"No Ties, No Jeans" notation on invitation

[Jeremy]

To be honest if someone sent me an invite that said "casual" I would wear nice jeans because that is "casual."  "No Jeans" indicates that this is a step up from casual.

Yes exactly.  For casual wear I almost always wear denim, so if I was given a party invitation that said "casual" I would turn up in a pair of jeans.  Specifying no jeans or ties is more useful in my opinion than just stating "casual", as not everybody is familiar with this kind of dresscode terminology.  There are also regional variations, such as between the US and the UK - what's "casual" for one person isn't casual for someone else.

[ladiedeathe]

If something said casual, I would have no issue wearing jeans and a nice sweater, so I'm fine even with the akwardness of No Jeans, No Ties. Sometimes it gets cumbersome to say "You can eat plums, pears, apples, pinapples, grapes, grapefruit, or tangelos" when you could just say "No strawberries."

Venus- I belong to both a yacht club and a country club, and both groups have various levels of expected dress depending on the event- from casual to evening dress to white tie. For me, an invitation which included the words "country club attire" or "yacht club attire" would signal that the host didn't really belong to either club and meant to "dress like you think rich people do." At least in my area, wouldn't be useful

[gellchom]

"No Ties, No Jeans" doesn't bother me in the least. It's communicating in a way the intended audience*  understands. I doubt many tweens/teens know what "business casual" or "yacht club" attire means.

*I'm assuming the guests are not adults.

As I posted above, the guests ARE adults -- some kids, but it's not a kids' party, it's an adult dinner dance, to which there are kids invited.  (I know this string has gotten long and you're not required to read all the posts before posting!)  Does that change your feeling?

The fact that so many people are saying that they like this wording specifically "because it gives guidance to kids," because kids have different standards of dress and can't really be expected to know the social language of "casual," "business casual," etc., underscores for me what's not so good about it for adults.  It implies that their social skills are those of children who can't be expected how to interpret a dress code without specific guidance.

Now that I think about it, I've seen something like this in practice.  If there are a lot of children invited to an adult-type event, sometimes people send them a separate invitation (like, if the children are invited for different hours than the adults -- e.g., pizza and games for the kids 6:30 - 8:00; dessert and dancing for everyone at 8:00 -- I guess it's A and B, but I for one am definitely NOT offended by not being included in the children's "before party"!).  Anyway, when they do that, people often include things like "please no jeans/shorts" or "no gifts" or other stuff that they don't put on the adult invitation.

As to the suitability of denim generally for a grown-up event designated "casual," I think it may depend upon the community (both geographic and social) -- of course assuming it's not a no-denim venue.  If nice denim is not considered acceptable in the relevant community, then there is no need to include "no jeans" on the invitation -- most of the guests know already (as they would here), and if there are a few who don't, then too bad -- you don't insult/micromanage all the others trying to make sure that not a single guest wears jeans, the same as you don't put "no tardiness."  If denim is considered appropriate in that community, then I honestly don't think that the hosts should be trying to forbid it at their otherwise casual party, just because they personally don't like that "casual" includes jeans in their community -- just like they shouldn't say "no short dresses" if they designate the party "black tie" and live in a community where women wear long or short dresses to black tie events, but happen to prefer that all the women wear long gowns.  If it means that much to them not to have anyone in jeans, then, if they live in such a community, they should call it "dressy" or "business casual" or something other than "casual."

As for the other end of the question, "no ties," I think that Peaches's point about stating things in the negative is spot on here.  "Ties not required" is much better.  Even if most people would figure that "no ties" means "ties not required," they wouldn't be 100% sure, and you can bet that if you wear a tie, there'd be at least one idiot telling you, "Hey, the invitation said no ties!"  (The conversation that would follow would resemble this string!)

[Cat-Fu]

Honestly, I don't see how it is insulting to not want people to wear jeans or ties, but like I said before, it seems to me that the point was *not* to ban ties and jeans, but to indicate a range of dressiness. (Which they succeeded in doing quite clearly, IMO.)

[audrey1962]

As I posted above, the guests ARE adults

My apologies, I must have missed that.

[CaptainObvious]

"No Ties, No Jeans" doesn't bother me in the least. It's communicating in a way the intended audience*  understands. I doubt many tweens/teens know what "business casual" or "yacht club" attire means.

