Very First Cruise-Dress Code Help, Please

I love how people think "Alaska" somehow would be different - It's a cruise - rules are already loose -- eat in the lido or your room

Or, more simply, the Gala Night menu is nothing special since the same items are served on the buffet

 

 

Not quite

 

On our Alaskan cruise on the Eurodam last month, I made note to check the MDR and Lido menus on Gala Night. While they do have some of the same items, the Lido didn't have all.......

Now I understand :rolleyes:

I suspect that there is very little "lack of understanding" involved in this discussion - rather what we're seeing is different levels of willingness to acknowledge that one is part of a society and different levels of willingness to acknowledge that acting out from one's own personal skew is, literally, antisocial.

It never fails to amaze how some people can turn a simple question into a massive argument and use the forum to live out their fantasies of importance. When did we get away from simply and pleasantly answering newbie questions?

I'm sorry but I see no foundation for such a claim other than a rejection of English as a language where words have meanings, or a rejection of the basic principles of hospitality, and the denial of the existence of the hospitality industry itself, which is absurd given that your claim only has context if there is a hospitality industry with hotels and cruise ships and such.

 

Noun. (plural no host bars) A bar at a social event for which guests are required to pay for the drinks themselves. It is opposed to a hosted bar where drinks are paid for by the host.

Prior to 2004.

 

 

 

Noun. (plural no host bars) A bar at a social event for which guests are required to pay for the drinks themselves. It is opposed to a hosted bar where drinks are paid for by the host.

 

Okay so you're saying that the hospitality industry doesn't exist. Noted.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

Edited October 19, 2017 by bUU

I suspect that there is very little "lack of understanding" involved in this discussion - rather what we're seeing is different levels of willingness to acknowledge that one is part of a society and different levels of willingness to acknowledge that acting out from one's own personal skew is, literally, antisocial.

 

What is "antisocial" is insisting that everyone conforms to your preferences.

 

We are not identically dressed soldiers, marching in ranks, to the chow hall.

Edited October 19, 2017 by RocketMan275

Not quite

 

On our Alaskan cruise on the Eurodam last month, I made note to check the MDR and Lido menus on Gala Night. While they do have some of the same items, the Lido didn't have all.......

 

I'm sure you've noticed that one of the more common reasons for dressing up for Gala Nights is the lobster entree on the first Gala Night. The second Gala Night features Surf and Turf, shrimp and steak. On our last Oosterdam cruise, this last march, lobster and surf and turf, the two premium entrees for the two gala nights were served in the Lido.

 

My point is simply this: since those two items are on the Lido buffet on Gala Nights, there is no justification to say that the Gala Night MDR menu is "special". FWIW, there were also items on the buffet not found in the MDR.

Prior to 2004.

 

Okay so you're saying that the hospitality industry doesn't exist. Noted.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

No, I'm saying that say that an event with a "host" implies that there is someone other than the guests paying for the event. Another example, you wouldn't expect to pay for a wedding rehearsal dinner would you?

 

The hospitality industry can call itself by whatever name it wishes. But as long as it charges for it's product, it isn't a "host".

No, I'm saying that say that an event with a "host" implies that there is someone other than the guests paying for the event.

 

...

 

The hospitality industry can call itself by whatever name it wishes. But as long as it charges for it's product, it isn't a "host".

 

Sorry --it is common usage to refer to the organizer or server as a "host" - and the person attending as a "guest" --- regardless of whether any payment is involved. It is also common usage that whoever sets the table has the right to set the dress code.

What is "antisocial" is insisting that everyone conforms to your preferences.

As long as [a] those preferences are indeed counter to society's consensus; or you aren't the host. When you are the host, "your house = your rules".

 

No, I'm saying that say that an event with a "host" implies that there is someone other than the guests paying for the event.

I understand that you would prefer it if things were the way you are implying, but it is not. The obligations of hospitality apply to both host and guest regardless of whether a guest is a "paying guest" or a "house guest".

 

As counter to your examples, those obligations hold that the guest owes, and therefore should pay, something of value to the host, even if the guest is a house guest. The difference in that case is only that the house guest determines the amount of value and its form, while the paying guest pays the cash amount agreed upon.

 

Another example, you wouldn't expect to pay for a wedding rehearsal dinner would you?

But I would owe the host the deference of determining the activities of the rehearsal dinner, and owe the host the deference of participating in those activities in accordance with the host's intentions.

 

The hospitality industry can call itself by whatever name it wishes. But as long as it charges for it's product, it isn't a "host".

You are mistaken. You should move here to Georgia; we'll "school you right up!" with regard to the matter of hospitality in short order.

Sorry --it is common usage to refer to the organizer or server as a "host" - and the person attending as a "guest" --- regardless of whether any payment is involved. It is also common usage that whoever sets the table has the right to set the dress code.

