"No Ties, No Jeans" notation on invitation

[LifeOnPluto]

I still think the range is not immediately apparent, from merely stating "No jeans, no ties".

I'm curious - if an eHellion posted a thread about receiving a "no jeans, no ties" invitation, and wrote that they wore a nice pair of dress shorts and clean t-shirt, would people think they were rude / clueless? Or would people think that they were perfectly ok, since they did technically abide by the terms of the dress code?

[Venus193]

Rude.  Shorts are obviously more casual than jeans.  While that person may have stuck to the letter of the description, it's a violation of the spirit.

[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.

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.

I think I may have been warped by the Emily Post books that were part of our households from an early childhood. I just confirmed per the website that semi-formal is a dark suit which is why the term didn't seem to fit for me. I do agree business casual is the closest standard description for me, but I have ran into a ton of people who's company allow nice, dressy jeans as part of their business casual attire. 

But I am also a little sad right now because I just saw on the Emily Post site they do refer to dressy casual, which is a term I do not like.  And according to their definition, the no ties, no jeans would fit into that criteria. 

Can we start a grass roots movement to change that term?

[kareng57]

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.

While I understand where you're coming from - I kind of liken it to having reply-cards with pre-written and stamped envelopes with wedding invitations.  They're technically incorrect, and I understand why.  It can be seen as an implication that the invitees are too boorish to reply on their own, using their own stationery and postage.

However, I (30+ years ago) used them, and I've honestly never received a wedding invitation that did not include them.  People have become accustomed to them and yes, there are still people who won't understand that a reply is desired unless it's spelled-out this way.  And we can't ignore the fact that our own small towns are becoming more global every day.  30 or 40 years ago it might have been possible to have a casual-dress affair and be certain that no one would show up in jeans.  That really is not the case anymore.  While I personally would never consider wearing jeans to an event such as in the OP - it wouldn't even occur to me to feel offended.

As an aside - my DS#1 and his fiancee are marrying next year.  While we're a long way from sending invitations - they're strongly considering the term "adult reception".  I did inform that this is technically incorrect - however, it does seem that quite a few relatives from her side assume that children are always automatically included.  (If they do sent out invitations stating that, it won't be with my approval).  But overall - sometimes it can be best to spell-things-out (even when preaching to the choir) than to risk future embarrassment.

Oh, and to add - the wedding dinner will be a buffet.  So there would not be any opportunity to indicate something like 3 chicken dinners, 1 steak dinner when the invitation was addressed to the two parents - if there was, the hosts would be faced with making a possibly-embarassing phone call.  With a buffet, there's the scenario that the parents would simply show up with their kids in tow.

[MariaE]

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.

Okay, I'll bite. I'm an adult and I think the wording is perfect. Casual to me indicates jeans are okay. Business casual to me indicates that both dressy jeans and ties are okay. Semi-formal (as a PP suggested) would indicate to me that ties are expected - possibly even required.

"No jeans, no ties" - not this low, not this high. Perfect!

[Redneck Gravy]

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.

Okay, I'll bite. I'm an adult and I think the wording is perfect. Casual to me indicates jeans are okay. Business casual to me indicates that both dressy jeans and ties are okay. Semi-formal (as a PP suggested) would indicate to me that ties are expected - possibly even required.

"No jeans, no ties" - not this low, not this high. Perfect!

me too

[Winterlight]

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.

Okay, I'll bite. I'm an adult and I think the wording is perfect. Casual to me indicates jeans are okay. Business casual to me indicates that both dressy jeans and ties are okay. Semi-formal (as a PP suggested) would indicate to me that ties are expected - possibly even required.

"No jeans, no ties" - not this low, not this high. Perfect!

me too

Thirded.

[Sophia]

...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).

My 40+ year-old husband thinks it means shorts.  We had arguments until laid down the law that if I am expected to wear pantyhose, he is expected to wear pants. 

I remember back when we had a wedding section here.  Some people said they felt insulted when a stamped return envelope was included.  That it was implying they don't have envelopes and stamps.  But, at some point, it crosses past insult into statement of fact.  I own envelopes but they are buried deep.  Every time I mail something I have to look up the current stamp price on the internet.  I think it has reached the same point with dress codes.  They need to be more explicit than in the past.

[Miss Unleaded]

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.

Oh gosh.  Maybe it's because I'm from rural Queensland: I know a whole bunch of people who would wear jeans for 'smart casual', but at least they would iron them!

[Honeypickle]

When I was in my 20s, a lot of party invites said "Dress to Impress". We understood that to mean no jeans but also not tie and shirt wear.

It's hard to describe but we understood that as "attractive party wear" (certainly not "Business Casual") and definitely not denim. However this is approx 10 years ago and people didn't wear jeans out socially as much as they do now (in London).

[Iris]

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.