*I'm assuming the guests are not adults.

As I posted above, the guests ARE adults -- some kids, but it's not a kids' party, it's an adult dinner dance, to which there are kids invited.  (I know this string has gotten long and you're not required to read all the posts before posting!)  Does that change your feeling?

The fact that so many people are saying that they like this wording specifically "because it gives guidance to kids," because kids have different standards of dress and can't really be expected to know the social language of "casual," "business casual," etc., underscores for me what's not so good about it for adults.  It implies that their social skills are those of children who can't be expected how to interpret a dress code without specific guidance.

Now that I think about it, I've seen something like this in practice.  If there are a lot of children invited to an adult-type event, sometimes people send them a separate invitation (like, if the children are invited for different hours than the adults -- e.g., pizza and games for the kids 6:30 - 8:00; dessert and dancing for everyone at 8:00 -- I guess it's A and B, but I for one am definitely NOT offended by not being included in the children's "before party"!).  Anyway, when they do that, people often include things like "please no jeans/shorts" or "no gifts" or other stuff that they don't put on the adult invitation.

As to the suitability of denim generally for a grown-up event designated "casual," I think it may depend upon the community (both geographic and social) -- of course assuming it's not a no-denim venue.  If nice denim is not considered acceptable in the relevant community, then there is no need to include "no jeans" on the invitation -- most of the guests know already (as they would here), and if there are a few who don't, then too bad -- you don't insult/micromanage all the others trying to make sure that not a single guest wears jeans, the same as you don't put "no tardiness."  If denim is considered appropriate in that community, then I honestly don't think that the hosts should be trying to forbid it at their otherwise casual party, just because they personally don't like that "casual" includes jeans in their community -- just like they shouldn't say "no short dresses" if they designate the party "black tie" and live in a community where women wear long or short dresses to black tie events, but happen to prefer that all the women wear long gowns.  If it means that much to them not to have anyone in jeans, then, if they live in such a community, they should call it "dressy" or "business casual" or something other than "casual."

As for the other end of the question, "no ties," I think that Peaches's point about stating things in the negative is spot on here.  "Ties not required" is much better.  Even if most people would figure that "no ties" means "ties not required," they wouldn't be 100% sure, and you can bet that if you wear a tie, there'd be at least one idiot telling you, "Hey, the invitation said no ties!"  (The conversation that would follow would resemble this string!)

By your own admission there is at least one "idiot" invited, so you can't say that everyone knows better. You can't assume that everyone "knows" anything. The invitation was worded to get the point across to a variety of different people.

[thedudeabides]

"No Ties, No Jeans" doesn't bother me in the least. It's communicating in a way the intended audience*  understands. I doubt many tweens/teens know what "business casual" or "yacht club" attire means.

*I'm assuming the guests are not adults.

As I posted above, the guests ARE adults -- some kids, but it's not a kids' party, it's an adult dinner dance, to which there are kids invited.  (I know this string has gotten long and you're not required to read all the posts before posting!)  Does that change your feeling?

The fact that so many people are saying that they like this wording specifically "because it gives guidance to kids," because kids have different standards of dress and can't really be expected to know the social language of "casual," "business casual," etc., underscores for me what's not so good about it for adults.  It implies that their social skills are those of children who can't be expected how to interpret a dress code without specific guidance.

Now that I think about it, I've seen something like this in practice.  If there are a lot of children invited to an adult-type event, sometimes people send them a separate invitation (like, if the children are invited for different hours than the adults -- e.g., pizza and games for the kids 6:30 - 8:00; dessert and dancing for everyone at 8:00 -- I guess it's A and B, but I for one am definitely NOT offended by not being included in the children's "before party"!).  Anyway, when they do that, people often include things like "please no jeans/shorts" or "no gifts" or other stuff that they don't put on the adult invitation.

