Dinner attire - men/boys in nice shorts?

[goodgriefer]

Wow- what a discussion--- about nothing! It is so easy for a man to just wear long pants for dinner in a nice restaurant. It so easy to just follow some rules, and have nothing to worry about. It is so easy, if you feel like being extra casual to just eat dinner at Windjammer or get room service.

 

Exactly. It's clear there are expectations which are easily met and there's a casual alternative.

[JoshuaA]

I don't think RCI will ever enforce this, nobody likes being told what to do with their vacation dollars, especially if they think it's trivial fashion etiquette. Despite the polarisation, it's easier to alienate the shorts crowd, than the pants crowd, and generating revenue wins.

[daze6399]

I don't think RCI will ever enforce this, nobody likes being told what to do with their vacation dollars, especially if they think it's trivial fashion etiquette. Despite the polarisation, it's easier to alienate the shorts crowd, than the pants crowd, and generating revenue wins.

 

Exactly. I would love to them update their policy to something more ambiguous, and leave enforcement up to the hotel manager on the ship.

 

 

Imagine the threads we'd have then.....:eek:

[Sascol]

My husband and boys wore shorts every night on our last cruise and will do the same on our next. Except formal night. No. One. Cared.

 

I hate adding to these threads but I can't help it. No one said anything, but I am sure people cared. Why is it so hard to follow the guidelines as outlined by the cruise line?

[daze6399]

I hate adding to these threads but I can't help it. No one said anything, but I am sure people cared. Why is it so hard to follow the guidelines as outlined by the cruise line?

 

I'll add as well....why should anyone care? If your @$$ isn't hanging out of your pants/dress etc....what does it matter.

 

There's a difference between being slovenly and being decently dressed, and you can be nicely dressed without wearing pants (for men), especially in the Caribbbean. The dress code is a guideline, and if the staff don't feel someone is dressed inappropriately then why are we going round and round and round in circles about it?

[Sascol]

I've never seen anyone on board that looks like bum.

 

What I have seen are people dressing up in ill fitted suits which makes them look like they're on their way to a court matter. Someone with dress shorts certainly looks a lot better than an ill fitted suit.

 

No such thing as 'dress shorts'. Conflicting term. Kind of like having a dressy T-Shirt. That does no exist either. This is all part of the slobification of our society. Now excuse me whilst I go change into my casual tuxedo.

[John&LaLa]

Ah....these threads. Darn nearing popcorn time...they always generate controversy ranging from "that's not true anymore" to "what's wrong with wearing a pair of pants?"

Bella hasn't stopped by yet. 😉

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[John&LaLa]

No such thing as 'dress shorts'. Conflicting term. Kind of like having a dressy T-Shirt. That does no exist either. This is all part of the slobification of our society. Now excuse me whilst I go change into my casual tuxedo.

Dress Jeans.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[Sascol]

The point is most people wouldn't wear shorts to a wedding or a nice land restaurant because it would be considered rude. It wouldn't literally "affect" anyone in a negative way or ruin anything, but it would be in poor taste. Which is something people with manners generally try to avoid.

 

I would argue it's also rude to not follow the suggested dress on the ship for the same reason. I'm not mad about it, I'm a live and let live kinda guy. But I do consider it a bit rude.

 

This is the best point made on this thread. Summarizes my feelings dead on.

[daze6399]

No such thing as 'dress shorts'. Conflicting term. Kind of like having a dressy T-Shirt. That does no exist either! Now excuse me whilst I go change into my casual tuxedo.

 

 

Ahh...but we're not talking about "formal night" the dress code doesn't mention "dress" anything.

 

We're talking about the rest of the nights. It doesn't say "Semi-formal, wear your church clothes" etc. In fact, I just went through a cruise compass and it says "Casual" for every night but formal. (5 night Western on Navigator) admittedly it does say no short pants, but it mentions it in the same sentence as flip flops and bathing suits, so it could easily be read as no "swimming shorts" which may be what is meant. We don't know.

 

While we're at it, why are we not bashing the heathens who dare show up on "Formal night" in a suit...or anything without tails for that matter? That's semi-formal and that's WRONG.

 

 

Again, I say. The dress code is enforced by the staff how they see fit, and if they allow it, then why are we going round and round?

[coolbluegreenseas]

Well, everyone could come in one of these:

[Sascol]

Ahh...but we're not talking about "formal night" the dress code doesn't mention "dress" anything.

 

We're talking about the rest of the nights. It doesn't say "Semi-formal, wear your church clothes" etc. In fact, I just went through a cruise compass and it says "Casual" for every night but formal. (5 night Western on Navigator) admittedly it does say no short pants,

 

Jeez. I stopped reading right there. That's all anyone thinking about shorts needs to know. You pointed out the very reason for these arguments going on and on. People ignore what they do not want to see because they think it does not apply to them. "Oooooh they must mean no SLOPPY shorts....I can certainly wear these nice shorts." NO! No shorts means no shorts. Period.

[Fouremco]

No such thing as 'dress shorts'. Conflicting term. Kind of like having a dressy T-Shirt. That does no exist either. This is all part of the slobification of our society. Now excuse me whilst I go change into my casual tuxedo.

