or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Houses with 'No Shoe' Rules
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Houses with 'No Shoe' Rules - Page 17

post #241 of 541
My daughter just pooped on the floor . . . again. I cannot worry about shoes or no shoes at this time in our life.

Just trying to keep my carpets fairly sanitary until she is potty trained is enough worry about for now. shog[1].gif
post #242 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellgy View Post

My daughter just pooped on the floor . . . again. I cannot worry about shoes or no shoes at this time in our life.

Just trying to keep my carpets fairly sanitary until she is potty trained is enough worry about for now. shog[1].gif

Buy some laminated flooring...
post #243 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post


The bottom line of this entire discussion is that there is no way to politely impose your personal quirks on a social gathering, even a social gathering of two. Whether your personal preference is "better" is utterly and completely beside the point.

Note that this has nothing to say about whether shoes should be removed or not. But it does tell you how to decide. If, as a host, your guest -- or guests -- are more comfortable leaving their shoes on, then let them leave them on -- and leave yours on as well. If, however, your guests remove their shoes, then remove yours as well. And if you are going to go spare if a guest leaves his shoes on, don't invite people over.


It seems as though this debate is roughly split down the middle in terms of the views of posters. With that in mind, I don't think you can call a no shoes policy a "personal quirk" - it is a preferance that a sizeable number of people who have posted in this thread have. It is no more a "personal quirk" than someone wishing to leave their shoes on.

With regards to the "leave your shoes on if your guests do" approach - not sure I really see the rationale with this. How far do you take the analogy? If someone comes to my house for dinner and starts talking while they have their mouth full, should I start doing the same just to make them feel at ease? I'm sorry, but if a householder has certain basic principles they abide by they should not have to adjust them to accomodate whoever happens to be at their house from time to time.
post #244 of 541
This thread is essentially - "Someone invited me in to their home the other day, asked me to take off my shoes - I am offended by what this person would like done in their own home because it inconveniences my sartorial delight."

Hard to say there's a funnier thread in the whole forum, a bunch of man-children crying their fetishes aren't being embraced.
post #245 of 541
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by facet View Post


I don't see how you couldn't take this line of reasoning, reverse the references of "host" and "guest", and not have it be equally valid.
Because the host has invited the guest into his home -- the reverse is not the case -- and the two are equals ... not parent and child.

That said, out of courtesy I did my best to accommodate the host.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post

If you were to officially meet the Queen of England you would be coached on how to behave in front of the Queen, whether it be to kneel or bow or whatever.Her house, her rules.

My house my rules too. What's good enough for the Queen of England is good enough for me.
Now I've heard it all. That's amusing.

Btw, Her Majesty is not acting as a 'person' but as a head of state. She represents the entire country, not herself. One is not introduced to her at an official event ... one is presented. That being so, one is not really a 'guest' in her home. One is coached on how to behave before the nation ... not an individual.

In a private setting things would be quite different.

But I'll add this ... I've been presented to the Queen on several occasions and one does not remove his shoes. Of course there was that Bavarian princess who asked me to remove my shoes ... and my coat ... and my shirt ... and I best stop before I say too much.
Edited by RSS - 8/30/11 at 10:03am
post #246 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSS View Post

Now I've heard it all.

Btw, Her Majesty is not acting as a 'person' but as a head of state. She represents the entire country, not herself. One is not introduced to her at an official event ... one is presented. That being so, one is not really a 'guest' in her home. One is coached on how to behave before the nation ... not an individual.

It was the thought that counts.
Quote:
In a private setting things would be quite different.

If the Queen passed wind, would it be appropriate for her guests to pass wind too? I feel as not.
Quote:
I've been presented to the Queen on several occasions and one does not remove his shoes.

What were you instructed to do or say? lurker[1].gif
post #247 of 541
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post

What were you instructed to do or say? lurker[1].gif
I realize you are goading me ... but ... I'm feeling playful today.

One is advised to respond 'briefly' in answer to her question/s ... and not to ask questions in return.
Edited by RSS - 8/30/11 at 11:00am
post #248 of 541
But I'll add this ... I've been presented to the Queen on several occasions and one does not remove his shoes. Of course there was that Bavarian princess who asked me to remove my shoes ... and my coat ... and my shirt ... and I best stop before I say too much.
[/quote]

Was he a doctor?
post #249 of 541
You feel good walking around someone's house putting the dog shit and scum that is on the bottom of your shoe onto their floors?
post #250 of 541
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OakCreekHitter View Post

You feel good walking around someone's house putting the dog shit and scum that is on the bottom of your shoe onto their floors?
I certainly would not enter a home with such things on my shoes. But when it comes to wearing shoes inside ... to paraphrase Leona: The finest homes in the world don't worry about this. Why should you?

