Appearance? DUH!

[genebujold]

Funny. LADIES take time to shave our legs & underarms, moisturize, do our make-up, 'nails & hair, dress, put on perfume and some unshaven urchin who dresses like he puled his ensemble from the clothes hamper offers us a cocktail and we're supposed to swoon???? GET A CLUE !!

The urchin is offering to buy us a cocktail-NOT a Mercedes.

I'll take a warm-hearted, unpresentable flop over an immaculate, self-righteous chard any day!

[genebujold]

I couldn't agree with Anita's viewpoint more.

If that's the case, it's beginning to sound like she's a plant, a troller, out to do nothing more than stir up dissention between us.

[genebujold]

Believe it or not I would be, if she had an interesting personality. I don't go too much on appearance. The next smart person you meet could likely be a shithead while the scruffy one could be an angel. You can't actually tell until you meet people and get to know them. Personally I prefer a scruffy angel to a smart shithead, but that's just my opinion. I'm prepared to concede it's not how most people think.

Given the choice between a smart angel and a scruffy one, I'd probably go for the smart one so I'm not saying appearance doesn't count, just that people read too much into it. Too many relationships are founded on that basis, and who can wonder when they don't last?

Put it another way, why are we now plagued by "attractive" teenage pop stars with next to no true musical talent? Society channels you to think in certain ways. Step back a moment and see if you pick out people's true abilities.

Exceptionally well put, Firefox!

I believe the old addage about beauty being only skin deep applies, here.

"True beauty transcends its container." - Gene'

[genebujold]

I would like to make a generalized addendum.

Over the last 2.3 decades, I've had occasion to keep company with a very wide variety of individuals from all walks of life. They would include drifters, the CEOs of Vegas Casinos, bank presidents, the street-bound homeless, your average college, then graduate student, electrical engineers, a wide variety of COMDEX personnel and attendees (including senior executives of numerous computer/networking-related corporations), etc.

The list goes on.

I hold a weekly meeting in our home. Present are (and I've asked their permission), a retiree from the Merchant Marines, ex-Vietnam vet and Bank VP, divorcee' trying to recover from her third non-marriage, real-estate broker (not agent, but broker), two housewives and a house-husband.

All of them are terrificly deep people. You wouldn't believe which ones arrive "fashionably dressed" and which ones arrive in sweats and the equivalent of "backwards baseball caps."

All of which goes to show you cannot, under any circumstances, judge a book by it's cover! If you were to try with my crowd, you'd probably bat wrong about 80% of the time.

But isn't this what's at the hear tof HighHeel meeting place? That people should be allowed, without prejudice, to wear whatever the heck they wish?

I'll be the first to admit how much I've encouraged a certain sense of propriety and decorum, as out of bounds as the general concept of men wearing heels seems to be.

Nevertheless, isn't our entire focus on advancing the cause of the rights of ourselves and others to feel free to live their lives as they (and not others) see fit, regardless of personal beliefs, and certainly regardless of the thin external veneer of fashion!

I think so!

So, be yourselves - wear what you want!

And if someone gives you the stiff simply because of what you're wearing, know that the mostly reason they're doing so is because their beliefs rest not in the inner hearts of mankind, but in the outer trappings external to the character of mankind himself.

[genebujold]

In a perfect world people wouldn't be judged by appearances . . . It's not a perfect world and you never get a second chance for a first impression.

The only way we'll ever lend a hand towards improving it is by acting as if it were.

The only way we'll hasten its demise is by acting as if it weren't.

[new_look]

well done gene. youve done it again. full agreement from rotherham uk! daz

[Dr. Shoe]

I would like to make a generalized addendum.

Over the last 2.3 decades, I've had occasion to keep company with a very wide variety of individuals from all walks of life. They would include drifters, the CEOs of Vegas Casinos, bank presidents, the street-bound homeless, your average college, then graduate student, electrical engineers, a wide variety of COMDEX personnel and attendees (including senior executives of numerous computer/networking-related corporations), etc.

The list goes on.

I hold a weekly meeting in our home. Present are (and I've asked their permission), a retiree from the Merchant Marines, ex-Vietnam vet and Bank VP, divorcee' trying to recover from her third non-marriage, real-estate broker (not agent, but broker), two housewives and a house-husband.

All of them are terrificly deep people. You wouldn't believe which ones arrive "fashionably dressed" and which ones arrive in sweats and the equivalent of "backwards baseball caps."

All of which goes to show you cannot, under any circumstances, judge a book by it's cover! If you were to try with my crowd, you'd probably bat wrong about 80% of the time.

But isn't this what's at the hear tof HighHeel meeting place? That people should be allowed, without prejudice, to wear whatever the heck they wish?