You jest, yet it wasn't that many years ago when tuxedos were considered informal and inappropriate for dining:

 

Fitz returned to his dressing room. Some men had abandoned tailcoats and white ties, and wore short tuxedo jackets and black ties at dinner, citing the war as their excuse. Fitz did not see the connection. Why should war oblige people to dress informally?

 

Excerpt From: Follett, Ken. “Fall of Giants.” PENGUIN group, 2010-08-03T23:00:00+00:00. iBooks.

This material may be protected by copyright.

[Sascol]

While we're at it, why are we not bashing the heathens who dare show up on "Formal night" in a suit...or anything without tails for that matter? That's semi-formal and that's WRONG.

 

Because the guidelines specifically reference that a SUIT is fine - just as it says no SHORTS. Specifically, "suits and ties or tuxedos for men, cocktail dresses for women."

[davekathy]

...While we're at it, why are we not bashing the heathens who dare show up on "Formal night" in a suit...

 

You're not the first to call me a heathen.

[daze6399]

Because the guidelines specifically reference that a SUIT is fine - just as it says no SHORTS. Specifically, "suits and ties or tuxedos for men, cocktail dresses for women."

 

Yup, it sure does. and lots of people don't get turned away for not wearing a suit. Again, it's up to the staff to enforce it. If you want the staff to enforce it, that's a very very different conversation. This is about a pedantic need to follow rules to the letter, even when they're not rules. Even when the not rules are about something as asinine as some one wearing nice shorts to a dinner in a part of the world where nice shorts are perfectly acceptable in any dining venue.

[Charles4515]

Because the guidelines specifically reference that a SUIT is fine - just as it says no SHORTS. Specifically, "suits and ties or tuxedos for men, cocktail dresses for women."

 

 

You are welcome to dress according to the guidelines. Since they are guidelines I will decide how dress myself...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Charles4515]

You jest, yet it wasn't that many years ago when tuxedos were considered informal and inappropriate for dining:

 

 

 

Fitz returned to his dressing room. Some men had abandoned tailcoats and white ties, and wore short tuxedo jackets and black ties at dinner, citing the war as their excuse. Fitz did not see the connection. Why should war oblige people to dress informally?

 

 

 

Excerpt From: Follett, Ken. “Fall of Giants.” PENGUIN group, 2010-08-03T23:00:00+00:00. iBooks.

 

This material may be protected by copyright.

 

 

 

Yep. What defines formal dress has been a moving target since there was formal wear. Times change and fashion change.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[krewzin]

Even when the not rules are about something as asinine as some one wearing nice shorts to a dinner in a part of the world where nice shorts are perfectly acceptable in any dining venue.

 

 

:rolleyes:

[troykahack]

You don't get it. It's not about what I personally like or don't like. I don't gasp at the sight of a dude's legs or storm out of the MDR or consider my dinner "ruined" or any of the other silly straw men people throw out. I just think it's good manners to follow the requested dress code of whatever social situation I'm in, if there is one. Is that really such a crazy notion? No need to make it more complicated than that with contrived hypotheticals.

 

 

Trust me, this is not contrived hypotheticals. Next time pictures. Lol

 

So is ok for Men to wear dresses but not shorts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[JoshuaA]

Dress Jeans.

 

"Pleated" Dress Jeans, with a tailored cuff. And a collared ruffled pirate shirt.

 

Beat that.

[George C]

Trust me, this is not contrived hypotheticals. Next time pictures. Lol

 

So is ok for Men to wear dresses but not shorts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Only if there smoking a cigarette

[ThirstyCruiser]

No such thing as 'dress shorts'. Conflicting term.

Bermudians would disagree.

[daze6399]

Bermudians would disagree.

 

 

As would the people from the state where I live. It is exceptionally common to go into a nice restaurant (no outback) and see lots of people in nice shorts, collared shirts, and sperrys. Dressed for dinner, dressed up in shorts.

 

As was mentioned tuxedos did not used to be considered "formal". I work for an exceptionally conservative company, in an exceptionally conservative field. I wear jeans and a button down shirt to work, as does my boss, his peers, their boss and his boss.

 

Times change and fashion changes with the times. This blanket idea that shorts can not be considered dressy is as logical as saying the internet is a fad, and I suspect said by the same people, for the same reasons.

 

Now if you'll excuse me I need to run to the gas station and I can't find my top hat.

[LMaxwell]

Jeez. I stopped reading right there. That's all anyone thinking about shorts needs to know. You pointed out the very reason for these arguments going on and on. People ignore what they do not want to see because they think it does not apply to them. "Oooooh they must mean no SLOPPY shorts....I can certainly wear these nice shorts." NO! No shorts means no shorts. Period.

 

Is it a good rule for a reason? Not really. It is arbitrary and just a suggestion. People openly flaunt it all the time. You aren't going to change anyones mind on it. I was on the NCL Escape two months ago and many people wore nice shorts to dinner all over. No one looked sloppy. Surely you can tell the difference between athletic wear and neat trimmed shorts? Don't be a sheep blindly following bad rules without questioning their logic. I feel a little sad that this really negatively impacts your vacation because it is so trivial and insignificant what a stranger you may see for 5 seconds is doing. Try looking at and talking to your tablemates and you won't be so bothered.