Shod Guest at Shoes-Off Homes, Vol. 22, Issue 61

Dear Etiquetteer:

Here’s a topic for you, which I’m prompted to send after Dear Vanessa dealt with it in the Times. As the owner of a no-outside-shoes home I am perplexed by guests who are offended by this idea. It doesn’t take much cogitation to grasp why taking your shoes off when you enter the house makes sense. Think about why people wash their hands, and then consider where the soles of your shoes have been. As an etiquette question though, ought not one happily comply with “house rules?”

Dear Unshod:

Etiquetteer is just as perplexed that, 45 years after Barbara Walters had to remove her shoes to interview Muhammad Ali in his home*, people don’t recognize that removing your shoes in someone else’s home is still unusual for most Americans. No matter how sensible it may be, it’s still not the norm. You put on your shoes when you leave the house, and you leave them on until you get home.

When a request to bare feet comes unexpectedly, it can feel uncomfortable, if not downright inhospitable to be asked such a thing. The most common problem (and Vanessa mentions this in her article) is embarrassment about the condition of one’s socks. Protruding toes are embarrassing and make people feel uncomfortable. Surely that is not an experience you want for your guests. May not Etiquetteer appeal to your sympathy?

No one should be surprised by a request to bare feet. You, as a host, have a responsibility to create a welcoming and comfortable atmosphere for your guests. That means preparing them in advance that “Shoes off” is mandatory at your house. They may then accept or decline your invitation as they prefer; if people decline, receive that information without judgment. Consider how you might mitigate discomfited guests by supplying a basket of new (or at least clean) and comfy slippers or socks in a variety of sizes so that no one really has to walk around in their socks if they don’t want to.

Long story short, it’s not always easy to comply with house rules that are out of the ordinary, especially with no advance notice. Be understanding if a guest absolutely refuses. You may always vacuum or mop the next day.

Etiquetteer wishes you many lovely evenings of unshod and well-informed camaraderie.

*You had to take your shoes off to walk across the white carpet,” Ms. Walters notes at 02:05 in the interview video.

Polyamory and Professionalism, Vol. 22, Issue 60

Dear Etiquetteer:

I’m in a long-term ethically non-monogamous gay relationship. Currently I have a husband (together for 20 years, married for ten), see previous dates, and a boyfriend.

So, I’m traveling for work soon and my boyfriend is coming along. This is a conference in a large city, colleagues will be attending, and one I supervise is staying in the same hotel as I. I’m generally out and authentic at work, but I’ve not brought non-monogamy or my boyfriend into dialogue there. Should I take this colleague aside and let her know I’ll be there with someone that she may see me with, perhaps holding hands or leaving the hotel together? So that she’s not feeling awkward or have questions she might put to someone else, causing more consternation. Or do I just live my life and not worry about her or anyone else I know from work? What do I owe my colleagues in this regard?

Dear Conferee:

What you owe everyone involved, including yourself, is discretion. One couple’s open relationship or open marriage is another’s adultery. In private life, and even sometimes in social life, a “design for living” may be accepted or acknowledged with the consent of all parties, and has been with greater frequency. But in the workplace, that could still be challenging.

Etiquetteer couldn’t help thinking that if a straight male professional openly attended an out-of-town conference with his girlfriend, whether his wife approved or not, it would very definitely raise eyebrows, and possibly a call to Human Resources. Since polyamory remains to be generally accepted, the presence of your boyfriend should be invisible.

While in no way suggesting that your boyfriend is traveling with you ahem professionally, Etiquetteer turns for a solution to the Parisian demimonde before World War I, when wealthy men openly kept beautiful and capricious women for extramarital purposes. Cecil Beaton waxed rhapsodic about them in his delightful book The Glass of Fashion, and how they “thrived in an easy atmosphere that created a tacitly agreed place for them in the social scene.” The condition for that place meant never being acknowledged, especially by “respectable” women. “If a gentleman was seen at a restaurant by a lady of his world in the company of a grande cocotte,” Beaton continued, “there was never any question of ‘cutting’ him or of acknowledging his companion’s presence; while dining with this enigmatic woman . . . the gentleman was as invisible to his respectable friends as if he wore a magic cloak. He did not exist.*”

To see how this played out in real life we have only to look at the Titanic. At least two gentlemen in first class were traveling with mistresses. But the proprieties were observed by taking care not to parade their companionship — especially since the women of their families didn’t know and would not have approved. Benjamin Guggenheim and his mistress, Belgian cabaret singer Ninette Aubart, did not share a cabin; at least they each had separate cabins that did not adjoin. They took all their meals in the à la carte Ritz restaurant, to prevent as much as possible running into family members like Ida and Isidor Strauss. For handsome young Canadian Quigg Baxter that became unavoidable when he had to help his mistress Berthe Mayné into a lifeboat “introduc[ing] her to his puzzled mother and sister.**”

So Etiquetteer recommends an atmosphere of circumspection at your conference. Your boyfriend should not attend any of the conference’s social events with you (which it sounds like you aren’t planning anyway), and public displays of affection should be tempered. Should you happen to run into a colleague in the lobby or at a nearby restaurant, explain that your husband was unable to join you and that a friend came with you instead. There’s no need to be more specific than that.

Etiquetteer wishes you and all concerned a smooth and successful conference.

*Cecil Beaton, The Glass of Fashion (1954).

**Hugh Brewster, Gilded Lives, Fatal Voyage (2012). After the sinking, in which Quigg was lost, Berthe stayed for a time with his family in Montreal before returning to Europe. As for Ninette Aubart, the Guggenheim family may have helped her clandestinely “and kept the news of her existence hidden from Ben’s widow, Florette.”

The Dress Code of the United States Senate, Vol. 22, Issue 59

“Cousin Marie says politicians aren’t gentlemen.” — Agatha Christie, Death on the Nile

“We are not all held to the same standard. Leaders are held to a higher standard.” — Etiquetteer

“. . . first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” — Matthew 7:5

Several readers have forced on Etiquetteer’s attention that the dress code of the United States Senate has been revised to make it less formal. Against his better judgment, Etiquetteer has to cede the floor to That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much, who has complicated views on this matter.

I admit it. I want it both ways. I want people — elected officials, fellow citizens — to show respect by what they wear and how they behave. Is that too much to ask? Apparently yes.

With the U.S. government headed toward a shutdown, the latest distraction is the decision of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to relax the Senate dress code so that business attire — a suit and tie — is no longer required for Senators to appear on the Senate floor. This is widely, and correctly, seen as an accommodation to freshman Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), whose diagnosis of clinical depression since assuming office is now as well known as his long-established daily wardrobe of gym shorts and hoodies.

I could have a real “tuck in your shirt and get off my lawn” moment about this and rant about how the Casual Friday movement of the 1990s brought us here, about Sloth and about a Decline of Standards of Decency — but that’s both a) expected of me, and b) utterly useless. Here we are in this moment; what is there to be done? First, I might ask what you were wearing when you first read that news. Would it have passed muster on the Senate floor?