As to the suitability of denim generally for a grown-up event designated "casual," I think it may depend upon the community (both geographic and social) -- of course assuming it's not a no-denim venue.  If nice denim is not considered acceptable in the relevant community, then there is no need to include "no jeans" on the invitation -- most of the guests know already (as they would here), and if there are a few who don't, then too bad -- you don't insult/micromanage all the others trying to make sure that not a single guest wears jeans, the same as you don't put "no tardiness."  If denim is considered appropriate in that community, then I honestly don't think that the hosts should be trying to forbid it at their otherwise casual party, just because they personally don't like that "casual" includes jeans in their community -- just like they shouldn't say "no short dresses" if they designate the party "black tie" and live in a community where women wear long or short dresses to black tie events, but happen to prefer that all the women wear long gowns.  If it means that much to them not to have anyone in jeans, then, if they live in such a community, they should call it "dressy" or "business casual" or something other than "casual."

As for the other end of the question, "no ties," I think that Peaches's point about stating things in the negative is spot on here.  "Ties not required" is much better.  Even if most people would figure that "no ties" means "ties not required," they wouldn't be 100% sure, and you can bet that if you wear a tie, there'd be at least one idiot telling you, "Hey, the invitation said no ties!"  (The conversation that would follow would resemble this string!)

What are you looking for at this point? Validation that the invitation was rude? Consensus seems pretty split on that so far. Ways to respond? Accept or decline as you see fit.

[bopper]

I would just say they want the boys to wear nice slacks and a dress shirt but no ties.

[magicdomino]

I like "no ties, no jeans."  "Casual dress" has too many interpretations -- just read the posts here.     Most people would include jeans as casual.  Some interpret regular jeans as casual and $300 jeans as business formal, even though a casual observer can't tell the difference (flip-flops can have a similar problem).  My office forbids blue jeans on (business) Casual Friday, but we can get away with newish black or other color jeans.

My interpretation of "yacht club" is a captain's hat and a Hawaiian shirt.   

[Winterlight]

To be honest if someone sent me an invite that said "casual" I would wear nice jeans because that is "casual."  "No Jeans" indicates that this is a step up from casual.  Also 13/13 year old kids most likely would not know the difference.

Ditto. Also, local culture may come into play- in Alaska, jeans would be a default for most unless told otherwise.

[Iris]

To be honest if someone sent me an invite that said "casual" I would wear nice jeans because that is "casual."  "No Jeans" indicates that this is a step up from casual.  Also 13/13 year old kids most likely would not know the difference.

Ditto. Also, local culture may come into play- in Alaska, jeans would be a default for most unless told otherwise.

I'm using your posts as the most recent example, so apologies if you feel singled out, but I'm confused by the number of people saying "Well they have to write 'no jeans' because if they wrote 'casual' people would come in jeans." I entirely agree because 'casual' as a dress code means that jeans and shorts are perfectly acceptable. There are about 15 dress codes in between 'casual' and 'formal', some of which include the 'no jeans, no tie' range.

I don't know, I just feel as though people are reinventing the wheel with their 'new and improved' dress codes. Not just reinventing the wheel but saying that they HAVE to because the old dress codes are 'just so confusing'. If people want to have cutesy dress codes on their invitations then that's completely fine and up to them, but it bothers me that accepted terms that have been in use for a long time are suddenly 'just too hard'.

So although this wouldn't overly bother me as such, I DO understand where gellchom is coming from. It is vaguely offensive to some people when people treat everybody at the 'lowest common denominator' level. There are perfectly clear definitions for the existing dress codes. Just because we personally may not know them doesn't mean that they don't exist or are confusing.

[Hmmmmm]

To be honest if someone sent me an invite that said "casual" I would wear nice jeans because that is "casual."  "No Jeans" indicates that this is a step up from casual.  Also 13/13 year old kids most likely would not know the difference.

Ditto. Also, local culture may come into play- in Alaska, jeans would be a default for most unless told otherwise.

I'm using your posts as the most recent example, so apologies if you feel singled out, but I'm confused by the number of people saying "Well they have to write 'no jeans' because if they wrote 'casual' people would come in jeans." I entirely agree because 'casual' as a dress code means that jeans and shorts are perfectly acceptable. There are about 15 dress codes in between 'casual' and 'formal', some of which include the 'no jeans, no tie' range.

I don't know, I just feel as though people are reinventing the wheel with their 'new and improved' dress codes. Not just reinventing the wheel but saying that they HAVE to because the old dress codes are 'just so confusing'. If people want to have cutesy dress codes on their invitations then that's completely fine and up to them, but it bothers me that accepted terms that have been in use for a long time are suddenly 'just too hard'.

