Jennifer Aniston visiting Vatican / Rome churches

[Judah]

There are pictures of JA inside St. Peter's wearing a pretty short dress but, I'm thinking that if they let her in like that it's not her fault, it's the fault of the Vatican officials that allowed it.

[Aeris]

There are pictures of JA inside St. Peter's wearing a pretty short dress but, I'm thinking that if they let her in like that it's not her fault, it's the fault of the Vatican officials that allowed it.

Sure  - a short dress would surprise me a lot less than bare shoulders, honestly (unless we're talking straight up mini skirt). I feel like the officials let a bit of knee slide a lot more often than bare shoulders.

[immadz]

There are pictures of JA inside St. Peter's wearing a pretty short dress but, I'm thinking that if they let her in like that it's not her fault, it's the fault of the Vatican officials that allowed it.

Sure  - a short dress would surprise me a lot less than bare shoulders, honestly (unless we're talking straight up mini skirt). I feel like the officials let a bit of knee slide a lot more often than bare shoulders.

When I was there which was quite a few years ago, they were pretty lenient on short dresses. IN fact there were some men in short shorts who had tied a cardigan around their waists and were allowed to go through.

[Giggity]

How did that cover their knees?

[Aeris]

How did that cover their knees?

I think that was immadz's point - tying a cardigan around your waist would at best cover your knees from only a few angles. And yet, she saw men in clearly inappropriately short shorts doing exactly that and being allowed through. Therefore, there was a fair amount of leniency all around for the 'knee' area.

[Giggity]

This is apparently one of those "I'm just confused" areas. I'm literal and take almost everything at face value, so I can't see why a no-knees rule is satisfied by, well, showing the knees.

Which is, of course, neither here nor there, since I am not Jennifer Aniston (rats). Nor was I ever married to Brad Pitt (RATS!).

[Aeris]

This is apparently one of those "I'm just confused" areas. I'm literal and take almost everything at face value, so I can't see why a no-knees rule is satisfied by, well, showing the knees.

Which is, of course, neither here nor there, since I am not Jennifer Aniston (rats). Nor was I ever married to Brad Pitt (RATS!).

I'm confused about what you're confused about. Technically, of course, a no knees rule is not satisfied by still showing the knees. Therefore the administrators of the rule typically show a great deal of leniency on the 'no knees' rule.

[Ceallach]

Jennifer Aniston didn't do anything particularly wrong, from what we know. She dressed like nearly every other tourist to the Vatican/other churches in Italy in the summer. She had a cardigan *with her* so there's no need to even suppose she needed to buy an emergency shawl at the door of a church.

Unless you actually seen photos of her *inside* the locations in question with her shoulders uncovered, I don't really understand why you'd leap to the conclusion that because there are photos of her in a tank top *on her way* to the locations, that she must have worn the exact same thing inside.

My experience of waiting in line at the Vatican (and other tourist church locations) is that 90% of the women in line are dressed insufficiently, and as they get to the door they whip out a shawl, cardigan, etc.

I agree, so very very much. I think sometimes on this board people jump to the conclusion that someone was rude without knowing what actually happened.

I would say it's the media who are jumping to the conclusion in this case.   It seems ridiculous to me that they're publishing an article saying she was dressed inappropriately - they're so desperate to find celebrities making faux pas!  And there are pictures clearly showing that in certain areas she wore an extra top covering her shoulders - it's only the outside pictures where she is wearing the sleeveless dress.  It's such a nothing article.  Really, all it is is "look, we saw Jen Aniston at the Vatican, here are some pictures" but they couldn't think of anything to say so commented on her attire.

And in the first photo there's a girl coming down the stairs right next to Jen who is in a nearly equally revealing dress.      I'm no Jen fan, but it's just pointless gutter journalism at it's worst. 

[Yvaine]

Jennifer Aniston didn't do anything particularly wrong, from what we know. She dressed like nearly every other tourist to the Vatican/other churches in Italy in the summer. She had a cardigan *with her* so there's no need to even suppose she needed to buy an emergency shawl at the door of a church.

Unless you actually seen photos of her *inside* the locations in question with her shoulders uncovered, I don't really understand why you'd leap to the conclusion that because there are photos of her in a tank top *on her way* to the locations, that she must have worn the exact same thing inside.