We must acknowledge that more than a few Senators have been skirting the dress code, voting on bills while keeping one foot in the cloak room. “The modification is in many ways a bow to reality: In recent years, there have been plenty of senators who have departed from the suit-and-tie uniform that for decades was considered the only acceptable attire,” says the New York Times. And since the national trend has been drifting ever more quickly to Business Casual or even Casual Everyday, could this Downward Revision of the Senate dress code not be said to make the Senate even more representative of the people?

More to the point, is what one wears more important than how one behaves? Of course I remember the words of the late Mary Haines: “They are equally important, darling.” Republican Senators (and Congressional Representatives) may wring their hands in despair, but they have no leg to stand on if a) they’ve even once voted with one foot in the cloakroom to circumvent the dress code, or b) “shattered norms of decorum and conduct” themselves. (This NYT article cites chapter and verse on several of them.) Your lapels may be sharper than anyone else’s, but if they cover a poisonous heart, of what good are they?

So, I want it both ways. I admire Senator Fetterman, I sympathize with his struggle with depression, and I still want him to suit up. The Republican Senators who wrote “The world watches us on that floor and we must protect the sanctity of that place at all costs” are not wrong, but should turn their attention to how their party, and its de facto leader, have already damaged that sanctity themselves, “shattered norms of decorum and conduct,” and decide to make restoring it more of a party priority.

The Correct Thing of 1888, Vol. 22, Issue 58

Etiquetteer loves a good etiquette book of Days Gone By, and has delayed too long the temptation to delve into The Correct Thing in Good Society from 1888, by Mrs. Florence (Howe) Hall. She has structured her book so that a page of “It is the Correct Thing*” appears opposite “It is not the Correct Thing.” While it’s wonderful, in this century, to be free of the burden of leaving calling cards, and people no longer have dancing parties in private homes**, a surprising lot of Mrs. Hall’s advice remains Perfectly Proper today.

For instance, on the subject of correspondence, “It is the Correct Thing . . . To remember that ‘the written word remains,’ and therefore to write with due caution and clearness.” Contrast this with “It is not the Correct Thing . . . To write when angry, or to write threatening letters, thus getting one’s self into much trouble, and perhaps incurring lawsuits.” Death threats have become so alarmingly commonplace (but still alarming) in our national discourse. Lincoln’s famous advice — to write the angry letter and then never send it — remains the Best Correspondence Advice Ever. Set it aside for a day or so, and then either tear it up, or edit for clarity and temperature before sending. It should not be necessary to say this, but threatening death or physical violence is never right. If you find yourself moving in that direction, it’s time to take a step back and ask yourself some Important Questions.

On the subject of conversation***, “It is the Correct Thing . . . To remember that conversation should never turn into monologue,” and “ . . . To preserve a certain moderation in the very whirlwind of one’s talk, watching carefully for signs of fatigue or sleep in one’s listeners, and never allowing that unruly little member, the tongue, to run away with its owner.” Etiquetteer has more than once had to prod That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much on exactly this subject.

Finally, Mrs. Hall covers a topic dear to many lovers of etiquette, afternoon tea. “It is not the Correct Thing . . . To give an afternoon tea (calling it by that name), and provide coffee as the only drink, or to give a “kaffee-klatsch,” and provide only tea.” To this we could also add “decaf,” but Etiquetteer would invite tea-drinkers to remember that a private home is not a restaurant. To invite six people to afternoon tea and have to have five different tiny teapots instead of one large one is unthinkable. (Etiquetteer has always loved the story of the British ambassador attending a large tea in the FDR White House. When asked “Coffee, tea, or cocoa?” he replied “Madam, I was invited for tea!”****)

She also includes “It is not the Correct Thing . . . For guests to deposit their cups or plates in the drawing-room in a careless or awkward manner, setting them on varnished surfaces or on silken cloths, or too near the edge of a table, so that they will be likely to fall upon the floor.” Instructions like this betray the myth that everything and everyone in the past was Perfectly Proper. It simply was not so.

Etiquetteer may well have more to say about this enchanting volume later.

*Like Etiquetteer, Mrs. Hall does love her Random Capitalized Words.

**Or if they do, they aren’t inviting Etiquetteer.

***Now we have texting, which is, um, not quite the same thing.

****From Upstairs at the White House, by J.B. West.

Windbags, Vol. 22, Issue 57

Dear Etiquetteer:

With the beginning of the academic year comes a flurry of lectures, conferences, and other gatherings that include opportunities for audience members to engage with the participants on stage. How does one properly deal with the guest who asks the interminable question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand but everything to do with said guest’s own ego?

Dear Frustrated Moderator:

Etiquetteer shares your frustration with the Off-Topic Question, the bane of the lecture circuit. Two things are worse: being contradicted by an audience member, and the question that begins “I don’t really have a question, but a comment.”

Why do people behave this way? Sometimes their minds have been opened by the speakers in such a way that they really haven’t formed their thoughts, but are so excited about their new knowledge that they have to ask something to share it. Others are starry-eyed fans of the speakers who have no other way to interact with them. These are charitable explanations.

Those you speak of just want to assert their importance, intelligence, and/or pedigree by bringing up elements of the topic that the speakers didn’t include, no matter how very tenuously they might be connected. Sometimes Windbags just want to score malicious points off the speakers. [Faculty on faculty takedowns are overrated.] Finally, there’s that audience member who must have decided “This is the question I am going to ask today” whether it has anything to do with the topic or not.

Both patience and at least the appearance of gratitude are needed to handle These People. Dear Mother used to say “When you lose your temper, you lose your point,” and she was right. As soon as the audience sees steam rising from a moderator’s collar, sympathy will begin to flow toward the Windbag. Etiquetteer freely admits that this can be a challenge.

A good Q&A question shouldn’t take more than a minute or two to ask; it’s not a time for speeches. When they still can’t get to the point, consider interrupting with “I do want to have time for other questions from the audience. What is your question?” A good response to something off topic begins by thanking the questioner and regrets that you can’t really weave it into the actual topic. “Thank you for that interesting question. I wish I could comment more, but that’s entirely outside my discipline.” Good speakers, especially good academics, are also aware of the wider world; if possible, direct your questioner to other relevant sources of information.

A certain amount of compassion is needed, though. At a panel discussion earlier this year Etiquetteer witnessed an audience member make a distressing appeal for assistance in repealing some healthcare-related issue (Memory fails on the details) that had absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. The moderator, a True Gentleman, admitted that that wasn’t the area of expertise of the panel, “but perhaps there is someone here in the audience who can help, who could approach you after the program.” That response deftly and kindly preserved everyone’s self-respect, while giving the audience a chance to assist after the Q&A period. What could be more Perfectly Proper?

At the other end of the spectrum, about 30 years ago Etiquetteer witnessed the incomparable Lily Tomlin handle a long-winded young woman whose “question” had gone on no little time. (Ms. Tomlin was heading a panel discussion at MIT with her partner Jane Wagner.) When it was finally Ms. Tomlin’s turn, she began “I was free-associating during your question . . . ” which led to prolonged laughter and applause. It was a harsh but necessary lesson that a Q&A period is not a time to flesh out and experiment with your own ideas, but to prompt the speakers to flesh out and share their own. But Etiquetteer has more sympathy for that young woman now; that must have been very embarrassing.

