Errors of Perfect Propriety in James Cameron's "Titanic," Vol. 11, Issue 8

Ladies and gentlemen of Discernment are observing the centennial of the sinking of the RMS Titanic this weekend. Please note Etiquetteer's choice of verb; one does not "celebrate" the death of over 1,500 people. The rerelease of director James Cameron's epic, Oscar-winning, fictional account of the disaster at this time is also cause to note the many errors of period manners scripted into the film. Some, of course, were added for effect, such as the gigantic array of silverware at Jack Dawson's place in the first-class dining saloon. Others are just plain mistakes not likely to be caught or contemplated by the film's key audience - emotional 14-year-old girls. So, kindly bear with Etiquetteer during this exercise. (Etiquetteer is really doing his best to remain focused on etiquette errors, rather than errors of fact. For instance, Rose points out Benjamin Guggenheim in the first class dining saloon with his mistress, Madame Aubart. But Madame Aubart's ticket didn't include meals, so she (and presumably Mr. Guggenheim) would have dined in the a la carte restaurant. You see Etiquetteer's dilemma.)

There are two overarching Errors of Perfect Propriety throughout the film. First, Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) never wears a hat on board ship when other ladies are hatted. For all Etiquetteer knows, it was part of Ms. Winslet's contract only to wear that stunning black hat when boarding the ship. But a young lady of the Main Line traveling to her wedding would have been properly dressed -- especially when traveling with her fierce mother (Frances Fisher).

Naughty naughty! While smoking was certainly not Perfectly Proper for ladies in 1912, not even gentlemen would smoke at the table.

Second, passengers are smoking all over the ship, when in fact smoking would have been confined to smoking rooms in each class. This happens so much Etiquetteer doesn't even want to enumerate the instances, but the most egregious Lapse of Perfect Propriety occurs when Cal Hockley (Billy Zane) tries to light up in the first-class dining saloon, leading Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) to toss him a box of matches. Well-bred gentlemen never smoked in the presence of ladies at this time. It would take World War I to lead people to break down barriers about smoking. (Rose would have known that the only Perfectly Proper place to smoke was the first-class smoking room. Allegedly men only, it is said that the Titanic's smoking room was penetrated by Mrs. Henry B. Harris and Charlotte Cardeza at least once.)

And now, some specific errors:

• The costumers decided to ignore the cold hard fact of the cold hard temperatures of the mid-Atlantic in April. Everyone on deck is underdressed for the weather! There should be a lot more fur coats, knitted caps, shawls, etc. than one sees. Jack Dawson ought to have frostbite and chilblains after that whole "I'm king of the world!" thing.

• Trudy Bolt (Amy Gaipa), the lady's maid for Rose and her mother, is shown incorrectly wearing a maid's uniform. A lady's maid had sufficient status as a servant to wear her own (very plain) clothes while traveling, without an apron. She was also properly addressed by her last name, not her first, the same way a butler is called by his last name. It's worth noting that the Titanic included a private lounge for the servants of first-class passengers.

• In real life, Margaret Brown (Kathy Bates) was much more accepted in Best Society. The whole "Unsinkable Molly Brown" thing got started after her death.

• As Mrs. Brown passes Rose and her mother to the elevator, we see the latter ladies in full evening dress on the way to the dining saloon. What the writers have failed to remember is that no one dressed for dinner on the first night out, or the last. Presumably this was because one's servants were still unpacking, or packing. Anyone showing up in full dress on the first night would have been pegged as a parvenu on his or her first appearance.

• During the first dinner scene in the first-class dining saloon, a gentleman sitting next to Mrs. Dewitt Bukater is seen gesturing with his oyster fork. Well-bred ladies and gentlemen were taught (and should still be taught) never to gesture with their utensils! You could put someone's eye out at worst, or even propel a gobbet of food onto someone's clothes.

• Etiquetteer recognizes that it's necessary for the plot, but the idea of a young gentleman going into his fiancée's bedroom in his pajamas ... gracious sakes! Even having them share a suite like that is stretching Perfect Propriety, especially since it appears her mother is not sharing her stateroom.

• Only the vulgar seek out such large stones ... which explains the Duchess of Windsor.

• "Philadelphia Society" is not correct. "Main Line Society" is correct.

• J. Bruce Ismay, smoking in the Palm Court. Not possible! He would only have done so in the smoking room (see above).

• That whole spitting lesson thing absolutely strains credulity.

• At a dinner table that large, conversation would not have been general, simply because one would have to shout to be heard at the other end of the table (and this was a public dining room). One talked one's neighbor on one side during the first course and the other side during the next course, alternating throughout the meal. This is called "turning the table" and if done properly means that no one is left out of the conversation.

• Oh, Etiquetteer does love Frances Fisher! God bless the grandes dames of yore, who knew how to put a climber in the proper place.