My experience of waiting in line at the Vatican (and other tourist church locations) is that 90% of the women in line are dressed insufficiently, and as they get to the door they whip out a shawl, cardigan, etc.

I agree, so very very much. I think sometimes on this board people jump to the conclusion that someone was rude without knowing what actually happened.

I would say it's the media who are jumping to the conclusion in this case.   It seems ridiculous to me that they're publishing an article saying she was dressed inappropriately - they're so desperate to find celebrities making faux pas!  And there are pictures clearly showing that in certain areas she wore an extra top covering her shoulders - it's only the outside pictures where she is wearing the sleeveless dress.  It's such a nothing article.  Really, all it is is "look, we saw Jen Aniston at the Vatican, here are some pictures" but they couldn't think of anything to say so commented on her attire.

And in the first photo there's a girl coming down the stairs right next to Jen who is in a nearly equally revealing dress.      I'm no Jen fan, but it's just pointless gutter journalism at it's worst.

Ah, OK, from the OP, I couldn't even tell if it came from the article itself or a conclusion the OP drew from the article. I found it and it it in fact criticizing her--but yes, it's just a pointless story and there's a reason this paper is nicknamed the Daily Fail.

[Giggity]

This is apparently one of those "I'm just confused" areas. I'm literal and take almost everything at face value, so I can't see why a no-knees rule is satisfied by, well, showing the knees.

Which is, of course, neither here nor there, since I am not Jennifer Aniston (rats). Nor was I ever married to Brad Pitt (RATS!).

I'm confused about what you're confused about. Technically, of course, a no knees rule is not satisfied by still showing the knees. Therefore the administrators of the rule typically show a great deal of leniency on the 'no knees' rule.

I'm confused about how "showing knees" is bad, but if you tie a sweater around your waist and still show your knees, then you're okay. Because if your knees are showing, then you're showing knees, which I thought was bad.

(Literalism is not always a fun way to go through life. I have discussions like this too much.)

[Aeris]

This is apparently one of those "I'm just confused" areas. I'm literal and take almost everything at face value, so I can't see why a no-knees rule is satisfied by, well, showing the knees.

Which is, of course, neither here nor there, since I am not Jennifer Aniston (rats). Nor was I ever married to Brad Pitt (RATS!).

I'm confused about what you're confused about. Technically, of course, a no knees rule is not satisfied by still showing the knees. Therefore the administrators of the rule typically show a great deal of leniency on the 'no knees' rule.

I'm confused about how "showing knees" is bad, but if you tie a sweater around your waist and still show your knees, then you're okay. Because if your knees are showing, then you're showing knees, which I thought was bad.

(Literalism is not always a fun way to go through life. I have discussions like this too much.)

I'm kind of wondering if you're being serious right now. This doesn't have to do with literalism, as far as I can tell. Literally, the guys weren't in full technical compliance. But the guards were lenient, and chose not to enforce the rule as strictly as they might have.

The idea is NOT that the cardigan is sufficient to be in technical compliance with the rule. The idea is that at some point of 'some effort has been expended' the guards/officials decide they don't care enough about enforcing the rule strictly.

You follow the general concept that sometimes authority figures don't enforce rules perfectly and to their most extreme ends, right?

[Sharnita]

Revenant, I think that the people who were supposed to be enforcing the rules probably did not think that having exposed knees were really that bad, especially on guys.  However, their level of autority was only enforcing policy - not setting policy. Since they couldn't t change the policy they had the men made a token attempt to cover their knees, although  it fell far short of being effective.

[StoutGirl]

I went to Bella Italia a couple of years ago (loved it and want to go back) and I remember that many of the churches that my travel buddy and I visited had the dress code written on signs at the entrance.  Before we left, we didn't even consider the possibility of dress codes, but luckily I had a safari jacket and my travel buddy had a cardigan.  I understand that in Italy, it can be extremely hot, especially around this time of year, but I think that most people will be fine to put on a cardigan/light wrap at the entrance.  I think that when I was there, with the exception of the Vatican, we spent an average of 20 minutes for each church.  If I remember right, I think that the staff members were more focused on enforcing no photography when it was not permitted.