Only the star power of someone like Ms. Tomlin could take down a Windbag so dismissively. The rest of us need to have more sympathy. Snappy comebacks and putdowns are wonderful comic relief on television, but they sting more in real life.

Etiquetteer wishes you brief, concise, specific, and on-topic questions at all your functions this season.

A Gentleman's Rings, Vol. 22, Issue 56

Dear Etiquetteer:

My family had a long and historic provenance. We pass a signet ring generation to generation. It only fits on my pinky, and I’m unsure of wearing it thus. Are there any other ways to wear such jewelry that honors the family but fits 21st-century aesthetics?

Dear Beringed:

Etiquetteer can’t agree that an heirloom signet ring doesn’t fit the 21st century. According to Tiffany & Co. they are making a comeback — but then they would profit by saying so. Simplicity and severity are the traditional hallmarks of a gentleman’s jewelry, and remain a standard of Perfect Propriety.

The pinky finger, in fact, is the Perfectly Proper finger for your signet ring. The fourth finger is always reserved for one’s wedding ring, which Amy Vanderbilt observed became the custom during World War II. She also had opinions about rings on other fingers. “Rings worn on the index finger or on the second [middle] finger are just plain theatrical and affected, no matter how they were worn in Victorian days.*” Esquire Etiquette of 1953 barbs its warning differently: “A ring is just about the only pretty that a man can wear without looking pretty-pretty himself.”** The overall suggestion is that, for gentlemen, Less Is More.

Etiquetteer would not be quite so rigid, but any person’s jewelry should contribute to his or her attractiveness, not move the focus to the jewels themselves at the expense of the wearer. As Auntie Mame said to Agnes Gooch about a dress “Put down that lime green at once, Agnes. You’re supposed to dominate it!” You’ll find more of Etiquetteer’s ideas about a gentleman’s jewelry in Volume 19 here, and Gentleman’s Gazette has a marvelous piece about their collection of pinky rings.

If you want to wear your ring, but not on a finger, it’s not really unusual to wear it as a pendant on a gold chain. You could also, if there are not further generations to whom to bequeath it, have it altered into a lapel pin. Understandably some might consider this Next Door to Heresy, and Etiquetteer doesn’t really recommend it. But if you’re the Last of Your Name, it’s really up to you.

Etiquetteer wishes you quiet contemplation of family pride as you wear your signet ring out and about.

*Amy Vanderbilt’s Complete Book of Etiquette: A Guide to Gracious Living, 1954.

**Nuggets of Cold War-era homophobia pop up here and there in this etiquette time capsule, for instance “. . . a man who drapes his too-full polo coat over his shoulders may not be a queer . . . But if a man looks sharp or queer or corny, the people he meets may not stick around to discover the truth hidden by his off-beat clothes.” This anti-dandy stance may possibly explain the post-Woodstock Peacock Revolution.

Cinema Etiquette, Vol. 22, Issue 55

This summer two very different blockbusters — Barbie and Oppenheimer, also known as Barbenheimer — have brought astonishing numbers of people back to cinemas, some for the first time since before the pandemic started in 2020. Alas, many of them have not been behaving with Perfect Propriety. Perfectly Proper people take note of the impact their behavior has on others. That’s basic consideration, and one reason we haven’t yet erupted into civil war. That’s even more important in a space where people want to concentrate, like a cinema. So for National Cinema Day today, here’s a few tips for a Perfectly Proper Movie Show.

First, and most important, put your damn phone away. You’ve come to the cinema to see a movie. See the movie. Be with the movie you’re with, not social media videos, and not video chat with absent friends — especially with the volume up. Light from your phone seriously distracts people around you, not to mention sounds your device makes, and sounds you make at your device. Stop it at once.

Along with that, no selfies after the movie starts. Etiquetteer knows how important it is to document friend group activities, but doing so during the Main Event — the movie — is totally rude to people around you.

Keep your shoes on and your feet down. You’re not at home, and no one needs to know about your feet, or their odor. Yes, those armrest gaps in front of you are mighty tempting for footrests, but that’s not what they’re there for. Etiquetteer might look the other way if you prop your knees against the back of the empty seat in front of you, but you are only tempting fate.

Carry it in, carry it out. All those giant-sized popcorn and beverage buckets, all those candy wrappers — if you brought it to your seat, for heaven’s sake bring it back out and throw it away in one of the trashcans. Those poor ushers have enough to do as it is, not to mention what it would be like for the audience for the next feature.

And finally, quiet please! Of course you sometimes need to whisper a comment to your companion, but others in the audience are not, Etiquetteer guarantees, not interested in your running commentary, whether it’s about the movie or not.

Watching a movie in a cinema with a room full of strangers can be an absolutely wonderful experience. Etiquetteer will never forget the hysterical enthusiasm of packed houses for RoboCop and It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, among others. But Etiquetteer especially remembers a screening of Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious at some point in the 2010s at the Harvard Film Archive. In the movie something happens to Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in a wine cellar, and to hear the last five rows of theatre gasp in unison right before it happened — well, that’s what makes going to the movies so special. And we lose out on those experiences when we text and talk and trash all the way through.

Etiquetteer wishes you many magical and Perfectly Proper screenings.

Meddling in Professional Life, Vol. 22, Issue 54

Dear Etiquetteer:

How does one deal with a friend who insists on using his influence to get a position for someone who does not want the particular job? It is all the more awkward because the friend is relentless in pressuring his own contacts to try and “help.”

Dear Careerist:

What most concerns Etiquetteer about this is your use of the word “relentless.” Your Meddling Friend is likely as much a nuisance to his contacts as he is to the person he wants to place with them. Persistent, over-enthusiastic references sometimes do more harm than good* — especially in this case. The current situation can only end badly for the Meddler. Should his contacts actually approach that person about the position, and be declined (which seems likely), the Meddler will only look like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Which may be the case.

Candor is not always Perfectly Proper, but sometimes there is simply no other way. The unwilling recipient of the Meddler’s good intentions needs to thank him for his interest, but that NO, that position/company is not how that person chooses to continue his or her career. “I have no plans to leave my current job” or “I’m pursuing other options that I’m not at liberty to discuss right now” ought to satisfy anyone. If the Meddler protests, gently call him out on it. “There are many paths a career can take, and I’m surprised you’re so invested in me making this particular choice, especially since I’ve told you I’m not interested. Tell me more about that.” Firm and continued persecution on those lines — keep him on the jump answering questions about his own choices — should make the Meddler retreat.

Etiquetteer wishes you, as Sidney Greenstreet so economically expressed it in The Maltese Falcon, “plain speaking and clear understanding.”

*Etiquetteer heard of a case once when a long-departed colleague who had not been heard from in many years blanketed an office with fulsome praise for a candidate. Apparently the colleague’s blandishments did not have the desired effect. This is a good argument for staying in more constant communication with former colleagues. People are more kindly disposed if they hear from you when you are not looking for favors, too.