• It would have been much too cold for Rose to breakfast on that private promenade deck in that practically sleeveless negligée.

• Inconceivable that Rose would make a "splendid gesture" like that to a servant.

Thank you for indulging Etiquetteer in this little exercise.

Easter Traditions, Vol. 3, Issue 14

This column was originally published April 10, 2004, and updated April 13, 2019.

Dear Etiquetteer:

Here's an Easter horror show that needs your help. My parents traditionally host an Easter dinner at their home and all their brood arrive for the egg hunt and madcap capers on the lawn such as tug of war, egg throws, relays with eggs upon a spoon, etc. For such a fun day of activities my siblings bring along their spouses, significant others, and sometimes a close friend.

Last year I brought my friend "Priscilla". "Priscilla" didn't wish to inconvenience her hosts and therefore asked me to not mention to my mother, the one slaving away in the kitchen, that she is a vegetarian. Well, lamb is the traditional meal at Easter, and my mother each year prepares a tasty one complete with a light gravy and mint sauce. Yum!

Anyway, as the least known guest at the dinner table my mother proudly set the plate of lamb beside "Priscilla" so that she could admire and receive the first slices. While the family said grace my friend gazed sadly at the steaming lamb and began to cry, at first quietly and then in great sobs, overcome with grief that fine Christians were celebrating the resurrection of their Savior with the sacrifice of an innocent, sweet, woolly lamb. The offending dish was moved away and after a trip to the bathroom and some comforting in the hall she was able to pull herself together. For the rest of us, the dinner, especially the meat course, was ruined.

Was my friend over sensitive and inconsiderate to make such a scene? Should I have informed my mother of my friend's dietary needs despite my friend's protest? Will my mother ever let me invite a friend to dinner again?

Dear Lady Black Sheep:

Sounds like your friend failed in her mission not to inconvenience the hosts.

Really, a simple “No, thank you, I don’t eat meat” was all that was needed.

Great Deity of Your Choice above, if your friend cannot control herself more, she will really have to remain at home. Etiquetteer cannot excuse her lack of control after having received a signal mark of honor from your mother. It’s a little like being served the sheep’s eye in certain Middle Eastern cultures. To refuse it is the height of rudeness, no matter how revolting one finds it. This is not to say that "Priscilla" is obliged to eat the lamb offered to her; in the United States most people respect the wishes of vegetarians.

The real lesson here, Lady Black Sheep, is always work with a hostess who is entertaining strangers. One never knows when one may be avoiding a fatal allergy instead of a dietary preference. And in this case an appalling scene could have been avoided.

Etiquetteer thinks it would be a Lovely Gesture on the part of "Priscilla" to send flowers and an Abject Note of Apology to your mother for destroying your family’s holiday, and that you might send your mother flowers, too. Since one of the great themes of Christianity is forgiveness, Etiquetteer hopes and expects that your mother will again allow you to bring guests to your family Easter.

Dear Etiquetteer:

As a child growing up in the south Easter was a wonderful celebration of Sunday School, white pique coats, baskets of goodies and flowers all over. And Easter dinner always featured a wonderful baked ham, homemade rolls, and hand-cranked ice cream. Of course, growing up changed a lot of that but not the Easter dinner to be shared.

Now, here's my latter-day problem. My good Jewish friends have invited me to share a Seder. It was a great experience hearing the traditional messages and enjoying a wonderful array of fine food. I would love to extend an invitation to them to share our feast but these friends are devout Jews who keep Kosher and I do not know how to feed them. My Christian table will include not only ham but also flour, dairy, and a host of other things. At Christmas, I chicken out (pardon the pun) and host a meal at a restaurant but I would so like to share our traditions.

Dear Share and Share Alike:

Knowing you as he does, Etiquetteer understands your heartfelt desire to reciprocate the invitation of your friends to share something equally meaningful. But alas, Etiquetteer can think of no greater insult than to ask Orthodox Jews to sit down to a table with a glistening pink ham on it. That’s the most familiar of all the Jewish dietary laws: no pork. It would not create the impression you desire.

Not being Jewish, Etiquetteer found it necessary to consult an Orthodox friend, who strongly advised against any invitation at all – though she, too, recognizes the spirits of reciprocity and hospitality that motivate you. If they keep strict dietary laws, they won't be able to eat at all. In addition, she explained that the Easter holiday has different connotations for Jews, as it was on Easter when Christians historically enacted pogroms against them. As her Brooklyn-born husband says, "Ah, Easter, the holiday when I'd get beat up."

Etiquetteer might suggest as a compromise an Easter Monday gathering, where you might recycle your lovely decorations and serve a kosher version of your traditional menu.

Dear Etiquetteer:

Would you like to know how a "mixed" household handles celebrating Passover and Easter? We don't celebrate Easter in our house. Since my husband isn't Jewish, his mother's house is where the Easter Bunny comes.