I'll be the first to admit how much I've encouraged a certain sense of propriety and decorum, as out of bounds as the general concept of men wearing heels seems to be.

Nevertheless, isn't our entire focus on advancing the cause of the rights of ourselves and others to feel free to live their lives as they (and not others) see fit, regardless of personal beliefs, and certainly regardless of the thin external veneer of fashion!

I think so!

So, be yourselves - wear what you want!

And if someone gives you the stiff simply because of what you're wearing, know that the mostly reason they're doing so is because their beliefs rest not in the inner hearts of mankind, but in the outer trappings external to the character of mankind himself.

My whole point is about expectations. Your friends I'm sure are terrifically admirable people who wear recreational clothes in which they feel comfortable in to go and visit a friend in casual circumstances, nothing wrong with that at all. Anita was dressed in a female equivalent of a dinner jacket, so what gives some guy (who could be a very deep, sensitive, caring and lovely person) the belief that she would be interested in him based on appearance? OK, perhaps her put down might have been somewhat harsh but I should imagine that this is not the first time she has be hassled in such a way.

I suppose she felt it was time to make a stand for women everywhere who are subjected to this kind of abuse which is not too dissimilar to builders who make crass and offensive comments to pretty girls walking past a site. If you want to go out for a pleasant evening the last thing you want is some prats who should grow up to bug you all night long.

Now, had Anita C. responded in a positive manner, he would have been bragging about the way he can pull any kind of woman without even trying, is that fair? Particularly if she had taken so much care over her personal appearance?

I am a firm believer in the right to wear what you want, but i also believe that your social, professional and financial expectations should match your sartorial choices all the way down the line.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter.

[Bubba136]

This whole thread is just a bunch "Barbra Streisand" (BS.) Anita wasn't wrong -- gene isn't wrong. Circumstances dictate responses. Perhaps a simple "no thankyou" would have sufficied. However, the "say what" indicates the guy's role playing. The vernacular of the grungy, unkempt looking, discourteous "the badder the better" attitude "sophisticated" chicks are supposed to "dig" these days. Two outcomes, perhaps? One is that the next time Anita is presented with this situation, I bet she says "no thankyou." And, the other is that the next time that guy goes into a respectable establishment, he'll be dressed appropriately.

[Bubba136]

This whole thread is just a bunch "Barbra Streisand" (BS.) Anita wasn't wrong -- gene isn't wrong. Circumstances dictate responses. Perhaps a simple "no thankyou" would have sufficied. However, the "say what" indicates the guy's role playing. The vernacular of the grungy, unkempt looking, discourteous "the badder the better" attitude "sophisticated" chicks are supposed to "dig" these days. Two outcomes, perhaps? One is that the next time Anita is presented with this situation, I bet she says "no thankyou." And, the other is that the next time that guy goes into a respectable establishment, he'll be dressed appropriately.

[new_look]

well put. o wasmt out to dig up anitas reasoning, just the attutude displayed. for the first time ever (note this) daz + bubba agree!!!! mark for history daz

[Heelfan]

Particularly well said Dr. Shoe! And well followed-up Bubba and Daz! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[Skirted-UK]

I have been watching this tread for a few days now and while I agree with everybody's viewpoint about you can't judge someone by their style of dress, I think most people are missing the big picture. This young man is either not very bright or he is totally inexperienced with women. If you see a smartly dressed woman in a bar she is either waiting for her date to arrive or she is hoping to attract a smartly dressed male. The clue is, read the signals. No smartly dressed, mature woman would want to be seen with a young man in jeans, trainers and a backward baseball cap! (so naff) For a start she is going to look like his mother! What this young man should have done is smiled and said Hello. That way Anita would have known that he found her attractive and she could have struck up a conversation with him if she so wished. By smiling and saying hello, the young man could also judge her reaction and see if it was worth following up. But to jump in feet first with an obvious chat up line like that, I'm sorry but I think he got what he deserved. What an interesting woman this Anita C is, she is certainly blowing the dust out of this forum, go for it girl

[JeffM]

There is another point too. A number off members have been critical of Anita being critical of this guy in the bar. So what makes them different that they can criticise Anita but that she shouldnt criticise others? Jeff

[azraelle]

The interesting thing here isn't what Anita said, but what she revealed about her thought process. She dresses to inspire confidence in herself, as well as to be thought of as "hot" to other souls, regardless of gender. But notice her description of the dress of the guy in question.

He is resplendant in dockers that look as if they have never seen an iron, "Nike-Just Do It" t-shirt, unpolished shoes AND the obligatory BACKWARDS BASEBALL CAP. . .