Etiquette for Very Hot Weather, Vol. 22, Issue 53

A Facebook reader (you are following Etiquetteer’s Facebook page, aren’t you?) has asked for advice on “etiquette for very hot weather.” We have certainly had our share this year, haven’t we? Etiquetteer offered a few tips for Perfect Propriety in the summer back in Volume 15. Here are a few more.

First, for heaven’s sake, slow down. Give yourself extra time to get where you’re going and do what you’re doing. Haste makes heat. Moderate your walking pace. And if you can, stay indoors during the hottest part of the day (typically the afternoon). The Spanish custom of siesta truly bears copying, and it’s surprisingly easy to keep going until midnight if you adopt it.

Perhaps the most underrated accessory is the plain white linen handkerchief, especially in summertime. This useful bit of fabric will help you mop your sweating brow and neck more effectively than just your hand, and certainly looks better than using your sleeve or (good heavens!) your shirttail. A severely plain hankie is best, perhaps with one’s monogram embroidered, or another favorite motif.

It’s also high time for the fan to make a comeback to the American summertime wardrobe. A wide folding fan is such a Spanish stereotype, along with the mantilla. But Spanish ladies (and a few gentlemen) actually do wield them for everyday use, and quite elegantly and effectively, too. Obviously they serve two purposes, to create a cooling breeze and to shield one from the sun. American men will find the palm leaf fan suits them better. Useful and elegant.

Hygiene takes on added importance at times of increased perspiration. Besides regular use of deodorants, scent, and soap and water, some may wish to combat moisture with body powder. This used to be generically referred to as “talcum powder,” but there was such a kerfuffle a year or so ago about talcum causing cancer . . . read here for what the American Cancer Society has to say about it, and then choose something that works for you.

Hydration is even more important during the hottest times of day, and there’s Nothing Improper about carrying about your thermos or water bottle. Reservoir backpacks, like the Camelbak, have their place for athletics and fitness, and quite possibly for stadium events, but aren’t Perfectly Proper for town wear.

Finally, your baseball cap will serve you better if you wear the brim in front as intended and not backwards. Want coverage for both your face and neck? Ditch the cap and wear a full-brimmed hat like a panama.

Etiquetteer wishes you cool breezes, cool drinks, and cool companions.

Friends and Food Allergies, Vol. 22, Issue 52

Dear Etiquetteer:

I’d love help with something! I have multiple food allergies, which can make getting together with friends/colleagues/etc. a bit more of a chore on my end (as I need to do some reconnaissance regarding menus of places being considered for a gathering). That has the unintended consequence of making it seem like I’m looking for a way out of the get-together, when I just want to make sure I can enjoy something during the outing. What are some suggestions for maneuvering a rather tricky social situation?

Dear Allergic:

First of all, be first with the suggestions! If there’s a restaurant, watering hole, or other eatery that you already know can accommodate you, don’t be afraid to say you’d like to go there. You’ll be able to make more suggestions first, too, if you start now researching establishments that meet your needs. Keep a list on your phone or person that you can refer to in the moment. Depending on where you live, that could be quite an undertaking. On the plus side, you may discover some hidden gems that become regular allergy-friendly hangouts.

You can’t bring your own refreshments to a restaurant, but you can (surprise!) when you’re going to someone else’s house. Famously vegetarian Gloria Swanson would slip her sandwich to the butler (if there was one) so it could be served with the entrée, or just slip it unobtrusively out of her handbag. (Think of Queen Elizabeth II and Paddington Bear. If she can get away with it, certainly we can!) The point is to do it without a lot of fanfare and flourishes, and certainly without any preparation time in the kitchen. If anyone is so rude as to ask about it, just tell them that your multiple allergies have you on a strict regimen and change the subject.

But you seem to be asking what to do when a venue has been suggested in a group text (or even in person), and no one knows for certain whether a restaurant’s menu has anything for you. There’s no use hiding it — you have to know. Commit to the time, and get as much info off the web as you can. (It seems a lot of restaurants just don’t have phones any more.) Thank the group for their patience, but without apologizing — “I really want to spend time with all of you, but I have to be sure I can have more than water and salad.” You can always counter with another venue you know can serve you.

Knowledge is Power, and when you have the knowledge of where you can go with Allergy Accommodation Assurance, you’ll have the power to say yea or nay on a dime. Etiquetteer wishes you many risk-free gatherings of Perfect Propriety with friends, colleagues, and et ceteras.

Beach Etiquette, Vol. 22, Issue 51

Hell is other people. — Jean-Paul Sartre

Dear Etiquetteer:

I’m sure you’ve addressed this at some point in your storied etiquette career, but if not, I’d like to know how to address the subject of beach behavior, particularly, the following:

1. If you’ve set up your beach spot for the day, and someone moves directly in front of you, blocking your carefully chosen view of the ocean, how do you deal with this in a perfectly proper way?

2. What about loud music players at the beach? I know the beach is a public space, but must people haul what amounts to the entirety of their homes onto the beach so as not to be without a single comfort of home for a few hours? I prefer to commune with nature and the sound of the sea—not someone else’s music!

3. Seagulls are smart little squawkers and they will find a way into your unguarded snacky-bits, but that doesn’t give you (or your loud and annoying children) the right to harass them in return! What should one say or do (if anything) to self-appointed wildlife wardens?

Dear Sandy Shores:

Etiquetteer knows those fresh few hours when it’s possible “to commune with nature and the sound of the sea.” They generally fall between dawn and 10:00 AM, after which time the Madding Crowd descends with their elaborate shelters, stereo systems, and seagull bait.

It would be lovely if everyone wanted to enjoy the beach in the same way that we did, but since American ideas of enjoyment (and manners) fill the entire spectrum, we have to learn to coexist peacefully. That means not being so sniffy about how much gear people drag along with them. Etiquetteer once witnessed a party of eight or so march onto a beach bearing a Cleopatran litter of gear surmounted by an enormous inflatable flamingo. The resulting campsite included a semicircle of beach chairs and umbrellas, towels, some sort of stereo, a generator, and three blenders on a folding table so the party could offer smoothies to passersby. It was vastly entertaining — but then Etiquetteer’s towel was nowhere nearby.

Staking out your space directly in front of someone else, however, is a jerk move, especially with one of those large sail-sized tarps that extend everywhere. Thomas Jefferson may (or may not, depending on who you talk to) have said “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Guard your view with a Cheery Greeting as soon as anyone even remotely looks like they might be stopping in front of your beach chairs. The more animated and eager to engage you appear, the more likely they’ll find another spot for fear of getting stuck talking to you all day. The moment you see one of those tarps come out, and maybe even an umbrella, ask nicely if they wouldn’t mind moving a few feet in either direction. If there’s still room to maneuver, they should accommodate, but some beaches are very crowded. Besides, the people next to you might say “Hey, now you’re blocking my view!”

On future visits you may wish to safeguard your view by settling right at the high tide line, but that’s no guarantee.