Now we don't expect Grandma to cover this. We just want to establish the difference in holidays that often overlap. We often buy a few sweets, we reuse plastic eggs and our young son has a metal Easter basket. We fill the eggs at night and deliver them to Grandma. Grandma helps us hide them a few days in advance and we're ready for the big day.

This all works out well with a young child. We usually get him a small present, like an inexpensive kite or something he can play with in the bathtub. We buy the gifts and supplies, and Grandma loves hosting the event. This has worked well for the last three years. We also clean up any gift-wrap or wayward grass that always seems to come out of the basket.

Next year, have a column about Passover traditions and how to stay yeast and leavened free for a week!

Dear Separate But Equal:

Thank you for providing one example of how a blended family manages two different traditions. Every family – even those in which both sides celebrate the same religious holidays – has to find ways to spend time with each set of relatives. Etiquetteer is particularly glad you found a way to involve your sweet widowed mother-in-law; this Easter solution must help forge a special bond between her and your son.

St. Patrick's Day, Vol 11, Issue 7

Today is St. Patrick's Day, when everyone can claim to be Irish. Perfect Propriety takes a bigger hit on St. Patrick's Day than any other day in the American calendar, what with so many people using its parades and whatnot as a cover for Excess Alcohol Consumption. Etiquetteer has a few observations to make:

• Mixed greens are suitable for a salad, but not your St. Patrick's Day "Wearin' of the Green." Please don't wear clashing shades of green. Kelly, olive, chartreuse, and day-glo look vile together. Remember, only blue-greens with blue-greens, and yellow-greens with yellow-greens.

• In the last 30 years St. Patrick's Day has become a forum for homophobia in some communities. So let us not forget that it was the late Oscar Wilde who made the green carnation boutonniere a symbol for men of "the Wilde sort." "That sort" can now wear their carnations with a difference.

• As the child of a Southern community with no Irish heritage, Etiquetteer grew up with only two St. Patrick's Day traditions: 1) wear green, and 2) pinch people who are not wearing green. And yet the tradition of pinching is unknown in certain Irish-American communities. If you're determined to go around pinching the greenless on St. Patrick's Day, remember that it's all in fun! Don't inflict pain, and don't let that be your purpose.

• It's been suggested that the Irish should be exempt from pinching. Etiquetteer suggests that Irish who forget to wear green on St. Patrick's Day should be pinched twice.

• If you're not wearing green, do not claim that you have on green undergarments. This is only an invitation for Rude Questions to prove your honesty, and quite possibly an Indecent Assault. (Of course, if that's what you really want, Etiquetteer has to wonder why you're even reading an etiquette column in the first place.)

• Etiquetteer was taught early on, once moving North, that the only thing one must not do on St. Patrick's Day is wear orange. In some communities such attire is an invitation to violence. Etiquetteer hopes all the Syracuse University alumni will be safe today.

Finally, Public Drunkenness is overrated, and it is certainly not Perfectly Proper. Please drink with Perfect Propriety this St. Patrick's Day by obeying all local laws and law enforcement.

Signs of the Times, Vol. 11, Issue 6

Occasionally Etiquetteer finds worthy of comment Instructional Signs of varying degrees of Perfect Propriety that have been posted to direct one's behavior.

First, from a convenience store in Boston, Massachusetts, a profane suggestion to discontinue using one's cellphone before approaching the cashier.

While Etiquetteer certainly sympathizes with the staff - it is difficult to serve people who are actively ignoring you by conducting a phone conversation during a transaction - this sign exemplifies "service with a snarl."

Next, from a public accommodation in Boston, Massachusetts, a moment of gentle humor to remind pet owners that their pets, while surely the most well-behaved pets one can imagine, are still against the law in this particular accommdation.

Then, in a school cafeteria in Michigan, Etiquetteer found this:

To which Etiquetteer can only respond "Thank you, I'll just have coffee." How extremely sad that it's even necessary to post such a sign.

Etiquetteer wishes he could remember the exact locale where this sign was placed:

Etiquetteer can only imagine that a team of destructive acrobats colonized a restroom once for someone to create this sign. The reference to the broken handle proves that the budgets of small towns are being stretched. Still, an injection of levity with the substitution of "Thou Shalt NOT" for "DO NOT" might have helped.

Lastly, from the Basilica of Sacre Coeur in Paris:

This translates "Silence, Correct Dress, No Photography, Thank You." Etiquetteer is pleased to report that, when visiting this remarkable place in 2011, visitors did indeed observe all these rules.

Please direct your etiquette queries to Etiquetteer at queries <at> etiquetteer.com.

George Washington 2.0, Vol. 11, Issue 5

In honor of Presidents Day, and the Father of our Country's birthday on February 22, