The important part of this post wound up at the end.


> If "after 5:00pm" counts as a specific occasion, why doesn't "from Labor Day to Memorial Day?"

After 5pm *in the public lobbies and dining room of that specific hotel*. Not from Labor Day to Memorial Day any stinking where you are or what you're doing.

> The only argument I can agree with here is that it is not dictated by an authority with the right to dictate it. But at some point in time, there was an authority, and if that authority hadn't had the power to make the rule, the rule probably would never have been followed, and certainly never followed so widely.

It's not even be possible to *have* an authority whose authority justly extends to all members of society, for all occasions, for all places. Nonetheless, widely followed rules of fashion abound, whether they make sense or not.

> Different social classes require different standards amongst their ranks. . . . I might even go so far as to say others shouldn't discuss bodily functions at dinner. And I'd further probably malign those who didn't apply blanket, blind, and gratuitous conformance to my arbitrary standard.

But it's not arbitrary. Discussing bodily functions at dinner disrupts the appetites of probably more of the populace than not; consequently this standard is anything *but* arbitrary, being rooted in simple consideration for others.

> I could possibly agree with you if you argued that the rule is obsolete, or even that it shouldn't be adhered to simply because no one remembers the source for it or the reason behind it anymore. But you don't make that argument.

Just a clarification: I'm not *at all* arguing that it shouldn't be adhered to. If someone adheres to the rule even in *spite* of the fact that no one remembers the source for it or the reason behind it, that's a-ok with me.

> > It's a big, huge world of difference.
>
> I seriously think your annoyance with this issue is because you don't give a hoot about fashion and don't really have much patience for the subject or those who do give a hoot about it. You think it's arbitrary. Some people don't.

No, Mousie, it's really not that. If I wasn't clear -- and I apologize if I was not -- the *following* of such rules doesn't bother me in the slightest, whether the rules make a whit of sense or not. As I said of Koalamom's mother, if following those fashion rules was interesting or pleasing or satisfying to her, *good*. I don't think less of her for it. In truth, if anything I have some admiration for her in having and appreciating the sense of aesthetics that seems to be the root of her interest in how she and her family dresses. I think such a sense can make life more interesting and/or pleasing to live.

What I *am* railing against is the phenomenon whereby overly zealous fashion-conscious people make *demands* that everybody around them conform to these fashion rules that they themselves follow, regardless of the occasion or situation.
If I see someone walking down the street in December wearing white and make judgments about that person being uncultured street scum and think I'm somehow better than him, than I may kindly go to hell. "That person does not follow fashion" and maybe even "that person doesn't have much of a sense of aesthetics about what he wears" is the extent of the judgment I should be making based on someone's clothing.

Although I'm exaggerating here to make a point, I do know one person with this kind of superior attitude concerning fashion (nobody here). I overheard this person reprimanding someone else (not me, lest you think this personal) "Tsk, tsk, you're not supposed to wear white after Labor Day!" I mean, honestly.

What I'm calling shallow and petty is NOT the following of fashion rules, even if they lack known reasons, but the discrimination against those who do not.