Etiquetteer really blames George I for the perceived need for beachside tunes. It was his wish for a concert on the Thames that led Handel to write his Water Music. Mass production of the transistor radio in 1954 made this elite pleasure possible for everyone — but they don’t often choose Handel, now do they*? Few problems are solved without communication. Beyond a “Would you mind turning that down a bit?” Etiquetteer could only suggest that you ask them to play something you like — and even then, that’s not likely to be received well.

As to the treatment of seagulls, Etiquetteer must gently disagree with you. Eternal vigilance is needed to protect one’s picnics from these avian menaces. Others are simply more proactive than you prefer. As long as no physical contact is actually made with a seagull, Etiquetteer has no qualm. Other sea birds, however, should be left strictly alone.

Etiquetteer would gladly join you for a Coastal Grandma-style beach day — plenty of unbleached linen, tattered cotton plaids, enormous hats, plain white umbrellas, trashy novels, and rosé, and no music — but in the meantime wishes you all the serenity of the tide gently lapping the sands.

*In fact, two dear friends of Etiquetteer were once reduced to helpless laughter when they could not escape the sounds of “Diva” by Club 69 blasting from the boombox of some Very Naughty Boys.

Workplace Dress Codes, Vol. 22, Issue 50

Dear Etiquetteer:

Very timely column [about elegance] because only yesterday I was having a conversation with a colleague about appropriate work attire, especially for the younger generation. Perhaps I’m just getting old and (more) stuffy, but whatever happened to dressing appropriately when your job is literally to be the first face of the organization for the public? I work at a museum and one of my responsibilities is to raise the level of professionalism there (if you can imagine that). The staff greeting the public are in their twenties and come dressed in any manner of less than casual attire, as in pajama bottoms and slippers, I kid you not. Shorts, T-shirts, flip flops, high midriff shirts (do I really want to know how you adorn you belly button?). What is happening??? Any suggestions?

Dear Aghast:

What’s happening is the end of civilization as we know it; what you’re witnessing is just one tiny facet of it. Improving the appearance and demeanor of your front-of-house colleagues could involve two things: information and a museum-wide dress code, which could involve a front-of-house uniform.

Change is the only constant, as we know, and Etiquetteer is not thinking about those old theatre usher uniforms from a century ago. Those trim, bright red gold-braided jackets and jaunty pillbox hats look so charming, but they don’t suit the times, not to mention the figures of anyone over the age of 12. With even the housemaids at the White House wearing polo shirts on duty*, why not invest in a bale of them for your staff embroidered with your museum’s logo? Then draft a company-wide dress code about what may, and may not, be worn with them. Consider pullovers or sweaters for the colder months, too.

Getting your staff invested in the museum’s mission and visitor experience will be an important part of this process. How do they impact how visitors perceive the museum? Do they know that? Sharing good feedback from visitors, bringing them into plans for the future (for instance, new exhibitions), soliciting their opinions for improvements to the museum experience — in short, making them feel engaged will reinforce how they make a difference, and how important they feel their jobs are.

Etiquetteer will never not love Anne Taintor’s Dress for the job you want.

Positions like these are not seen as lifetime career choices, and Etiquetteer is sure that all your young colleagues expect to move into different fields at some point. Changing the impression of the job from a temporary gig to a career steppingstone could make a difference in how they choose to present themselves. The old advice “Dress for the job you want” is still good advice. You may have to have a few individual conversations, starting with the worst offenders, to find out what their own goals are. This could help you steer them into making better choices for a professional self-presentation that will also benefit the museum.

Etiquetteer wishes you patience and resolve as you embark on this endeavor, and a corps of crisp and Perfectly Proper colleagues.

*This surprising fact learned from The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House, by Kate Andersen Brower (2016).

Ten Elegant Things to Resurrect, Vol. 22, Issue 49

Elegance may be defined as “always suggest[ing] refinement, polish, propriety, especially as the result of breeding or nice selective instinct” [emphasis Etiquetteer’s]. Etiquetteer has been meditating on a few elegant aspects of daily life we might do more to bring back. Most of this list, a little surprisingly, has to do with dinner or coffee.

Deportment

Were you hectored by your parents to stand or sit up straight? This is why. Etiquetteer thinks of deportment mostly as posture, but it is really about how you hold all of yourself (your “carriage”) and how you move. The late Duchess of Devonshire, née Deborah Mitford, summed up Etiquetteer’s attitude when writing about tiaras: “Tiaras elevate the wearer, making her look more distinguished and taller because of the unaccustomed posture (which used to be taught as ‘deportment,’ long forgotten in this sloppy age.”*) Deportment is a cure for sloppiness.

Don’t have a tiara? Practice the old-fashioned way, balancing a book on your head while walking. For advanced practice, balance a book on your head walking up a flight of stairs. (Etiquetteer is not liable for damages if you fall.) When filming her famous staircase descent in Sunset Boulevard, Gloria Swanson imagined a steel rod down her back. Etiquetteer generally thinks of Wagner’s overture to Die Meistersinger.

Unhurried punctuality

There is really nothing like walking into a room knowing that you are in exactly the right place at the right time. The way to do this is to schedule travel time, and then schedule a little extra (when you can) in case of a) emergency, or b) unreliable traffic and/or transportation. Etiquetteer knows this is not always possible, but it can be done.

Arriving late in order to make a grand entrance is simply Not Perfectly Proper. Etiquetteer once witnessed a Texas lady attempt this at a dinner of about 100 people, as well as her chagrin when no one noticed. (But her deportment was impressive.) The only person who could really get away with it was the late Queen Alexandra, but a) she was the queen, and b) she’s dead now anyway. Don’t let your folie de grandeur make you look ridiculous.

Separate dining rooms

The trend these last few decades is for larger eat-in, entertain-in kitchens, which Etiquetteer blames on the disappearance of domestic staff for the middle class. (That may be an issue to take up another day.) But Etiquetteer longs for the dining room which, removed from the barely controlled chaos of the kitchen, represents a calm and leisurely atmosphere conducive to good conversation. That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much has worked out a hybrid approach: a kitchen with no table and chairs — meals must be consumed in the dining room — but with two small armchairs for the cocktail hour for very small dinner parties.

Dinner for six

Sometimes described as the number of harmony, six makes a nice dinner party because it’s small enough for general conversation but large enough for widely divergent areas of expertise. Also, if your domestic staff has disappeared, it’s not an unmanageable number of prepare for and clean up after.

Candle shades, preferably pink

“I have never admitted that I am more than twenty-nine, or thirty at the most,” said Mrs. Erlynne in Lady Windermere’s Fan. “Twenty-nine when there are pink shades, thirty when there are not.**” Candlelight is always kind to the complexion, and kinder still when seen through rose-colored shades clipped to the top. Marie and César Ritz, after much experimenting with their electricians over different fabrics, “eventually yielded a solution: a pleated silk lampshade, white, with a silk inner lining that was pale apricot-pink. The resulting light was warming but not too bright and, Ritz exclaimed ‘reduced the appearance of a woman by ten years!’”*** These days, silk is preferred, but paper shades will do quite nicely, thank you very much.