More commonly, he who pays the bill is the host.

I'm not disputing that HAL can set whatever code for dining they wish. I am disputing the claim that I have to honor HAL's code because they are the host.

 

HAL is at best the "cater", ie, a person who provides food and drink, typically at a social event and in a professional capacity. (Dictonary.com)

As long as [a] those preferences are indeed counter to society's consensus; or you aren't the host. When you are the host, "your house = your rules".

 

There is no host in the MDR despite your continued insistence otherwise.

 

I understand that you would prefer it if things were the way you are implying, but it is not. The obligations of hospitality apply to both host and guest regardless of whether a guest is a "paying guest" or a "house guest".

 

Your preferences are not "Rules of Hospitality".

 

But I would owe the host the deference of determining the activities of the rehearsal dinner, and owe the host the deference of participating in those activities in accordance with the host's intentions.

 

Of course you would owe deference to the host. The difference between the MDR and the rehearsal dinner is the dinner has a host while the MDR does not.

 

You are mistaken. You should move here to Georgia; we'll "school you right up!" with regard to the matter of hospitality in short order.

 

You might be surprised to find that most do not consider Georgia to be the arbitrator of the "Rules of Hospitality."

There is no host in the MDR despite your continued insistence otherwise.

The cruise line is your host, "despite your continued insistence otherwise."

 

Your preferences are not "Rules of Hospitality".

Nor are yours. Rather, hospitality is what it is, "despite your continued insistence otherwise."

 

I've already put forward the fact that there is a "hospitality" industry that includes hotels, resorts and cruise lines. I've already put forward the fact that there well-understood terms used in regular speech, "paying guest," and, "house guest." I've already put forward that Georgia - and really, the South entire - is known for its hospitality (as an excuse for you to use with regard to the cause of your mistaken comments, actually). In addition, there are over five million web pages indexed on Google that use the term "guest of the hotel" while less than 97 thousand pages that use the term "hosted bar". Meanwhile, you've just offered trivial examples as an alternative.

 

How about we both shut up about it and let other folks in this thread chime in with regard to whether they have ever heard themselves referred to as "guests" of hotels and cruise ships?

There is no host in the MDR despite your continued insistence otherwise.

 

 

 

Your preferences are not "Rules of Hospitality".

 

 

 

Of course you would owe deference to the host. The difference between the MDR and the rehearsal dinner is the dinner has a host while the MDR does not.

 

 

 

You might be surprised to find that most do not consider Georgia to be the arbitrator of the "Rules of Hospitality."

 

Your refusal to accept essentially universally understood meanings of words, and commonly accepted norms of hospitality, deprive your comments on this topic of any relevance.

It never fails to amaze how some people can turn a simple question into a massive argument and use the forum to live out their fantasies of importance. When did we get away from simply and pleasantly answering newbie questions?

 

I agree. The newbie was just asking a question. They needed some simple advice, that's all.

I would hope this storyline ends where the opponents on this issue accidentally meet at a gala night... and are wearing identical clothes. 😮

 

I'm suspect that even those of us who are strident on these issues practically forget them when actually on a cruise.

 

I'm suspect that even those of us who are strident on these issues practically forget them when actually on a cruise.

I wouldn't be so sure: Many of the anecdotes mention how what some other passenger was wearing "ruined" their meal. [emoji849]

I wouldn't be so sure: Many of the anecdotes mention how what some other passenger was wearing "ruined" their meal. [emoji849]

 

If it's bad enough to ruin one's appetite too, maybe that's not so bad. The Gala Night Angst Diet.

☺️

Breakfast & lunch are casual, regardless of the venue you choose. The only rule is that you not wear swimming attire in the restaurants. No bare feet, of course. The dining room dress code for dinner has become more relaxed, recently. We cruise a lot & now see many guys wearing t-shirts or polo shirts & jeans at dinner. No shorts, ratty/torn jeans or tacky t-shirts, please. The key, in our opinion, is being neat. Gala nights are slightly more dressy in the dining room, although you can always choose to eat in the more casual Lido. Most HAL cruises have one gala night per week. In the "old days" (not too long ago), standard dress for gala nights included gowns or cocktail dresses/suits for women & tuxes or suits for men. You will still see some people choosing that attire. However, guys are no longer required to wear a suit or even a jacket, as long as they wear a collared shirt. Ties are optional. Women can wear almost anything except shorts (although I would not wear jeans)....Think slightly more dressy than what you wear on other nights. We take long cruises (up to four months at a time). We do not pack tuxes, suits or evening gowns & feel completely comfortable. This is your vacation & you should wear what makes you comfortable. We just came back from an Alaska cruise on the Amsterdam & found it to be quite casual (with more families & younger people than we usually encounter on HAL). For this itinerary, you probably won't need shorts or real summer clothes. You can expect cool temperatures & rain or mist much of the time. Alaska is a perfect choice for a first cruise. Have fun!