So although this wouldn't overly bother me as such, I DO understand where gellchom is coming from. It is vaguely offensive to some people when people treat everybody at the 'lowest common denominator' level. There are perfectly clear definitions for the existing dress codes. Just because we personally may not know them doesn't mean that they don't exist or are confusing.

Iris, what existing dress code do you believe says dressier than jeans but suits/ties not required?  And I'm asking about a real dress code, not a made up one like "dressy casual" or "Hampton Chic".

I was talking with my DH about this last night.  He stated the problem is previous generations would never show up at an evening social event that didn't involve BBQ or Country Western dancing (yes, we are in Texas) in jeans.  After 6pm casual meant no suits. 

[blarg314]

I did a quick google for standard dress code listings, and got the following Emily Post guide http://www.emilypost.com/everyday-manners/your-personal-image/69-attire-guide-dress-codes

The only dress code that does not require a tie and does not allow jeans is "Business Casual", and it comes with a footnote to check your company's dress code. "Dressy casual" still list nice jeans and a dressy top as suitable for women but not men, interestingly enough.

So from a pure etiquette perspective, business casual may have worked, as long as the guests work for companies whose business casual definition is the same above.

[Iris]

To be honest if someone sent me an invite that said "casual" I would wear nice jeans because that is "casual."  "No Jeans" indicates that this is a step up from casual.  Also 13/13 year old kids most likely would not know the difference.

Ditto. Also, local culture may come into play- in Alaska, jeans would be a default for most unless told otherwise.

I'm using your posts as the most recent example, so apologies if you feel singled out, but I'm confused by the number of people saying "Well they have to write 'no jeans' because if they wrote 'casual' people would come in jeans." I entirely agree because 'casual' as a dress code means that jeans and shorts are perfectly acceptable. There are about 15 dress codes in between 'casual' and 'formal', some of which include the 'no jeans, no tie' range.

I don't know, I just feel as though people are reinventing the wheel with their 'new and improved' dress codes. Not just reinventing the wheel but saying that they HAVE to because the old dress codes are 'just so confusing'. If people want to have cutesy dress codes on their invitations then that's completely fine and up to them, but it bothers me that accepted terms that have been in use for a long time are suddenly 'just too hard'.

So although this wouldn't overly bother me as such, I DO understand where gellchom is coming from. It is vaguely offensive to some people when people treat everybody at the 'lowest common denominator' level. There are perfectly clear definitions for the existing dress codes. Just because we personally may not know them doesn't mean that they don't exist or are confusing.

Iris, what existing dress code do you believe says dressier than jeans but suits/ties not required?  And I'm asking about a real dress code, not a made up one like "dressy casual" or "Hampton Chic".

I was talking with my DH about this last night.  He stated the problem is previous generations would never show up at an evening social event that didn't involve BBQ or Country Western dancing (yes, we are in Texas) in jeans.  After 6pm casual meant no suits.

What about semi-formal? Also I have certainly been aware of "smart casual" for the last 30 odd years and my mother taught me about it, so it's certainly not recently made up. "Dressy casual" seems an oxymoron to me, frankly. I don't even know what "Hampton chic" is. I don't know, maybe this is an Australian versus the US thing, because I've never known anyone to have this problem ever. For us it goes casual-smart casual-semi formal-cocktail-black tie for social events. Jeans are not worn to smart casual. There are certain sidelines like 'garden party' or 'race day', but they are specific wear for a specific occasions (you wouldn't write them as dress codes, you just dress a specific way for those specific occasions). Business wear is of course separate.

I do understand what your DH is saying though. I remember telling a woman a funny story about my brother's childhood habit of chewing the necks of his t-shirts and her being horrified at the idea that he might do that to one of his 'good' t-shirts. I explained that in the 70s there was no such thing as a 'good' t-shirt. You would no more have gone out to dinner/church/friend's house for party with your child in a t-shirt than you would have turned up in mud spattered clothes.

[TootsNYC]

I can totally see people saying, "what do you mean, 'casual attire'?" And the hosts saying, "no ties will tell them one extreme; no jeans will tell them the other."

I think it's relatively descriptive, actually. It's how I might explain to my 15yo what the phrase "casual attire" means (I actually think "casual attire" *does* mean jeans).