Notice what she doesn't say. The clothes were apparently CLEAN, probably fairly new (unfaded), just WRINKLED and UNPOLISHED indicating that he didn't care about his appearance the way a female would. He possibly cares a great deal about his appearance--he may even believe (as most guys do) that wrinkles BELONG on dockers!! Therefore, pressing them would label him a sissy in the eyes of his male friends. He may even go to great lengths (and time) in the morning ensuring that he presents the right level of grunge. I know many teenage boys that do just that (including my own son). It's just not what is desired by a chic chick. The sooner that guys realize that their vision of fashion doesn't coincide with the average female's, the more popular they're likely to become among the fashionable elite, male or female. But it may involve a painful shucking of lower class friends that are likely to razz them back into the "unkempt" look.

What I think Anita actually is saying is that she tried to exhibit "class" and he didn't. Or, "If you have no class at all (NCAA) don't bother to apply."

[Rockpup]

I've seen that before, the unkempt 'look' takes a tremendous amount of effort.. confusing isnt it? I've seen someone take over an hour just to get the look right for going to work.. at Abecrombe and Fitch.. He seemed to spend alot of time making it look like he just tossed together an outfit. Jim

[Bubba136]

Aw common, Guys! There's good taste and bad taste. The guy in Anita's comment wasn't dressed in good taste for the circumstances. If the guy wants to dress for a "outhouse" digging, then let him go to an "outhouse".

[PJ]

When I first read about Anita's incident, it seemed to me that although her responce was somewhat bold, I thought it was tactful. It also seemed that the young man was not openly offended by her comments. But after reading all of the other replies, I realized just how many of them made sense. Some of them I repeat below. It does seem a double standard criticizing someone about their appearance when you yourself don't want to be judged by what you wear. If the young man was talking to one of his peers, his mode of dress would have been accepted without question. Don't judge a book by it's cover. The appearance of an individual often has no direct bearing upon their personality. If you meet someone who's appearance displeases you, cut the meeting short without telling them why. ============================================== OK, now let me add a twist to make things interesting. Many of you are open minded to variations in appearances. So if you and I met for the first time, it would not matter what I wore. You would still want to get to know me. But suppose I had a body odor problem. Would you let that keep you from getting to know me better? Would you tell me about my problem?

[Bubba136]

PJ wrote:

But suppose I had a body odor problem. Would you let that keep you from getting to know me better? Would you tell me about my problem?

The answer to your questions is Yes, Yes and Yes.

[Rockpup]

I checked the original post, and I did not find any reference to the decor or type of bar that Anita was at.. Although I doubt it was a sports bar since she clearly stated she would not be comfortable at one dressed the way she is. A question: What type of crowd typically is found at this establishment at that time of the week? If the typical crowd is dressed up then the young man would have been out of place. If the crowd was mixed then he may have been excused for dressing casual. But as someone pointed out he might have done better to excuse his dress when introducing himself.. and maybe remove his hat. I have been to a nicer resteraunt durring lunch time when it's more of a mixed crowd, they often seat the casual dressers upstairs which has more of a sports pub feel to it vs those who are dressed up in the main dining area. Although I must admit to having been to a bar who's required attire stretched from tux+tails down to the legal minimum.. but no street clothes. Have a good one Jim

[Anita C.]

No-it wasn't a resteraunt and the gentleman in question was in the presence of approximately 25 people all of whom were in appropriate attire. It was, as I have said, evening. POINT #1) After our conversation the gentleman left, changed clothes, showered & shaved and returned. POINT #2) The establishment in question has posted 2 "Appropriate Attire Required" signs at the door as have had other establishments in the area. SIDEBAR) It is a proven fact that people behave better when they are dressed up. Example: seldom do we see a brawl at the opera or at a play.

[Bubba136]

JimC, you can search for all of the excuses you can imagin to justify the way the young man was dressed. However, no matter how he was dressed it doesn't excuse his inappropriate behavior in the way he addressed AnitaC. Without question, civility and adherence to good manners are still the best way to meet girls.

[Heelfan]

I'm with Bubba on this! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[chris100575]

(SIDEBAR) It is a proven fact that people behave better when they are

dressed up. Example: seldom do we see a brawl at the opera or at a play.

I disagree with this point. I accept that you don't often see brawls at operas or theatres, but that is more due to the type of people they tend to attract rather than what they're wearing.

Speaking as an ex-copper, most of the town centre brawls I went to were outside the bars that had a dress code, and the guys involved were wearing shirts trousers and shoes. The biker pubs where everyone was wearing leathers and jeans, despite their reputation, we never had any problems with.

Basically the propensity for violence / offensive behaviour has nothing to do with the clothes. It's the person in them.

[Bubba136]

Chris100575 wrote:

Basically the propensity for violence / offensive behaviour has nothing to do with the clothes. It's the person in them.Basically the propensity for violence / offensive behaviour has nothing to do with the clothes. It's the person in them.