Electric silver coffee pots or urns

Now plastic and only for the kitchen, coffeemakers were once made to adapt beautiful antique designs to the modern convenience of electricity. No, Etiquetteer is not talking about those 36-cup cylindrical percolators Dear Mother used to bring out for bridge club, marvelous though they are, but percolators or coffee pots designed to look like 18th-century silver urns. The closest thing Etiquetteer can find online is this coffeepot, but there were beautiful Queen Anne and Georgian-style urns as well. So much more convenient, and twice as lovely, when serving directly from the breakfast table.

Café Brûlot

Café brûlot “is not just coffee,” Emily Kimbrough tells us excitedly in So Near and Yet So Far, “it is a decoction and a ceremony.” Invented at Antoine’s in New Orleans back in 1880 (read its history here), Miss Kimbrough witnessed it in a private home performed by an expert: “The room was in complete darkness. Mrs. Munson struck a match to the alcohol in the tray. The flame, bright blue, rose quickly, surrounding the bowl. Mrs. Munson took up a long silver ladle . . . She spooned into the bowl and lifted high into the air the ingredients placed there, but what we saw was a running sliver of flame, up from the tray, filling the ladle. Up and down, dipping and pouring, she carried the dancing, bright blue flame, and laughed with the pleasure of a child at our exclamations of astonishment. When the flame died out, and she had added the coffee, Mrs. Munson ladled it from the bowl into the brûlot cups.****”

Etiquetteer is absolutely enchanted with this image, but is not at all liable if you burn down the house attempting it yourself. The emergency arrival of the fire department is seldom elegant.

Demitasse

If café brûlot feels too risky, and it might, we could always attempt demitasse. And by that Etiquetteer means not after-dinner coffee in a regular-sized coffee cup, but a Perfectly Proper teeny-tiny demitasse cup after dinner in the parlor. Those cups are so beautiful, and you shouldn’t be drinking that much coffee after dinner in the first place.

Posy pins

Etiquetteer has written about the posy pin before, and it’s still true. But truly to bring this back requires wearing a jacket with a lapel in which to sport it, and too many gentlemen just don’t want to take the “trouble.” It’s most distressing.

Furlane

“We shall walk in velvet shoes,” goes the old poem by Elinor Wylie, but Etiquetteer does not think she was thinking about furlane. Also spelled friulane, these Venetian velvet slippers are Perfectly Proper for anything, day or night. Etiquetteer still treasures a pair from Piedaterre in Venice, but daily wear for something like eight years reduced them to a state of Jeffersonian disrepute.

*All in One Basket, by Deborah Mitford, Duchess of Devonshire, 2011, page 237.

**Lady Windermere’s Fan, by Oscar Wilde.

***Ritz and Escoffier, by Luke Barr, page 215-216.

****So Near and Yet So Far, by Emily Kimbrough, 1955, pages 81-82.

Etiquette as a Force, Vol. 22, Issue 48

Chatting online, a friend said to Etiquetteer “I find etiquette to be one of the most needed and wonderful things the civilized world has ever invented!” Some people would say yes, others definitely not. Like any force or belief system, etiquette can be used for good or evil. In the past etiquette was often used as a means of control and exclusion, mostly famously by Louis XIV. His attention to what privileges were accorded to what rank left courtiers quarreling among themselves over who had the right to be seated, and where, and on what, at any given Court function rather than on — oh, I don’t know — improving the lot of the peasants. And we see where that brought us.

Madame Campan (may she rest in peace) told the story of the Comtesse de Noailles in her wonderful biography of Marie Antoinette* and how rigid Versailles had become over trifles:

“Etiquette was to [the Countess] a sort of atmosphere; at the slightest derangement of the consecrated order, one would have thought the principles of life would forsake her frame. One day I unintentionally threw this poor lady into a terrible agony. The Queen was receiving I know not whom . . . I was near the throne, with the two women on duty . . . Suddenly I perceived the eyes of Madame de Noailles fixed on mine. She made a sign with her head, and then raised her eyebrows to the top of her forehead, lowered them, raised them again, then began to make little signs with her hand. From all this pantomime, I could easily perceive that something was not as it should be; and as I looked about on all sides to find out what it was, the agitation of the Countess kept increasing. The Queen, who perceived all this, looked at me with a smile; I found means to approach her Majesty, who said to me in a whisper, ‘Let down your lappets, or the Countess will expire.’ All this bustle arose from two unlucky pins which fastened up my lappets, whilst the etiquette of costume said ‘Lappets hanging down.’”

This was an era when the message of etiquette was “Know your place.” Now, Etiquetteer hopes, we can use etiquette to say “Here is how to have a place in community with everyone.” The first step in that journey is showing concern for others.

Etiquetteer’s friend also asked “Does the general lack of etiquette in the US drive you nuts?” Well, it would if there weren’t already so many people out there who do consider how their behavior impacts people around them. For everyone Facetiming on speaker in public, for everyone deliberately dressing to expose their underwear, for everyone taking group selfies in the middle of concerts (and not seeing a problem with it), there are many others who are holding doors, thanking cashiers, using earbuds (or simply not choosing to use technology where others can hear it), and expressing gratitude with Lovely Notes. Every child learning how to use “Please” and “thank you” gives Etiquetteer hope.

Etiquetteer would love to hear from you about what makes you hope or fear for the future of Perfect Propriety. Drop a line to Etiquetteer here.

*Marie Antoinette had nicknamed the Countess “Madame l’Etiquette.”

Baby Showers, Vol. 22, Issue 47

Someone wrote to Miss Conduct over at the Boston Globe, outraged about a baby shower that would be missing all the traditional elements of a baby shower. There would be no opening of gifts; the mother-to-be had asked that all gifts be mailed to her home in another town. There would be no visibly pregnant mother; the mother-to-be was employing a surrogate who would not be at the shower. Finally — and this seemed to outrage the writer most — the mother-to-be was hosting the shower for herself. The writer said that the whole thing was nothing but a “gift grab” and implied somewhat nastily that this mother-to-be was Not Making Good Life Choices.

In her response, Miss Conduct asked “Who the heck is supposed to host a shower for a 40-plus woman anyway? Her nana?” Etiquetteer would say, “Her friends.” Good manners once prevented relatives from hosting baby and bridal showers at all — to keep the family from looking greedy, perhaps — leaving that obligations to friends of the honoree. “When they are given,” Amy Vanderbilt said in 1963*, they are given by friends rather than relatives.” In this century, that’s no longer the case. The Centennial Edition of Emily Post’s Etiquette states clearly “. . . sometimes a parent or sibling is the only sensible person to host and they can feel confident doing so.**”

But hosting your own baby shower is not really the best look. When hosting your own birthday party you can always add “No gifts please” to the invitation***; that won’t work for a shower. Clearly the perception of trawling for gifts bothered the reader, and it may have bothered others; that will always be a risk when you hold a party for yourself. For any shower, keeping the guest list small should help prevent the Aura of Grabbiness.

