Gala nights

[SetAnOpenCourse]

Why are guys so hesitant to get a tux? It's a fantastic investment. In commonwealth countries, we call it a "dinner suit"; it's the 'uniform' for dining out in style at sea or ashore. It's actual 'informal wear' for dinner, with 'white tie' being 'formal wear'. Suits and blazers were 'casual wear' or at least that was the standard back in the day. Once you have a tux and the black accessories you are set forever. A man can literally wear a tux every night for dinner if it's called for and no one would bat an eye from the repetition. It's literally a uniform.

 

Good point. I've never thought about tuxedos that way. I like the irony that they have that practical aspect.

 

I may get one. Just in time to go against the shifting tide.

[RJ2002]

The shoes may have been for issues but they were in jeans. No biggie to me just my observation.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

Thank you. Agree that jeans are not within the Gala night guidelines, except for "casual dining restaurants" (HAL's words). We don't wear jeans at all in the evenings, but that's just us. ;)

[bUU]

What color were the jeans?

 

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

[taxmantoo]

I must not be seeing things in the same way some people do, but dress shoes should be and are comfortable if they are properly made and fitted.

 

I see a lot of people out there who say they cannot wear dress shoes and most of them are wearing shoes that probably caused the problem in the first place.

[SetAnOpenCourse]

Why should I buy something I have no desire to own or to wear? It would be a terrible investment because I wouldn't wear it. I decline all invitations that require a tuxedo. If the cruise line provided a tuxedo free of charge, I wouldn't put it on. I make no excuses. I don't like to dress up. I don't want to dress up. I won't dress up.

 

You may consider dinner in formal wear "dining out in style", but if you notice, the more up the scale you go, the less the requirement for formal wear.

 

:confused: The post you replied to is providing a reason to get a tux. Do you mean to ask for additional reasons, or is your question rhetorical?

 

As for "going up the scale", IMHO that is not what the formal night is all about. I'm pretty sure that at whatever venues you're referring to, the "casual" fashion is more studied, and more expensive than the average person's formal attire.

[bUU]

I must not be seeing things in the same way some people do, but dress shoes should be and are comfortable if they are properly made and fitted. I see a lot of people out there who say they cannot wear dress shoes and most of them are wearing shoes that probably caused the problem in the first place.

That is a remarkably self-ratifying line of reasoning: People wearing comfortable shoes caused them to be uncomfortable in the shoes you want them to wear. How convenient.

 

Well it just doesn't work that way. There are comfortable dress shoes, as you say, the ones that are made properly. Unsurprisingly they cost a lot more. Now scroll back and read the comments I posted earlier.

 

Full disclosure: There are a set of comfortable dress shoes out there that aren't very expensive. The magic is that they're not really dress shoes. They are, rather, comfortable shoes that are made to look on the outside like dress shoes. I found them when I was an auditor for one of the big six firms. My job would have me climbing up on scaffolding to observe an ironworker melting some metal or some such, and I figured no way am I going to risk expensive shoes on that part of the job. They really seem like they're just sneakers with a faux leather shoe wrapper.

 

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

[SetAnOpenCourse]

I live in a 'Commonwealth" country and I certainly don't view a tuxedo is a great investment. We see fewer and fewer of them. My father had two,,,they both hung in his closet for five years. He preferred a business suit as did many of his associates.

 

Even when we hosted high end events for senior executives there was seldom a tux to be found....other than on the bar staff.

 

My experience in business mirrors the OP....the more senior the executive or partner the more likely they are to dress down NOT up. I suspect that some of the desire to wear formal is aspirational- based on a belief that many people in higher income positions or stations of life have a preference for this attire. They don't. Especially on a vacation where they want a break from formal occasions and playing Mr. Dress up. At least this is our experience.

 

Sorry, no interest in following the lead of corporate bigwigs. If anything, your observation gives me another reason to stick with the formal attire.

[bUU]

Sorry, no interest in following the lead of corporate bigwigs. If anything, your observation gives me another reason to stick with the formal attire.