Or, how much anti-freeze (alcohol) they have in them.

[sohoboot]

just to throw in my two cents, because it's really been boiling my blood since I first saw it a couple days ago, the tone of the conversation seems extremely condescending. Not everyone likes dressing up and not everyone is looking for someone who dresses up. My last gf was a skirt and heels type and had no problem with the fact that I generally like to wear shorts (albeit nice shorts) because I get hot too easily. I think the grammar correction was really about as trivial and haughty as someone can get. I'm an occassional freelance writer, and I often cringe at how poor the grammar and vocabulary skills of some people are, but I never put them down for it. It's outright rude. IMO, the more tactful approach to take would be to say "Look, you're simply not my type. Maybe you should try the sports bar." Instead, he was made to look stupid, was told he was stupid (with the comment about explaining it like a 6 year old), told he wasn't good enough, etc... Be glad that he didn't really want to stick up for himself because I know what I would have said to someone who talked to me like that. A college degree, a sharp jacket, a million dollar house, a luxury car, a freshly shaven face or a killer pair of heels doesn't make anyone any better than anyone else. We all have our flaws and we're all different... that's what makes us special. Anyone who outright tells someone that they're below them is simply wrong.... and in fact, IMO, doing so puts that person below the person they're trying to put down.

[Anita C.]

"Not everyone likes dressing up". That is OK. At this particuliar establishment we DO like dressing "to the nines". Thus the new signs at the front door. IF he didn't like what I told him (Tactfully, I might add) WHY did he return after he went home & changed?? Condescending? Yes, I was a bit. However, our conversation conveyed the message and attained the appropriate results, therefore, I see no point in apologizing. While dress, money and hygene are not necessarily signs of a "better person" there ARE times that they DO matter-for the comfort of all concerned. "In a perfect world, things like this don't matter. The world isn't perfect".

[sohoboot]

If that was tactful, I'd hate to see what you would call rude. Had it been me that you did that to, instead of bragging about it here, you'd be sobbing about how I turned the tables on you. Don't get me wrong, I don't look to give people grief, but if someone is going to rag on me (or my friends), they'll walk away wishing they hadn't. Now... you've stated that the sign has gone up since your encounter. Perhaps before that, he didn't know there was an unstated dress code there, perhaps because he had never been there before. He may have made an unintentional mistake and you treated him like he was a peasant disturbing the presence of her majesty, the queen. Again, nobody is any better than anyone else simply because of the clothes they wear... and just because someone is a regular doesn't make them any better than someone visiting the first time. Why did he go home and change? Perhaps he was meeting a couple friends and got there before them. You insulted him to the point where he was embarrassed and didn't want to embarrass his friends. I met my last gf for the first time in a star bucks, someplace I had never been before, so I didn't really know the local protocol. Sure, seasoned veterens knew I didn't fit in with the regulars but not a single one of them, as pretentious as they often are, said boo to me about it. What if he were to actually visit here regularly, as a poster or lurker, and see you bragging about what you did, in view for the whole world to see? Would he be hurt enough then to be deserving of an apology? Now... the results were appropriate for you but you haven't given any consideration to how you made that guy feel. I won't say what he's probably thinking because we don't need another post deleted, but it's very unflattering of you. I've encountered women who were drop dead gorgeous that I wouldn't give the time of day to because, well, their personality and attitude more than negated whatever positives they had in the beauty department.

[Anita C.]

No-he wasn't meeting anyone. He just came in. No-he wasn't traumatized by the input I offered. No-I think it highly unlikely that I would be humbled by a quick comeback. I've been on the receiving end of what you can dish out and then some. The "Guy" in question feels just fine, thanks, and has returned many times. Ciao 4 now.

[stephen in heels]

IF he didn't like what I told him (Tactfully, I might add)

u having a laugh?

No-I think it highly unlikely that I would be humbled by a quick

comeback. I've been on the receiving end of what you can dish out

and then some.

not the first time u have done it then?

[kneehighs]

The way I look at this: who really cares--after all the guy changed his appearance and still goes to the same bar. The results of her communication were good. But I don't think the results should be attributed to Anita's social graces or excellence in persuasion at all. She knew nothing about the guy except what he was wearing and the few words they had already shared. So her statements to him stem from blind faith. Blind faith that what she was saying was going to work. Kind of like winning a raffle, kind of like through some statistical chance occurence, what she said worked. So I think she just got LUCKY. Off topic, if I was to form a FIRST IMPRESSION about Anita based on this one isolated instance of her social persona and GENERALIZE about her from that, (just like she did with that guy),I'd conclude just as negatively about her as she did about him.