Gratuitous use of curse / swear / vulgar words.

[Scott5114]

Rape laws often explicitly only applied to women the perpetrator was not married to, meaning a man could legally rape his own wife. This was corrected starting in the 1970s, and was only done in all 50 states by 1993 (I'm not sure of the exact date; Wikipedia's "by 1993" wording is indicative that they have a source stating this dated 1993 but it could have been achieved earlier).

[webny99]

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

Fair.

It could be a hygienic issue in a small, crowded store, but otherwise agreed.

Ironically the stores that have regulations requiring shirts and shoes are often the ones where I'd feel most comfortable not wearing them (or at least being around other people not wearing them - I can't do bare feet and me shirtless is not a pretty sight, although I wouldn't mind if it was more socially acceptable).

[kphoger]

And, for what it's worth, I fully support the right of a private business to set its own dress code.

Provided it doesn't have a disparate impact on a particular class (school dress codes tend to be much more restrictive for female students than male students, and dress codes at bars and clubs are frequently aimed at racial minorities), I do too.  "No shirt, no shoes, no service" makes perfect sense from a hygiene standpoint.

I personally think that a woman should be allowed to go topless anywhere a man is allowed to go topless.  But I am less than 100% convinced a Catholic school should legally have to allow girls to play shirts-vs-skins basketball just because it allows the boys to.

There are values I think an ideal society should have or not have, but that doesn't mean I think the ideal solution is to change all the rules to match what I think.  Culture is a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing:  rules can change beliefs, and yet beliefs should inform rules.

In a good amount of states, no-fault divorce wasn't a thing in 1983, meaning that a woman would have to prove abuse to leave an abusive marriage.

Was that specifically for women only?  I don't know the history.

I'm surprised that this hasn't yet been noted in this thread -- this forum used to have a rule against the gratuitous use of profanity. The rule was quietly withdrawn at some point, without explanation that I can remember. Some discussion of the rule's absence came up later when another rule change was discussed.

As has been mentioned before when this was brought up, that's because the original forum ruleset was copied wholesale from another forum. That rule was never enforced here (it was on the books while Jake was head admin, in case you needed proof of that) so it was deleted to make de facto and de jure one and the same in this particular case.

You implied this in your reply, but I'll just state it explicitly:  it wasn't without explanation.  You can start reading here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29783.msg2640068#msg2640068

[ethanhopkin14]

So, there was something ghastly legal to do to women in 1983 that you can't do now?

Quite a few things, yes.

Like?  I don't want to hear about antiquated laws that stayed on the books because some scrivener never got around to striking that law from the books.

In a good amount of states, no-fault divorce wasn't a thing in 1983, meaning that a woman would have to prove abuse to leave an abusive marriage.

I'll give it to you, but I guess I was thinking more of a "It is 10,000% Legal to Beat Your Wife in Public and Onlookers Should Applaud" law.  The law you are referencing feels more like a holdover law from a more Catholic mindset, or any other religion in which the religion forbade divorce and was designed to keep people from frivolously divorcing their spouse.  Now, like a lot of things, an unfortunate loophole was exploited there and that I do not condone.
The intent of the law was to keep divorce rates down but made it so spouse abuse was harder to punish.   

[kphoger]

Not to me, it doesn't.  The bottoms of my shoes are not hygienic in the slightest.

I'm sure you have; in fact, I'm so sure you have, I hesitate to even ask the question, but...Have you ever seen the soles of someone who never wears shoes, ever?

I live in Kansas.  Have you ever seen the bottoms of a pig-farmers work boots?

[abefroman329]

Now people fly in their pajamas.

Yep, and the coast-to-coast plane ticket that cost $300 in 1960 dollars now costs...$300 in 2023 dollars.

Also, while some of your fellow passengers may be in their pajamas, none will chain-smoke unfiltered Luckies in-flight.   

[abefroman329]

Not to me, it doesn't.  The bottoms of my shoes are not hygienic in the slightest.

I'm sure you have; in fact, I'm so sure you have, I hesitate to even ask the question, but...Have you ever seen the soles of someone who never wears shoes, ever?

