"No Ties, No Jeans" notation on invitation

[Cat-Fu]

I just did some further research, and it looks like the 18th edition of Emily Post's etiquette notes including dress code on the invitation as "intended to be helpful." Interesting! So, it's not rude after all to include it. So you are certainly entitled to dislike it, gellchom, but it is not rude.

It looks like the term the invitation closest to what is on the invitation is business casual—dressy casual includes jeans. However, business casual is tie-optional so it seems that there isn't a completely adequate term.

[WillyNilly]

It is rude because it implies that the guests don't know how to dress appropriately if the invitation simply says "casual."

OK, but this is a b'nei mitzvah - a coming of age party.  Unless this specifically an adult b'nei mitzvah, its reasonable to expect that 50% or more of the guests will be 12-14 years old.  I think you are expecting too much of people that they will know how to casually dress up versus just dressing casually.

[jedikaiti]

I actually don't think it is odd - it is very helpful.  If I saw casual, I would think I could wear jeans.  Even if there is dancing and dinner at a downtown hotel, it doesn't necessarily follow that the event isn't jean-appropriate.  What she wrote makes the dress level clear in a concise fashion.

Me too.  Casual dress would say to me that jeans were ok.  This gives me a clear guideline without trying to micromanage.

Count me in that group, too. If I see on an invite "casual dress", I assume jeans are OK. If it's the sort of party where there are actual invites (be they electronic or paper) as opposed to mass-email or word if mouth notifications, I would wear my best jeans, but assume jeans are OK. The only non-jeans casual I can think of offhand is business casual. And here in CO, that might even include "best" jeans.

[gellchom]

I guess part of what we are disagreeing about, or perhaps just talking past each other on, is whether it is appropriate to single out jeans (absent, of course, some venue rule) -- or anything else the hosts don't happen to want.  Why not then "no jeans, shorts, flip-flops, tank tops, graphic tees, goth wear, revealing clothing, etc., etc., etc.?  (From what we read about here, it wouldn't surprise me!  )

That is, several posters are trying to think of the best way to express "casual but no jeans."  And I don't think you really can properly do that.  You just write "casual" or "dressy casual" (I have long ago given up objecting to that one).  If nice jeans are not appropriate "nice casual" wear in your community, most people will know that.  If that's not the standard, then what's the point of specifically directing people not to wear them?  To me, it's almost like saying "no orange" or "no vulgar jewelry" or "no colors that will clash with the color scheme."  "No jeans" isn't a dress code standard (maybe for a school, but not for an invitation).

Yes, Cat-Fu, you're right, I didn't mean to say that it's rude to include dress code on an invitation.  It's perfectly correct (and, speaking for myself, much appreciated).

But there is a big difference between putting a dress code such as one of the standard (black tie, white tie, black tie optional (also one I've given up on!), dressy, casual, dressy casual, business, casual business, costume)  or at least easily understandable and specific to the venue or activity (beach attire, pool attire, ski attire, boating shoes), and dictating exactly how the guests are supposed to conform to the standard. 

The first gives the guests information on how dressy the event is, information they need to know and can only get from the hosts.  The second tells them you don't trust them to understand the standard or to dress appropriately, insulting their manners and/or their intelligence.

That many guest lists include people who refuse to dress properly doesn't change the duty of the hosts to be polite on their invitation any more than it would excuse including a note with guidelines about proper table etiquette.  Those guests probably won't cooperate anyway!  And it's no excuse to insult all the others.  You just have to hope for the best and then forget it.

Everyone seems to be commenting on the jeans part.  What do you think about the "no ties" part?

[camlan]

Maybe the wording could have been improved, but I kind of like the way this dress code defines the top and bottom of the acceptable range of clothing for the event. Ties are not necessary--so the guys can wear chinos or dress slacks and a sports coat. Jeans aren't appropriate, so everyone knows to dress at least one step up from jeans.

Most places I've lived, "casual" would include jeans, and someone wearing a sports coat would be over dressed.

"Business casual" is probably closest to what the hosts want, but it sounds odd to specify "business" at a purely social function. (The party after the b'nei mitzvah, obviously, not the b'nei mitzvah itself.)

[Sophia]

I didn't put it on the wedding invitations, when asked I said "Pantyhose very optional."  Everyone seemed to know precisely what that meant.  I don't know if I'd have put it on the invitation though. 

[Iris]

Whatever happened to "smart casual"? ls that just an Australian thing? That seems to be just what they want so I don't know why they've made such heavy work of it.

I'm a bit with gellchom on this one- A dress code is a useful thing to have, but mentioning specific items of clothing on a printed invitation seems rude to me. Yes, there will always be people who turn up to occasions improperly dressed, but frankly if they don't already realise that an old t-shirt is not appropriate for a wedding, then nothing short of picking out their outfit for them is going to work. l don't see why the rest of us need to be treated like children in the hopes that a poor dresser will get the hint.

