a mile.

It's probably my favorite.

but besides that, it was not supposed to be acceptable that he wore his bathrobe in the store and drank milk in the aisle, but it did crack me up

Efan said:

Cerebus said:

I think I'm one of like, 6 people on the planet Earth who doesn't like that movie. And honestly, I loathe it. I just don't get the appeal at all. It's my least favorite Coen Bros film by a mile.

That movie really ties the room together, dude.

The rug. At least I got the joke!

NDRU said:

Cerebus said:

I think I'm one of like, 6 people on the planet Earth who doesn't like that movie. And honestly, I loathe it. I just don't get the appeal at all. It's my least favorite Coen Bros film by a mile.

It's probably my favorite.

but besides that, it was not supposed to be acceptable that he wore his bathrobe in the store and drank milk in the aisle, but it did crack me up

I think it's the favorite, or very close to it, of a lot of my friends, too. I've just had to become at peace with the fact that I'm in the EXTREME minority on this one.