mines old enough to where to go to when they were still offered in green and brown (mine is green, kinda like a mallard duck).
the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop
yes, this really is how we make our living.
I have anecdotal proof that racism doesn't exist. I once ate at a steak house and they kicked me out for having dreadlocks and playing dice and I'm white. Conversely, I used to frequent many clubs in college that were filled with exclusively black youths wearing Lacoste sweaters and dancing to Steely Dan. So, there is no way building a dress code around popular fashion styles for urban youths can be racist.
Cincinnati Reds 2014 W-L Record: 76.6-85.4*
Cincinnati Reds 2015 W-L Record: TBA
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
It's all fun and games until someone brings up Steely Dan.
Things just got real in here.
"But I do know Joey's sister indirectly (or foster sister) and I have heard stories of Joey being into shopping, designer wear, fancy coffees, and pedicures."
The problem with dress codes is that it's usually nigh-on impossible to get the letter of the law to match up with the spirit of the law. And 9.8 times out of 10, the spirit of the law is absolutely what is behind the dress code (i.e., they're not concerned with how people actually look as much as they are concerned with the image that look conveys).
No one -- NO ONE -- is more in favor of a dress code in theory than I am. I harbor no fonder hope than to open an establishment requiring crinolines and linen suits (all of you men wearing shorts: have you looked into a nice, cool, breathable linen suit? Have you?) This is not because I want to convey a certain image, but because i want people to look nice, feel good about themselves, perform their best, make new friends and lovers, and go to bed at peace with their places in the world. It so happens that I think people look good in crinolines and well-fitted linen suits, but that is my opinion. Some people, some aesthetically challenged people, might think those look silly, because as my mother always told me, there's no accounting for taste.
But in truth things just don't work that way. People are shaped differently and look good in different things. A blouse that looks downright modest on one woman will be completely inappropriate on another for, say, a work setting, even if the blouse itself conforms to dress code, because women's chests are shaped differently. A long shirt might drown a thin, short-waisted man and make him look as if he is sporting nightwear, whereas with the correct rest-of-outfit, it might just look like a slightly oversized fashion statement on another man.
That's why the letter-of-the-law dress code is so ridiculous. I call it the Khaki Rule. Khaki pants are one of the few articles of clothing on this earth that look bad on pretty much everyone. .002% of the population, particularly the female population, looks good and professional in khakis. Don't even talk to me about pleated khakis. Yet most workplaces have a "business casual" policy that allows khakis and forbids jeans. This is partly a holdover from when jeans were strictly for farming or whatever, I guess, but what you have now is thousands upon thousands of people walking around offices in stretched, baggy, poorly made khakis, looking sloppy and unprofessional and DEFINITELY NOT THEIR BEST SELVES, when a nice pair of jeans can be so much sturdier and better fitting and, topped off and accessorized the right way, hands down more professional than khakis. Unfortunately there's not really a way to have a dress code without a letter-of-law because it's so subjective, but I do think most establishments and workplaces could step back and really think about what looks professional in 2014 vs. 1980.
Anyway, I'm rambling (this topic is very important to me), but I agree with Yachtzee in the sense of what they're likely going for and how offensive that dress code is in terms of where it actually takes them. Ostensibly it's supposed to convey an air of "high-class" (I hate that word) and all that implies and associates by limiting clothing trends associated with other classes. They may TRY to convey this as an aesthetic thing, but as evidenced by the fact that women would likely still be allowed to come in wearing clothing exposing many things that men aren't allowed to, it's clearly not an aesthetic thing. They're pursuing a spirit of the law through letter of the law, or to put it more blatantly, they're trying to be selective about their clientele through dress code regulations.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
And as for the dress code/tastes posts - I guess I've reached a point I just don't give a darn what someone else's tastes are. Do I like it? Do I feel comfortable in it. Then close your eyes if you don't like it because I am wearing it....
Last edited by RedlegJake; 03-27-2014 at 11:26 AM.
No - I am not from State Farm!