Miss Conduct took a more charitable view of the mother-to-be/hostess’s choices, while admitting things could have been done differently. But she gave her reader both barrels over her nastiness. “I don’t know [the mother-to-be] or how she lives her life. But I know what you wrote. Whatever she did, you need to take a good look at yourself.” For Etiquetteer, this writer was clearly having a problem with How Things Have Changed, well beyond the idea of throwing a party for yourself. Etiquette’s focus has changed from chastising those who break the rules to kindness, inclusivity, and (when needed) gentle correction. This is a change to which a lot of people are still adjusting.

When people have questions that are embarrassing or uncomfortable, they should absolutely write in to a columnist (and you can write to Etiquetteer here). It feels safe to bring up uncomfortable issues anonymously. Sometimes how you raise those issues says more about yourself than about the issue. And a columnist might point that out, as Miss Conduct did. While she surely didn’t get the response she expected, Etiquetteer is so grateful that that woman wrote Miss Conduct — and hopes others will continue to ask the Thorny Questions. Etiquetteer, for one, is ready to assist.

*Amy Vanderbilt’s New Complete Book of Etiquette: The Guide to Gracious Living, 1963.

**Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Centennial Edition, by Lizzie Post and Daniel Post Senning, 2022.

***Etiquetteer has written about the history of “No gifts please” here.

Ice Cream, Vol. 22, Issue 46

Nothing beats the simple pleasure of a dish of ice cream (or a cone, if you’re on the go), but ice cream used to have a dressier place in the American diet, as the dessert no formal dinner could omit. “The great American dessert is ice cream,” Emily Post Herself wrote in 1922, “or pie. Pie, however, is not a ‘company’ dessert. Ice cream on the other hand is the inevitable conclusion to a formal dinner.”

Dessert service for a formal dinner includes both a fork and a spoon. Two implements? Oh yes indeed, even though it’s overkill. “There is no practical basis for this as a spoon would often suffice,” acknowledged Millicent Fenwick in her essential Vogue’s Book of Etiquette, “and it is certainly not a rule. But for some reason, when one is given two implements, as one is for dessert, it is more attractive not to use the spoon only. The fork is used for the solid part of the ice cream, the spoon for the part which has melted.”

The exuberance of 19th-century silversmiths for creating new kinds of silverware gave us the ice cream fork, which Atlas Obscura delightfully describes as a “proto-spork.” Basically a spoon with three or four short tines, in theory it could handle any aspect of ice cream consumption. Ice cream spoons came in small or large sizes — both smaller and fancier than a teaspoon — but should not be confused with sorbet spoons, which would have been used with the Roman punch to clear the palate between courses.* It’s all most bewildering.

Antique ice cream forks.

Ice cream could be made very showy by being molded into fanciful shapes. That’s one reason it was so indispensable at formal meals when one wanted to make a handsome impression. Ellen Maury Slayden once described a formal luncheon of “ten courses, all wonderful to behold, especially the ice cream — pink roses falling out of a pink sugar umbrella into spun-candy snow.” A casual internet search for “antique ice cream molds” reveals a galaxy of shapes, even a football! Etiquetteer acquired one shaped like a clamshell during the pandemic for the Dress Dinner Challenge, but the results weren’t entirely satisfactory; you can read about that here.

But Etiquetteer isn’t the only one to have had an ice cream crisis. Henrietta Nesbitt, the White House Housekeeper We Love to Hate, had a mishap at a 1937 White House dinner for the Governor General of Canada, Lord Tweedsmuir. “A White House dinner isn’t complete without ice cream, [which] was made up outside for big occasions in special molds. It was always the high minute of the evening when they came onto the tables, all fixed up beautifully, in pretty colors and shapes.”

But that only works if the ice cream has actually been delivered. “At six o’clock . . . Ida mentioned casually that the ice-cream molds had not arrived. I tried to telephone the shop that made them. It was closed for the night. I tried to reach the woman who ran it. She wasn’t home. By this time I was shaking all over. In my desperation I telephoned Mr. Hubert, a caterer we had not been dealing with at all . . . He called back his driver, packed eight forms of plain ice-cream bricks — drugstore ice cream, we call it — and rushed them over. They arrived at the White House door just as we were clearing the State Dining-room table for the dessert, and I never gave a more thankful prayer in my life. We unpacked and sliced them in record time, and from the little dining room I could see Mrs. Roosevelt’s look of shock, which she covered over fast, when the dessert plates came on with just slices of plain ice cream . . . What had happened, the storekeeper had left the molds out with orders that were to be delivered, and they were still there the next morning, melted all over the floor.**”

If you’re sitting at a table to enjoy your ice cream, standard table manners apply: sit up straight, put your napkin in your lap, and don’t gesture with your spoon. For heaven’s sake, don’t lick yourself where ice cream may have melted — or anyone else, for that matter; that’s why there’s a napkin.

*Sterling Silver Flatware For Dining Elegance, by Richard Osterberg (1999).

**From White House Diary, by Henrietta Nesbitt, F.D.R.’s Housekeeper.

Shirt Buttons, Vol. 22, Issue 45

Dear Etiquetteer:

Here’s one for you, since you’re Perfectly Proper and an expert. After seeing this blog post, I’ve been having a debate with a male friend about men about what’s proper for how many buttons should be undone on a shirt in a moderately casual but not super familiar situation. What’s your take on this?

Dear Buttoning:

Etiquetteer grew up in the 1970s, a revolutionary — some might say aberrant — period of fashion the way the Roaring Twenties was. A lot of experimentation took place with new forms, fabrics, and ways to wear clothes. The Swinging Seventies gave us the stereotype of the male swinger, neck hung with multiple gold chains and zodiac medallions, and a polyester* shirt open almost to the navel. While one undone button might have been allowed in the 1950s and 1960s, and possibly two — often with a visible white T-shirt beneath — that was considered conservative for the Swinging Seventies. Dear Father kept two buttons undone, and so did Young Etiquetteer. But in popular culture, images of entirely unbuttoned men were not at all unusual.

The pendulum began to swing back by the end of the decade, perhaps with the influence of The Preppy Handbook. Certainly because the swinger stereotype had become a joke. When John Boswell was photographed for the back cover of his book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality with three buttons disengaged, it was considered Not Quite Perfectly Proper. Etiquetteer cannot tell if he has three or four buttons unbuttoned.

What might be a good guideline now? To look like a gentleman of good taste, one should not look burlesqued**. What décolletage a man shares can remain in the bounds of good taste as long as it doesn’t call undue attention to itself. In the 2020s, more than three un-buttons would be too much, unless it can be carried off with a certain amount of unself-consciousness. One or two would perhaps be in better taste. In the office, where performance counts more than pulchritude, Etiquetteer will allow up to two un-buttons if you’re not wearing a tie — which of course Etiquetteer thinks you should be anyway.

*Often Qiana.

**Dandyism may take men’s fashions to an exaggerated extreme, but its foundation is elegance, mostly protecting it from the charge of burlesque.

