Wearing a PC in the Daytime??

[thescot]

I love this place. Threads like this can go on and on, and people still remain quite civil. I really do enjoy spirited discussion.

Of course, we have devolved into the arguments that JockScot assured us we would devolve to, i.e, "by whose authority--I can do what I want --you can't tell me . . ." And I think that a shame.

Those statements are correct; no one can tell anyone else how to dress, nor will anyone try. Nor has anyone tried here. Friday, you can wear anything you like. We've all said that here, and if you want to wear suspenders on your kilt, a polkadot tie, a striped shirt, and knee-high waders with your kilt, be our guest. There really are no kilt police, so you won't be arrested.

But if you are chafed because you don't like tradition or convention or conserviative styles, then there is little that discussion will do to alleviate it. It's a choice you make. No one has tried to dictate your mode of dress; we have however discussed the conventions of highland attire and pointed out what they are. No one is required to follow them. They have indeed evolved over a couple hundred years, heavily influenced by military traditions and the requirements of court dress, and they are fairly well known and understood. And as JockScot pointed out, it is Highland attire we speak of, not Georgia attire or California attire. If the dictates of dress are heavily British, well . . . duh!

And I beg to differ with pastorsteve; the wearing of a tux in the daytime for weddings is not centuries old on either side of the pond. Wearing a tux in the daytime almost certainly dates from the 60s or thereabouts. And again, the whole "formal" wedding idea is pretty much based on watching Princess Margaret get hitched on TV in the 50s. Before that, most folks married in a nice dress for the girl and a suit or the guy. The problem was--I say again--that many folks, unaccustomed to the niceties of formal or even black tie conventions didn't know any better than to wear a tux for a noon wedding. They'd seen tuxes at proms (in the evening), movies with good looking guys in tuxes and dinner jackets (in the evening), and figured that getting dressed up meant wearing a tux.

Want to wear a tux at noon?--go for it. Want to wear a pair of pink checkered shorts with tails?--OK. Insist on a PC in the early afternoon?--you can do whatever you like.

But at least if you've read this thread, you'll know better and do so because it was a choice.

And that's why I love this place.

The "authority" you question and imply does not exist--or perhaps is bogus--is convention. It's that same convention that places the fork on the left, the pocket on a man's jacket on the left, the wedding ring on the left--why all this left stuff?--and it's not authority. It is, however, good taste. And like other conventions, it is well understood and easily attained--if one wishes to do so. It is also easily ignored, just like forks and pockets and wedding rings.

But if one should choose to ignore convention, then one should not be surprised if one is considered unschooled, unsophisticated, and/or uncooth. That's just the way it is.

[Jock Scot]

Well I can agree to differ.

[Friday]

As a closing comment and I will limit comments on this subject in the future, I am very conservative in my attire, highland and other wise. Maybe it is because of almost 30 years working for the US Federal Government and constantly hearing "it is done this way because" and no one can explain the "because" that gets me started.

And "because" of that thanks to all for the information I now know that it is "because".