Oh gosh.  Maybe it's because I'm from rural Queensland: I know a whole bunch of people who would wear jeans for 'smart casual', but at least they would iron them!

True. I should have said "Temperate Australia". Queensland, NT, North WA and the desert areas get to make their own rules. I've been there and the only dress rule I followed was "Geez it's hot"  . When I visited Cairns the humidity was so high that if you had asked me to wear pantyhose I'd've made you eat them.

[Shoo]

I understand about the "no jeans" thing.  But I don't understand "no ties."  The hosts are worried about guests looking too nice?  That makes no sense to me at all.  I get that they want their guests to dress in a certain way, but they are being far too restrictive, IMO.  I think pointing out that jeans are inappropriate is all that's necessary.  If some of the men want to wear ties, or the ladies want to wear dresses, he party will be full of nicely dressed people.  I don't understand the problem with that.

[Mikayla]

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!)

I guess this is a minority opinion, but I completely agree with you and peaches on the negativity issue.  It reminds me of invites I get that say "adult reception only".   The word "only" hits me wrong because it sounds exclusionary but, more important, it's redundant!  "Adult reception to follow" says the same thing.

Anyway, I'd think there has to be a term among your region/age group/whatever that would work to describe this.  In my neck of the woods, this would be business casual.  And if I ever got something that said "no tie", I'd take that literally to mean don't wear a tie, not as "tie optional".  And that becomes a strange request.

[kareng57]

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!)

I guess this is a minority opinion, but I completely agree with you and peaches on the negativity issue.  It reminds me of invites I get that say "adult reception only".   The word "only" hits me wrong because it sounds exclusionary but, more important, it's redundant!  "Adult reception to follow" says the same thing.

Anyway, I'd think there has to be a term among your region/age group/whatever that would work to describe this.  In my neck of the woods, this would be business casual.  And if I ever got something that said "no tie", I'd take that literally to mean don't wear a tie, not as "tie optional".  And that becomes a strange request.

While I definitely agree with you - OTOH I could understand (not condone, but understand) a HC using the term "adult reception only" if they know-their-audience, so-to-speak.  Some clueless folks really do need to be hit-over-the-head with stuff like this, in a manner of speaking.  They might interpret "adult reception" to mean "children optional".  The term only would get the message across more firmly.  Of course there are no guarantees - we all know parents who would interpret this as meaning "all children except their children"...

[gellchom]

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!)

I guess this is a minority opinion, but I completely agree with you and peaches on the negativity issue.  It reminds me of invites I get that say "adult reception only".   The word "only" hits me wrong because it sounds exclusionary but, more important, it's redundant!  "Adult reception to follow" says the same thing.

Anyway, I'd think there has to be a term among your region/age group/whatever that would work to describe this.  In my neck of the woods, this would be business casual.  And if I ever got something that said "no tie", I'd take that literally to mean don't wear a tie, not as "tie optional".  And that becomes a strange request.

While I definitely agree with you - OTOH I could understand (not condone, but understand) a HC using the term "adult reception only" if they know-their-audience, so-to-speak.  Some clueless folks really do need to be hit-over-the-head with stuff like this, in a manner of speaking.  They might interpret "adult reception" to mean "children optional".  The term only would get the message across more firmly.  Of course there are no guarantees - we all know parents who would interpret this as meaning "all children except their children"...

And I would find it kind of confusing, at least at first.  I admit that when I saw "adult reception only" I thought for a moment it meant that adults were only invited to the reception; children were invited to both the ceremony and the reception!  I figured it out quickly, and I'm sure all guests would.  I think it's an awkward wording; maybe they were trying to avoid the more syntactically natural "adults-only reception" because it sounds like it's rated X or something?     But even if there aren't ultimately going to be any mistakes, you don't really want any of your guests' first impression to be, "Huh?  Oh, I get it."

Mikayla, I think you made an excellent point (bolded)!  There may not, at least not yet, be an etiquette-recognized term equivalent to "black tie" (although we know even that has regional variations).  But I bet you're right that in most cases there will be a term that you know that your invitees will understand.  Around here, it would be "dressy casual."  I don't like it, lots of us here don't like it, but there it is, and I think that if these hosts had used it, they'd have gotten what they were aiming for.  Perhaps a few people in ties, but not with a jacket, let alone a suit, and maybe even some denim, but only as part of a very appropriate, dressed-up-enough-for-a-nice-restaurant outfit.  But so what -- they would have gotten the look for their party that they want, and that's really as specific as they should be.  Other places, other terms would be commonly understood.

If there are a few people that you think need more guidance to understand something like "casual" not meaning sloppy T shirts and cutoffs, you can somehow get into a what-are-you-wearing conversation sometime if they live nearby, or for those who don't, perhaps an email to the effect of "Just as a heads-up -- I know the term "casual" varies so much by community; around here it means a step up from jeans, but no ties necessary."