How to Host a Nude Dinner Party, Vol. 22, Issue 45.1

Earlier this year The New York Times published a piece Etiquetteer never expected to see from the Grey Lady: “Private Dinner Party: No Clothes Allowed.” Excuse me? Artist and model Charlie Ann Max began the Füde Dinner Experience in 2020 during the pandemic — a time we’ve all tried new things, but not perhaps entertaining au naturel.

But This Sort of Thing has been going on for a very long time — and no, Etiquetteer does not mean the ancient world. Jan Gay leaves a delightful account in her book On Going Naked of a nude dinner party for six women — like the Füde Dinner Experience, in a Manhattan artist’s loft — on a warm evening before air conditioning.* Reclining on low couches in imitation of a female statue in the gallery, “the only interruption was the occasional entrance of waiters from the restaurant downstairs with successive courses which obliged us to disappear hastily beneath tapestries and couch-covers until the servants had gone. It was a hilarious dinner party.”

Really, things are so much simpler when you don’t have to worry about what to wear, aren’t they Well, not quite. Etiquetteer has a few tips in case you want to attempt this in the privacy of your own home.

For the host

Managing expectations is always important, but especially when all the clothes come off. Specify the dress code in advance, whether it’s clothing-optional or if clothing is not an option.

Expect questions, especially from guests who have never attended such a thing before in all their born days. Be patient.

One question may be about photos. Etiquetteer thinks a safer and more comfortable evening is assured if photos, and phones, are not permitted. Be sure your guests know in advance.

If someone you invite absolutely declines, for whatever reason, it’s bad form to press them further. Accept their response graciously. This includes a last-minute cancellation.

On the day of the dinner, you’ll need to prepare a separate room (usually a bedroom) where your guests can disrobe and leave their clothes. Depending on the number of people attending, you might want to provide separate tote bags, or ask guests to bring one.

Cover the furniture, and be sure your curtains are securely closed. Candlelight creates a welcoming atmosphere, and adding pink candleshades is even more flattering.

Whoever is doing the cooking at least needs to wear an apron! And indeed, don’t answer the door disrobed; you really cannot know if it’s one of your guests or someone else.

FOR THE GUESTS

It’s OK to feel a bit anxious.

This is definitely one of those nights when people will know if your socks have holes in them, so choose a pair that’s intact.

Bring a towel to sit on. This is helpful if the hosts haven’t actually covered the furniture (but they should). Spare the towel and spoil the slipcover.

When you disrobe, fold and stack your things tidily; don’t just leave them in a pile. Bring a tote bag if you wish.

So often we’re taught to keep our hands in our laps during dinner, but you may want to rethink that.

And really, keep your hands to yourself.

Absolutely no photos without the consent of all present, starting with your host.

Any time you speak with someone, your focus should be on their eyes. It’s just like any other party. Don’t stare.

And as at any party, the most important preparation you can make is to be ready to talk with other people, including people you don’t know. If you can be ready for some conversational give and take, you’ll be readier to enjoy the occasion, whatever you’re (not) wearing.

*At least before 1932, when On Going Naked was published.

Etiquetteer's Guidelines for Cell Phone Manners, Vol. 22, Issue 44

For National Cell Phone Courtesy Month, here are Etiquetteer’s Top Ten Guidelines for Cell Phone Etiquette:

1. No one else should have to hear your phone conversation. Let’s say that again, together: no one else should have to hear your phone conversation. That means not putting your caller on speaker just because you can hear better when you’re out in public. This is especially true in places from which no one can escape, like elevators, public transportation, restaurants, and the jury pool. Use distance (Verizon recommends at least ten feet) and/or earbuds to keep your chatter to yourself.

2. No one cares about your musical choices either. If you are using your smartphone to play music or podcasts, use earbuds. There are no exceptions to this rule.

3. That also includes children’s games. When your child is using your phone to play a game with annoying quaintsy-waintsy music or other sound effects, earbuds are essential. Yes, it’s important it is to keep your child occupied. That still doesn’t mean everyone around you needs to hear your child’s game.

4. Private information should remain private. If you can be overheard, it’s best not to go into detail about medical, financial, emotional, political, or business difficulties.

5. Avoid using your phone while in motion, for instance on escalators (especially irritating), staircases, and sidewalks. Concentrating on social media or even just talking can lead you to slow down or stop, inconveniencing people around you. That’s rude; stop it at once.

6. Now matter how excited you might be about a stage performance, your phone is not a projectile. Never throw your phone at anyone or anything, no matter how you feel. Your phone is a communications device, but that is not how to communicate with it.

7. Show respect to the people you’re with by not taking calls in front of them, and by ending them quickly when they can’t be avoided. Etiquetteer can’t say it enough: be with the people with you! If you know you expect an unavoidable call (from the hospital, for instance), say so up front when you first greet your companions.

8. This is just as important with cashiers and service personnel. Get off the phone entirely before you approach the counter. Cashiers are people, too, and they deserve the respect of your full attention while they serve you. So do the people behind you in line. (A reader once shared a traumatizing example.)

9. Do keep your voice down. If you can’t be heard at the the other end of the phone without yelling, it’s a sign that you should postpone your conversation until you’re someplace else. This seems to happen a lot on public transportation . . .

10. Enunciate. You’ll be better understood without yelling if you take the time to enunciate your words correctly.

Etiquette Oddities, Vol. 22, Issue 43

Some rare and slender volumes have made their way into Etiquetteer’s etiquette library. It’s sometimes interesting to browse them for antique advice that remains relevant today — or doesn’t.

For Gracious Greeks, a product of the women’s music fraternity Sigma Alpha Iota*, presented “to its fraternity membership as a guide to gracious living,” provides this nugget of midcentury Perfect Propriety: “Smart travelers do not ‘dress up’ to travel. Dark dresses and suits of material not easily mussed are best.” How definitions change with time! When traveling it was still considered necessary to look respectable and put together. The best traveling clothes were those that would conceal dust and dirt (for instance, from coal-burning locomotives) and keep from wrinkling. This is why tans and grays were considered so appropriate. Think of nowadays! “Not dressing up” means rolling up to the airport in pajamas and sweatsuits and flip flops — not Perfectly Proper.

Tact, by Sir John Lubbock**, opens with this quotation from Jean Paul Richter: “Men, like bullets, go farthest when they are smoothest.” A booklet for businessmen of the period, it confirms that some advice is timeless as long as it is expressed in the current style. For instance, this could describe what we now call Active Listening: “Little or much may be done to satisfy a complainant. But the main thing is to make him feel that his complaint was listened to with attentive consideration, that an interest was taken in his trouble, and a sincere determination was shown to make matters right.”

Finally, The School of Manners, or Rules for Childrens Behaviours of 1701, reminds us that good table manners are ageless. “Spit not forth anything that is not convenient to be fwallowed, such as the stones of Plums, Cherries, or fuch like; but with thy left hand neatly move them to the fide of thy plate or trencher” and “Look not earneftly at any one that is eating” are as true now as then, though we no longer use trenchers or the long f.

*No publication date is given, but Etiquetteer’s Dear Mother likely picked this up on college. So it can be dated to 1947-51.

**1950.