Gratuitous use of curse / swear / vulgar words.

[abefroman329]

sagging pants

Researching the legal history of the term 'anal cleft' is a fun diversion...

Is that the same as "rectal crease?"

[webny99]

How many boys try to go around wearing spaghetti straps?   

Come on dude, you know tank tops for men exist.

They do, but some of them have such tiny backs and/or massive arm holes that they might as well not exist.

[ethanhopkin14]

dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities

Not being a nuisance, I legitimately want to know what this means.  Maybe because I never really got into the bar scene.  I have been to plenty, just I am too much of a square for them.

Essentially some businesses have a dress code that basically prohibits "urban fashion" -- plain white tees, hats, jerseys, sagging pants, etc.

Again, not being a nuisance, but those items are not limited to minorities.  There are a lot of places I see more anglo people wearing those items than minorities.  Jerseys... any NFL game. 

[ethanhopkin14]

dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities

Not being a nuisance, I legitimately want to know what this means.  Maybe because I never really got into the bar scene.  I have been to plenty, just I am too much of a square for them.

This article has some good info:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504214567859

Yes, they're not explicitly racist; yes, they're (occasionally) enforced against white people (I was turned away from a lower-end nightclub in England because I was wearing gym shoes; a bouncer at The Guards in DC told me "next time, wear shoes" when I went there wearing Birkenstocks; Jack Rose Dining Saloon in Adams Morgan wouldn't let me in because I had gone to the Caps game that night and was wearing a Caps sweater).

I was told I couln't enter a club because I was wearing a baseball hat.  I am anglo decent. 

[JayhawkCO]

dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities

Not being a nuisance, I legitimately want to know what this means.  Maybe because I never really got into the bar scene.  I have been to plenty, just I am too much of a square for them.

This article has some good info:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504214567859

Yes, they're not explicitly racist; yes, they're (occasionally) enforced against white people (I was turned away from a lower-end nightclub in England because I was wearing gym shoes; a bouncer at The Guards in DC told me "next time, wear shoes" when I went there wearing Birkenstocks; Jack Rose Dining Saloon in Adams Morgan wouldn't let me in because I had gone to the Caps game that night and was wearing a Caps sweater).

I was told I couln't enter a club because I was wearing a baseball hat.  I am anglo decent.

Tell me that you didn't read the article linked without telling me you didn't read it. Or, at least understand the inference.

[abefroman329]

dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities

Not being a nuisance, I legitimately want to know what this means.  Maybe because I never really got into the bar scene.  I have been to plenty, just I am too much of a square for them.

This article has some good info:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504214567859

Yes, they're not explicitly racist; yes, they're (occasionally) enforced against white people (I was turned away from a lower-end nightclub in England because I was wearing gym shoes; a bouncer at The Guards in DC told me "next time, wear shoes" when I went there wearing Birkenstocks; Jack Rose Dining Saloon in Adams Morgan wouldn't let me in because I had gone to the Caps game that night and was wearing a Caps sweater).

I was told I couln't enter a club because I was wearing a baseball hat.  I am anglo decent.

RTFA

[Scott5114]

I'm a little surprised that businesses that enforce a dress code make enough money to continue as a going concern. If I were turned away due to how I was dressed, my reaction wouldn't be to go change and come back, it would be to spend my money somewhere else.

[kphoger]

Is it OK to sag while wearing rebel flag underwear?   

[Big John]

Is it OK to sag while wearing rebel flag underwear?   

Aren't you commando?

[kphoger]

Is it OK to sag while wearing rebel flag underwear?   

Aren't you commando?

Asking for a friend.

[ethanhopkin14]

dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities

Not being a nuisance, I legitimately want to know what this means.  Maybe because I never really got into the bar scene.  I have been to plenty, just I am too much of a square for them.

This article has some good info:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504214567859

Yes, they're not explicitly racist; yes, they're (occasionally) enforced against white people (I was turned away from a lower-end nightclub in England because I was wearing gym shoes; a bouncer at The Guards in DC told me "next time, wear shoes" when I went there wearing Birkenstocks; Jack Rose Dining Saloon in Adams Morgan wouldn't let me in because I had gone to the Caps game that night and was wearing a Caps sweater).

I was told I couln't enter a club because I was wearing a baseball hat.  I am anglo decent.

Tell me that you didn't read the article linked without telling me you didn't read it. Or, at least understand the inference.

I read it.  I don't agree with it.  I will keep it that way because I do not want to go there. 