I live in Kansas.  Have you ever seen the bottoms of a pig-farmers work boots?

Nope.

[JayhawkCO]

In a good amount of states, no-fault divorce wasn't a thing in 1983, meaning that a woman would have to prove abuse to leave an abusive marriage.

Was that specifically for women only?  I don't know the history.

Nope, but I would estimate 99% of cases where someone wanted to get out of a marriage but couldn't, it was a woman.

[kphoger]

Not to me, it doesn't.  The bottoms of my shoes are not hygienic in the slightest.

I'm sure you have; in fact, I'm so sure you have, I hesitate to even ask the question, but...Have you ever seen the soles of someone who never wears shoes, ever?

I live in Kansas.  Have you ever seen the bottoms of a pig-farmers work boots?

Nope.

That's fine.  At least there isn't any particular class of people that's less likely than others to own a pair of shoes.

[abefroman329]

But I am less than 100% convinced a Catholic school should legally have to allow girls to play shirts-vs-skins basketball just because it allows the boys to.

I don't either, I was talking about dress codes that state "no spaghetti straps/no bare midriffs/no shorts that end above the knee/etc." that are enforced against girls, but not boys.

Was that specifically for women only?  I don't know the history.

Well, women could only marry men, and based on what I know about the old-boy network back then, I'm sure it was much easier for men to get a divorce than women.

[abefroman329]

At least there isn't any particular class of people that's less likely than others to own a pair of shoes.

Interesting, I hadn't even considered the potential that policies requiring shoes would be classist.  The only person I've known who never wore shoes was an affluent straight white Christian man who thought "not wearing shoes anywhere" was the same as "having a personality," although this was in the rural South.

[kphoger]

based on what I know about the old-boy network back then, I'm sure it was much easier for men to get a divorce than women.

Aha, yes.  I must assume that he wasn't trying to say domestic violence against husbands doesn't exist.

I was talking about dress codes that state "no spaghetti straps/no bare midriffs/no shorts that end above the knee/etc." that are enforced against girls, but not boys.

How many boys try to go around wearing spaghetti straps?   

But yes.

Interesting, I hadn't even considered the potential that policies requiring shoes would be classist.  The only person I've known who never wore shoes was an affluent straight white Christian man who thought "not wearing shoes anywhere" was the same as "having a personality," although this was in the rural South.

Granted, this was back in the 1960s, but one of my father's childhood friends didn't own a pair of shoes, and he only owned two changes of clothes.

But I was thinking more specifically of people living in poverty today, such as a large immigrant family not being able to afford shoes for all their children.  Or a homeless man whose shoes have worn out to the point of being thrown in the trash.

[ethanhopkin14]

And, of course, there's a certain irony in people insisting that you shouldn't use profanity because it might offend someone, while simultaneously thinking political correctness has gone too far and they should be able to use any slur they want to and if anyone is offended, well, fornicate their feelings.

Once again, you have implied because someone has a problem with public profanity they also have a problem with the "wussification" of the world when it comes to political correctness.  Do they also rip off their sleeves, wear a trucker's hat and have a beer in their hand while saying "wussification" with a southern drawl?

[JayhawkCO]

And, of course, there's a certain irony in people insisting that you shouldn't use profanity because it might offend someone, while simultaneously thinking political correctness has gone too far and they should be able to use any slur they want to and if anyone is offended, well, fornicate their feelings.

Once again, you have implied because someone has a problem with public profanity they also have a problem with the "wussification" of the world when it comes to political correctness.  Do they also rip off their sleeves, wear a trucker's hat and have a beer in their hand while saying "wussification" with a southern drawl?

The Venn diagram definitely overlaps at a minimum. Also, for the record, I own and wear a lot of trucker's hats and enjoy holding beers.

[abefroman329]

How many boys try to go around wearing spaghetti straps?   

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

Granted, this was back in the 1960s, but one of my father's childhood friends didn't own a pair of shoes, and he only owned two changes of clothes.