If it's bad enough to ruin one's appetite too, maybe that's not so bad. The Gala Night Angst Diet.

☺️

In my opinion the Gala night menu is nothing special. It has really deteriorated over the years. It doesn't warrant getting too dressed up.

The food was never the reason for the dress code.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

The food was never the reason for the dress code.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

What was the reason for getting dressed up then. There is no dancing, no music.

What was the reason for getting dressed up then.

Dress codes evolved from the intention to parade socio-economic status and one's personal perception of their own importance. Going back to the Elizabethan age, dress codes were actually laws on the books that reserved certain levels of finery for those of certain levels of peerage. That "attire as status" ethic percolated into subsequent generations and across the western world.

 

The main reason for the erosion of dress codes is that we live in a society where promoting one's own status is unseemly, and where character and one's convivial nature are increasingly being intentionally prioritized over one's socio-economic status.

 

Now, "dress up" exists as a form of avocation, in the same way as collecting collectibles, home brewing, clubbing, and gardening are forms of avocation. Actually, the closest analog these days to "dress up" is cosplaying, and effectively that is precisely what "dress up" is: A number of people at some event, wearing attire that they would not typically wear. Instead of dressing up in medieval military garb or futuristic spaceship uniforms, as with cosplaying, cruise ship diners dress up in sport coats, slacks, and cocktail dresses. The other aspects of the two activities are all practically the same. Indeed, formal nights are just another type of theme night, and there is enjoyment to be had with different theme nights at dinner: formal, Hawaiian shirts, pajamas, etc.

 

That realization helped me switch from someone indifferent about the imminent demise of on-board dress codes to someone who feels a better balance needs to be struck. There should be a place aboard cruise ships for those who wish to cosplay at dinner in this manner. I, myself, wish my spouse was more inclined in that direction, if only to have some more photos of us dressed up in sport jacket, slacks and cocktail dress.

Dress codes evolved from the intention to parade socio-economic status and one's personal perception of their own importance. Going back to the Elizabethan age, dress codes were actually laws on the books that reserved certain levels of finery for those of certain levels of peerage. That "attire as status" ethic percolated into subsequent generations and across the western world.

 

The main reason for the erosion of dress codes is that we live in a society where promoting one's own status is unseemly, and where character and one's convivial nature are increasingly being intentionally prioritized over one's socio-economic status.

 

Now, "dress up" exists as a form of avocation, in the same way as collecting collectibles, home brewing, clubbing, and gardening are forms of avocation. Actually, the closest analog these days to "dress up" is cosplaying, and effectively that is precisely what "dress up" is: A number of people at some event, wearing attire that they would not typically wear. Instead of dressing up in medieval military garb or futuristic spaceship uniforms, as with cosplaying, cruise ship diners dress up in sport coats, slacks, and cocktail dresses. The other aspects of the two activities are all practically the same. Indeed, formal nights are just another type of theme night, and there is enjoyment to be had with different theme nights at dinner: formal, Hawaiian shirts, pajamas, etc.

 

That realization helped me switch from someone indifferent about the imminent demise of on-board dress codes to someone who feels a better balance needs to be struck. There should be a place aboard cruise ships for those who wish to cosplay at dinner in this manner. I, myself, wish my spouse was more inclined in that direction, if only to have some more photos of us dressed up in sport jacket, slacks and cocktail dress.

 

It's interesting to research what used to be worn in the days of the ocean liners. "For passengers on the Titanic, especially first and second class ticket-bearers, the trip wasn’t just method of travel from one place to another, but a lavish five-day party. Women would be changing clothes at least four times a day according to social conventions, and the multiple layers of underwear included meant that many first class ladies took a lady’s maid with them on the voyage. An example of the average day would be going to breakfast in a tailored suit, wearing a “tea gown” for tea (the less-affluent wore a summer frock), and wearing a different dinner dress for each night."

Formal nights are "cosplay", an attempt to recreate the excitement of an atlantic crossing where the passenger envisions themselves descending the formal staircase on Titanic, just like in the movie.

The difference of opinion arises from this: some passengers don't want to play "Titanic". Others who do want to play see the dress code as a way to ensure they won't be "over dressed".

There have been many compromises proposed. Perhaps one dining room or area of a dining room restricted to formal wear. Perhaps restricting the late traditional dining to formal. All of these compromises have been rejected by the formal night crowd. Some say they would be "too confusing". Others say that their table or group would be disrupted since some would want to do one and others another. One even said that the sight of someone in casual dress would "ruin the ambiance".

It really comes down to this. One group sees formal nights as a wonderful experience with little downside. The other group just doesn't see the point and doesn't want to be bothered. Gala Nights are just the latest attempt at compromise.

I would like to see a compromise that accommodates those who want to play and does not infrige on those who just want to be left alone.