Spite?

 

Regardless I don't think this is really a matter of whether anybody who likes to wear formal clothing should give it up but rather is a matter of whether or not those who like formal clothing should give up placing expectations that everyone must share their preferences and dress the way they want them to dress.

 

Pretty much there are only two times when the dress code comes up. First is when the somebody actually has a question as to whether there's a dress code and what it is. Second is when somebody expresses a self-serving and intolerant perspective towards people who dress more casually than they do. Very occasionally there is a legitimate basis for that concern: complaining about someone genuinely dressing lower than the minimum stated requirement. More often it is someone complaining about how the dress code itself has been changed to make acceptable attire that those people complaining personally don't feel should be acceptable, such as more casual shirts, more casual pants and more casual shoes.

 

I wonder if that last bit is really all that necessary. Perhaps we could live without second-guessing the attire decisions of other adults who comply with the min requirement.

 

 

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

[RocketMan275]

:confused: The post you replied to is providing a reason to get a tux. Do you mean to ask for additional reasons, or is your question rhetorical?

 

As for "going up the scale", IMHO that is not what the formal night is all about. I'm pretty sure that at whatever venues you're referring to, the "casual" fashion is more studied, and more expensive than the average person's formal attire.

 

The post I replied to provided a reason why that poster owns a tux. It provides no compelling reason why I should own a tux.

 

And for "going up the scale", I was referring to persons who have achieved a a place in life where they have no need to dress up or wear expensive clothes to demonstrate how important they are.

[SetAnOpenCourse]

Spite?

 

No, it isn't spite, it's the idea put forth that people dressing up are "aspiring" to be like stated others. Blechh.

 

Formal nights are probably the most egalitarian thing going, and I like that. Got your sport coat? Check. Got your dress shirt and trousers? Check. Good to go. You're in.

[bUU]

Formal nights are probably the most egalitarian thing going...

Hardly. Every year we participate in a ceremony. People come dressed as they wish, bring some water from where they were over the summer (even if that is true home), and then the waters are mingled and blessed. Much more egalitarian.

 

Nothing about cruising is egalitarian, formal night among the least of all.

 

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

[RocketMan275]

No, it isn't spite, it's the idea put forth that people dressing up are "aspiring" to be like stated others. Blechh.

 

Formal nights are probably the most egalitarian thing going, and I like that. Got your sport coat? Check. Got your dress shirt and trousers? Check. Good to go. You're in.

 

Rules that exclude some are never egalitarian.

[taxmantoo]

Rules that exclude some are never egalitarian.

The HAL gala night suggestions, or rules as some people refer to them, do not exclude anyone. People who choose of their own volition not to participate can hardly be viewed as being excluded.

[RocketMan275]

The HAL gala night suggestions, or rules as some people refer to them, do not exclude anyone. People who choose of their own volition not to participate can hardly be viewed as being excluded.

That still does not make the exclusionary rules egalitarian.

[slidergirl]

The HAL gala night suggestions, or rules as some people refer to them, do not exclude anyone. People who choose of their own volition not to participate can hardly be viewed as being excluded.

 

Kind of like the TSA's liquids rule. You can bring that 16 oz cup of coffee to the checkpoint. The rule is nothing over 100ml or 3.2oz. They do NOT confiscate it (they make that very clear on their website). You are given 2 choices - voluntarily relinquish the cup or walk away from the checkpoint. ;-)

 

For BLUU - what is the name of this shoe line that is inexpensive but well made and comfortable? I bet some would like to know. From a female's perspective: there is the well-advertised website called "Just Fab" - sells all kinds of shoes for under $50. They sure look good online. Bought a pair of shoes that I thought would be good for work. They stayed on my feet for about 2 hours before I had to take them off. Never worn again. Thought maybe it was a fluke. Bought another pair that looked cute and dressy to take on my Spring cruise. Not one to take shoes on vacation without "breaking them in", I wore them one evening. Again, they were tremendously uncomfortable. Did NOT pack them! If nothing else, the shelter for battered women in town now gets 2 more pair of shoes to give out to their clients. For some of us, anything over $50 for shoes is an extravagance left for shoes that we will wear 8 hours a day for work or trail running where you need something well-crafted and kind to your feet, not for once a year wearing on a cruise...