[abefroman329]

I'm a little surprised that businesses that enforce a dress code make enough money to continue as a going concern. If I were turned away due to how I was dressed, my reaction wouldn't be to go change and come back, it would be to spend my money somewhere else.

I never went back to Jack Rose after that, and laughed my ass off when they started trying to sell themselves as a sports bar, but I guess no one else was bothered by it.

[MultiMillionMiler]

I'm a little surprised that businesses that enforce a dress code make enough money to continue as a going concern. If I were turned away due to how I was dressed, my reaction wouldn't be to go change and come back, it would be to spend my money somewhere else.

I 100% agree with this. If a business is making good money I don't understand their obsession with these trivial morales. Like when airlines have kicked people off and made people change their clothes just because a dress had "too revealing" straps, and recently I heard a story that airlines are complaining about how "casual" people dress in general, like wearing sweatshirts and sweatpants on 15 hr flights, and were flirting with the idea of implementing a low level, mandatory dress code. People should take their businesses elsewhere. I have always been of the view that it's not the government's right, nor the businesses absolute right to make absolute rules, that should be a general public consensus type of thing. If enough customers are against a rule that doesn't directly affect the operation of the business, they should be required to change it. Customers rights over government policy/owners rights.
And speaking of airlines, based on how horribly certain airlines like United and Southwest have been treating passengers, I made sure my flight last year was with delta or American.

[ethanhopkin14]

dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities

Not being a nuisance, I legitimately want to know what this means.  Maybe because I never really got into the bar scene.  I have been to plenty, just I am too much of a square for them.

This article has some good info:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504214567859

Yes, they're not explicitly racist; yes, they're (occasionally) enforced against white people (I was turned away from a lower-end nightclub in England because I was wearing gym shoes; a bouncer at The Guards in DC told me "next time, wear shoes" when I went there wearing Birkenstocks; Jack Rose Dining Saloon in Adams Morgan wouldn't let me in because I had gone to the Caps game that night and was wearing a Caps sweater).

I was told I couldn't enter a club because I was wearing a baseball hat.  I am anglo decent.

RTFA

Red Tail Flight Academy?

[abefroman329]

dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities

Not being a nuisance, I legitimately want to know what this means.  Maybe because I never really got into the bar scene.  I have been to plenty, just I am too much of a square for them.

This article has some good info:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504214567859

Yes, they're not explicitly racist; yes, they're (occasionally) enforced against white people (I was turned away from a lower-end nightclub in England because I was wearing gym shoes; a bouncer at The Guards in DC told me "next time, wear shoes" when I went there wearing Birkenstocks; Jack Rose Dining Saloon in Adams Morgan wouldn't let me in because I had gone to the Caps game that night and was wearing a Caps sweater).

I was told I couldn't enter a club because I was wearing a baseball hat.  I am anglo decent.

RTFA

Red Tail Flight Academy?

R is for "Read," T is for "the," and A is for "article."

[abefroman329]

Like when airlines have kicked people off and made people change their clothes just because a dress had "too revealing" straps

Because, if you give someone even a shred of authority, they will abuse the shit out of it.

and recently I heard a story that airlines are complaining about how "casual" people dress in general, like wearing sweatshirts and sweatpants on 15 hr flights, and were flirting with the idea of implementing a low level, mandatory dress code.

There already is a not-so-secret dress code for nonrevs, and that is strictly enforced in premium cabins. But yeah, I'm not putting on a damn tuxedo for a Chicago-London redeye, nor should I be expected to.

[Amaury]

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" makes perfect sense from a hygiene standpoint.

As for shirts...  I can't think of any good reason for a store to require that its customers wear a shirt.

I actually find this one kind of funny. I realize that when it comes to things like this, you can't list everything under the sun, but if you take this in the literal sense/at face value, wouldn't that mean that you could walk into a business wearing only underwear, shoes, and a shirt? LOL Hell, that could also mean not even wearing underwear and only wearing shoes and a shirt. Although that second one would constitute indecent exposure and you would be charged. Now, from a logical/common sense point of view, even with not listing everything under the sun, common sense would tell you that you should also wear underwear and pants/jeans since especially underwear do make sense hygienically.

Interestingly enough, I came across a YouTube of channel a while ago with a few videos of two teenage brothers, who I'm pretty sure aren't of legal age yet, at least not when the videos were made, going into businesses (stores, fast-food restaurants, etc.) in their underwear. They wore everything else; they just didn't have pants on.

[kphoger]

I don't understand their obsession with these trivial morales.

You mean this one?