Leona.jpg

Btw, I think that most hosts may reasonably assume that a guest entering their home will care enough to ensure that the shoes on his feet are sufficiently clean. I think it also fair that the guest be able to assume that the host takes sufficient care to keep his floors reasonably clean.
Edited by RSS - 8/30/11 at 8:52pm
post #251 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by facet View Post


I don't see how you couldn't take this line of reasoning, reverse the references of "host" and "guest", and not have it be equally valid.

Sigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post


No it is not.
If you were to officially meet the Queen of England you would be coached on how to behave in front of the Queen, whether it be to kneel or bow or whatever. Her house, her rules.
My house my rules too. What's good enough for the Queen of England is good enough for me.

You could not have made a worse point to support your position. First, what RSS points out is correct. Second, while it is true that many people are coached before meeting the Queen or, indeed, any member of the royal family, the coaching is for their benefit, not the Queen's. Most people, at least in England, want to behave properly in a social situation. They feel more comfortable knowing what is considered correct in what, for them, may be an unusual situation. But if you do not bow correctly or address the Queen incorrectly, I guarantee you that you will not be beaten with pikestaffs by those guys in the big furry hats nor will the Queen acknowledge your faux pas in any way. Queen Elizabeth is extremely gracious and, after a lifetime of public service, thoroughly unflappable. The most cutting public comment she ever allows herself is "How unusual!" And this is usually reserved for behavior that would have sent you to the Tower in an earlier age.

I do admit, however, that if you were to start removing your shoes on being presented to the Queen, you probably would be hustled out of the presence. This is not because you were rude but because you would be viewed as mentally unstable and as a possible security threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellgy View Post

My daughter just pooped on the floor . . . again.

Thank you for raising a point of total unanimity. I think everyone in this thread agrees that we will all wear shoes at your house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by facet View Post


I don't see how you couldn't take this line of reasoning, reverse the references of "host" and "guest", and not have it be equally valid.

I need to return to this. We have reached a sad pass when even iGents are confusing social invitations with concert tickets. "THIS CONTRACT LIMITS OUR LIABILITY. READ IT."

A social invitation is not a business transaction. Because the host is the host, and, if you want to be crude about it, has all the power, it is the host that is ultimately responsible for the guest's comfort. Guests, in turn, are obligated to be as agreeable as possible so that the host does not have to unreasonable exert himself on the guest's behalf. When everyone involved is focussed on ensuring that everyone around them enjoys themselves, an extraordinarily good time is had by all. Sadly, as evidenced in this thread -- as if we needed any more evidence -- this social convention is rarely understood and even more rarely practiced.

The "My House, My Rules" people are essentially viewing an invitation to their house as a business transaction. When leasing out a property, it is perfectly respectable to negotiate all sorts of specific terms and conditions about how the property is to be used. But it is extremely rude to meet a "guest" at the door of your house with a contract and waiver of liability for him to sign outlining the agreed uses of the premises. If you think a guest has behaved rudely in your house, do not invite him back, even if your definition of "rude" is completely eccentric. But trying to impose your specific list of "Do's and Dont's" as a condition of entry is -- and Miss Manners says so, so there is just no arguing about it -- rude.
post #252 of 541
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post

Was he a doctor?
No ... but assuming your pronoun is correct ... he may well have been a queen ... not The Queen ... but a queen.
post #253 of 541
I have not read this thread, but I find it irritating having to take off my shoes in people's houses. Especially when their place doesn't have great flooring, or is messy/dirty to begin with. I just don't like not having trees in my shoes and also when they take the shoes and put them in a pile somewhere. It scuffs them up and such. Then, I don't have my shoe horn to get them back on. Frankly, I take better care of my shoes than most people do with their homes. Not to mention I feel that leather soles stay pretty darn clean. A lot cleaner than shoes with rubber treads of some sort.

My girlfriend has this policy and I always roll my eyes at her when I walk into her place. I found it ironic that one day she was at my place and commented on how the bottoms of her feet never get dirty at my place like they do at hers.
post #254 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

I do admit, however, that if you were to start removing your shoes on being presented to the Queen, you probably would be hustled out of the presence. This is not because you were rude but because you would be viewed as mentally unstable and as a possible security threat.

lol8[1].gif
post #255 of 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I have not read this thread,.

Patrick you're cheating. Misery loves company. Just you go back to page 1. Some amusing posts along the way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Houses with 'No Shoe' Rules