[bUU]

what is the name of this shoe line that is inexpensive but well made and comfortable?

It is not so much a brand as it is a choice. I've had different brands that provide me the same experience over the years. It just so happens that right now the brand I have is Cherokee. I think that it is either JCPenney's or Kohl's or Target's store brand I'm not sure which. The key is to abandon the idea of the traditional choices and accept that there are work shoes that look just like dress shoes serve the purpose for the dress code and feel really quite comfortable almost like sneakers.

 

From my standpoint as someone who is vegetarian most of the time it also doesn't hurt that they're not leather.

 

 

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

[Mrkmbb]

Well, I love the lively discussion my question inspired. I personally love dressing up, however I have a disability that makes it impossible for me to wear anything but clunky, ugly shoes - Birkenstocks and tennis shoes or similar. So my dilemma is always what shoes can I stand to walk in, and that's the only thing that keeps me from taking a whole extra suitcase of sparkly, fancy clothes.

 

It sounds like if I can get around in my one pair of slightly dressier practical shoes, I'll be fine and my hubby can wear slacks and a dress shirt and tie. But if we decide to go all out and bring our gold lame and crown jewels, that will be fun too.

[navybankerteacher]

That still does not make the exclusionary rules egalitarian.

 

If someone decides to exclude himself by refusing to participate in an activity, they are doing it to themselves.

 

If everyone has the option to participate in an event , the event is egalitarian. If an event can be changed by the whim of someone who only wants to have it his way - that person has impacted the rights of everyone else.

 

if the "exclusionary rules" which seem to bother you are applied uniformly to everyone they are, by definition, egalitarian. It is simply absurd to suggest that the only way a situation can be egalitarian is if there are no rules.

[bUU]

If someone decides to exclude himself by refusing to participate in an activity, they are doing it to themselves.

You are working too hard to rationalize a corrupt perspective. Egalitarian means people come as they are and they are accepted as they are.

 

 

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

[SetAnOpenCourse]

You are working too hard to rationalize a corrupt perspective. Egalitarian means people come as they are and they are accepted as they are..

 

A small effort expected of all participants gives a sense of community, which is a nice aspect of being on a ship at sea. There should be exceptions for those with challenges, of course.

[taxmantoo]

 

You get full marks for clealiness and being within the suggested guidelines ... but absolutely 0 marks for style :p

[bUU]

A small effort expected of all participants gives a sense of community, which is a nice aspect of being on a ship at sea.

That effort expected of participants should be the effort to be accepting and welcoming of differences. After all the previous poster was boasting about egalitarianism.

 

 

You get full marks for clealiness and being within the suggested guidelines ... but absolutely 0 marks for style :p

Style is overrated. The point is to enjoy a vacation, not be a fashion plate.

[RocketMan275]

If someone decides to exclude himself by refusing to participate in an activity, they are doing it to themselves.

 

If everyone has the option to participate in an event , the event is egalitarian. If an event can be changed by the whim of someone who only wants to have it his way - that person has impacted the rights of everyone else.

 

if the "exclusionary rules" which seem to bother you are applied uniformly to everyone they are, by definition, egalitarian. It is simply absurd to suggest that the only way a situation can be egalitarian is if there are no rules.

 

Egalitarian is defined as the equal treatment of all persons. It isn't defined as the equal treatment of all who met some arbitrary standard such as whether they are wearing a tie.

[RocketMan275]

You get full marks for clealiness and being within the suggested guidelines ... but absolutely 0 marks for style :p

 

Why is being stylish important?

[taxmantoo]

The point is to enjoy a vacation, not be a fashion plate.

 

Since when are they mutually exclusive?