I have aaslways been of the view that it's not the government's right, nor the businesses absolute right to make absolute rules, that should be a general public consensus type of thing. If enough customers are against a rule that doesn't directly affect the operation of the business, they should be required to change it. Customers rights over government policy/owners rights.

So, for example...

At this convenience store in Huntsville, Texas, exactly how many customers would have to be against the rule for the business owner to be required to accept money pulled out of people's underwear?  And how would this survey be conducted?  And how would you prove they were actually customers?  Do they count twice if they've shopped there twice?  If enough people want the rule back, would the business owner be required to reinstitute it?

I actually find this one kind of funny. I realize that when it comes to things like this, you can't list everything under the sun, but if you take this in the literal sense/at face value, wouldn't that mean that you could walk into a business wearing only underwear, shoes, and a shirt? LOL Hell, that could also mean not even wearing underwear and only wearing shoes and a shirt. Although that second one would constitute indecent exposure and you would be charged. Now, from a logical/common sense point of view, even with not listing everything under the sun, common sense would tell you that you should also wear underwear and pants/jeans since especially underwear do make sense hygienically.

That only makes logical sense if the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing were about hygiene to begin with.  But, as I said, they aren't.  There is no health code requiring shirts or shoes, no matter what the sign claims.  They started out as a way of keeping the hippies out, and they persist as a way of avoiding injury claims.

Interestingly enough, I came across a YouTube of channel a while ago with a few videos of two teenage brothers, who I'm pretty sure aren't of legal age yet, at least not when the videos were made, going into businesses (stores, fast-food restaurants, etc.) in their underwear. They wore everything else; they just didn't have pants on.

I once saw a man walking down the sidewalk, otherwise dressed normally, with no pants on–just tighty whiteys.  It was in Amsterdam, I think.  It made me do a double-take, but it's not like any harm was caused.

[abefroman329]

this convenience store in Huntsville, Texas[/url

Speaking of unintentionally classist things...

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'm a little surprised that businesses that enforce a dress code make enough money to continue as a going concern. If I were turned away due to how I was dressed, my reaction wouldn't be to go change and come back, it would be to spend my money somewhere else.

Or any of these clubs (which admittedly I don't know if this is real or just a TV trope) that evaluates each prospective patron for physical attractiveness/appearance beyond dress code considerations before allowing or refusing them entry just in order to procure a certain look for their clientele.

[Amaury]

That only makes logical sense if the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing were about hygiene to begin with.  But, as I said, they aren't.  There is no health code requiring shirts or shoes, no matter what the sign claims.  They started out as a way of keeping the hippies out, and they persist as a way of avoiding injury claims.

Yeah, I was only talking about it from the general hygienic perspective the public is told. I wasn't saying that I agree with it–or disagree with it, for that matter–I was just bringing up that point I find funny based on the wording itself of the signs. Until I saw some posts in this thread, whenever this subject has come up in my everyday life, I never actually thought it had to do with hygiene, I just thought it was a general business rule.

[abefroman329]

I'm a little surprised that businesses that enforce a dress code make enough money to continue as a going concern. If I were turned away due to how I was dressed, my reaction wouldn't be to go change and come back, it would be to spend my money somewhere else.

Or any of these clubs (which admittedly I don't know if this is real or just a TV trope) that evaluates each prospective patron for physical attractiveness/appearance beyond dress code considerations before allowing or refusing them entry just in order to procure a certain look for their clientele.

Because the people they do allow in will pay dearly for the privilege of being allowed in.

I can count the number of times I've been to an honest-to-god club on one hand, and the closest I ever saw to something like what you're describing was when I was in line to get into a club in Manhattan and the bouncer announced "no more single men."  The woman behind me said to me "you can say you're with us" before I even knew what was going on or how to address it.

[Henry]

Oh LTFU, will you?

[hbelkins]

I have been told that one reason the level of dress on airplanes has gone down is because of the TSA restrictions. It's easier to wear pants with elastic or drawstring waist than it is traditional pants with a belt because you have to remove the belt to go through the scanners.

[kphoger]

I have been told that one reason the level of dress on airplanes has gone down is because of the TSA restrictions. It's easier to wear pants with elastic or drawstring waist than it is traditional pants with a belt because you have to remove the belt to go through the scanners.

Oh, I bet!  In the years immediately after 9/11, I used to wear sandals just so I wouldn't haven't to untie my shoes.  This last time I flew, though, I wore a metal-buckled belt and a jean jacket with metal snaps.  Whatever...