Yeah - this is me talking out of my ass, but I'd say that was much more common in the 1960s than today.

But I was thinking more specifically of people living in poverty today, such as a large immigrant family not being able to afford shoes for all their children.  Or a homeless man whose shoes have worn out to the point of being thrown in the trash.

That is food for thought, absolutely.

[kphoger]

Yeah - this is me talking out of my ass, but I'd say that was much more common in the 1960s than today.

Probably so.  On the other hand, you know that I do mission work in small-town Mexico, where I see a lot more children going barefoot.  And I'm sure the bottoms of their feet are substantially less hygienic than those of your rural Southern Christian guy.  (I also once had a coworker in a warehouse who attempted to go barefoot at work because he had made some sort of spiritual vow to go without shoes.)

[ethanhopkin14]

How many boys try to go around wearing spaghetti straps?   

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

Specifically, spaghetti strap tops, and shirts bearing their midriff.  I am going to do the overall acknowledgement that today, most things are not as gender specific as they used to be and both sexes are encouraged to venture outside their confines, but at the exact same time, this is high school we are talking about, and still if a boy comes to school in a spaghetti strap top or showing their midriff, we know and they know they will be bullied to no end.  This is why "the closet" still exists even in our more free-thinking society.  It's because at the end of the day, the same knuckle sandwich you would receive for wearing girl's clothes to school in the old days will still be there waiting for a boy if he did it today.  By that logic alone, most guys won't dress like that at school. 

[kphoger]

I tried to defuse that with the smiley face.  Guess it failed.

[abefroman329]

On the other hand, you know that I do mission work in small-town Mexico, where I see a lot more children going barefoot.

That's what I meant when I said that I'm sure you've seen people going barefoot.  Wasn't some "lol rural Kansas" thing.

And I'm sure the bottoms of their feet are substantially less hygienic than those of your rural Southern Christian guy.

They were black as night, and I also can't say for certain how often he showered.

[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.

[kphoger]

When I take mission teams to villages in the Mexican desert, I specifically tell them not to pack spaghetti straps or short shorts, and nobody objects to that.  They all understand perfectly well that it's out of respect for the cultural norms in which we'll be ministering–not because any of us thinks it's inherently morally wrong to avoid wearing those clothing items.  (And, by the way, it seems to be more culturally appropriate there for women to show their lower legs than men.  I don't think I've ever seen a rural Mexican wearing shorts, but I've seen plenty of rural Mexican women wearing dresses.)  In town (the bigger town, population approx. 40k), I don't enforce that sort of thing as much because it's a tourist town and because the cultural values aren't the same as they are in the villages anyway.

It would do one well to show this sort of respect when talking within earshot of others.  If there's a chance that others would be offended by the words you choose to use, then it would be good to choose different words.

That's what I meant when I said that I'm sure you've seen people going barefoot.  Wasn't some "lol rural Kansas" thing.

Oh, duh!  I was scratching my head, trying to figure out what you meant by that.

They were black as night, and I also can't say for certain how often he showered.

I don't doubt it.  But I'd bet that those little Mexican kids' feet pick up a lot worse things on their soles than your guy's soles.

[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.

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

[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).

[abefroman329]

When I take mission teams to villages in the Mexican desert, I specifically tell them not to pack spaghetti straps or short shorts, and nobody objects to that.  They all understand perfectly well that it's out of respect for the cultural norms in which we'll be ministering–not because any of us thinks it's inherently morally wrong to avoid wearing those clothing items.  (And, by the way, it seems to be more culturally appropriate there for women to show their lower legs than men.  I don't think I've ever seen a rural Mexican wearing shorts, but I've seen plenty of rural Mexican women wearing dresses.)  In town (the bigger town, population approx. 40k), I don't enforce that sort of thing as much because it's a tourist town and because the cultural values aren't the same as they are in the villages anyway.

Yeah, I try to limit the amount of time I spend wearing shorts when I'm in any other country; I think David Sedaris hit the nail on the head when he said that American tourists walk around Europe dressed as if they're there to mow the lawn.

[kphoger]

sagging pants

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