[miranova]

I don't like the wording of it at all, but I have to admit that it does actually describe what they are looking for quite well.  "Casual dress" does not communicate no jeans to me.

I definitely wouldn't be offended by it.  I am not a fan of any directives on an invitation telling you what not to do, but I wouldn't think that my intelligence was being insulted.  I would just think that the host isn't as OCD as I am about things like invitations.

[Sharnita]

I like the wording, if that is what they are looking for.  I know several people who where denim that is by no means "sloppy" so they might otherwise where nice denim that is just as neat as anything else.  However, knowing the hosts don't want that they could make another choice.

[kareng57]

Perhaps it's actually part of the hotel's dress code for that particular ballroom?

There's a very conservative golf club in my metro area that has a strict "no denim".  Even if a guest wore an expensive beaded denim vest, she'd be denied admission.  So I'd simply see it as a bit of extra info intended to avoid guest embarrassment.

[gellchom]

I like the wording, if that is what they are looking for.  I know several people who where denim that is by no means "sloppy" so they might otherwise where nice denim that is just as neat as anything else.  However, knowing the hosts don't want that they could make another choice.

That's sort of my point (at least the one I keep belaboring!  )  If the otherwise perfectly nice and appropriately (for a casual party) dressy pants happen to be made out of denim, so what?  Is it somehow by its very nature less acceptable than other fabrics, even other casual ones like fleece or corduroy?  They also specified they don't want neckties.   What if the hosts "don't want" corduroy or sequins or stiletto heels?  Would you find it odd to see that on the invitation, or would it be okay, because that's "what they are looking for"?  I don't understand what is so different about denim.  But I guess that's just me, because several posters seem to find it offensive enough that they think it's okay for hosts to specifically ban it.  (karen57, the venue does not prohibit denim; I'm not aware of any venue in this city that does.)

And what about the ban on ties?  Do you think that's okay?

Iris, I've seen things like "smart casual," "elegant casual," and "casual chic" and I didn't much care for them, because they sounded more like "as-opposed-to-tacky-and-ugly" than "as-opposed-to-super-casual."  Kind of made me feel like I should worry whether my clothes were smart or chic (and probably expensive) enough!  But that is indeed taking it a bit far, I readily admit.  But as I said, I no longer hate "dressy casual," which at first seemed to me to be sort of like this invitation, i.e., as if to say, "Casual, but we don't trust you to know that that doesn't mean workout clothes."  I guess I got used to it.

Anyway, the meta question here seems to be how specific hosts can politely get regarding attire on an invitation (not when asked, in conversation, as Sophia did, which is just fine), in either direction, before it becomes too much, not whether or not denim is ever appropriate for a party designated as "casual" or "dressy casual" or something. 

[Hmmmmm]

GellChom, if the dress code had been business casual, what would your opinion have been on jeans?  In my office, business casual means no denim pants.  It explicitly calls out that denim dresses and skirts are ok.

I also believe there is some basic dress hiearchy that most people can relate to.  If jeans are not appropriate, then shorts, flip flops and tshirts aren't either because they are less casual than jeans, especially nice jeans.  So saying no jeans to me sets a lower end priority.

[Cat-Fu]

I don't see it as a ban on either jeans or ties, but as ends of a scale. Like Hmmmm, I see both items as more indicative of a level of dressiness than, say, sequins or graphic tees. If it had said "no graphic tees, no stiletto heels," I would think that was a really weird and particular request.

[Two Ravens]

Whatever happened to "smart casual"? ls that just an Australian thing? That seems to be just what they want so I don't know why they've made such heavy work of it.

I'm a bit with gellchom on this one- A dress code is a useful thing to have, but mentioning specific items of clothing on a printed invitation seems rude to me. Yes, there will always be people who turn up to occasions improperly dressed, but frankly if they don't already realise that an old t-shirt is not appropriate for a wedding, then nothing short of picking out their outfit for them is going to work. l don't see why the rest of us need to be treated like children in the hopes that a poor dresser will get the hint.

"Smart Casual," to me, would allow for dessier jeans, like a nice dark wash trouser jean.

this thread is reminding me of when I worked for a venue that listed "Summer Chic" as its dress code for parties. We had to field a lot of phone calls from people wondering what the heck that meant. 

[peaches]

What I don't like is that the invitation states the hosts' preferences in a negative rather than a positive way. That always rubs me the wrong way. It sounds like you are chiding your guests, before they even show up.

"No ties, no jeans" is negative.

"Business casual" is positive (and seems closest to what they want).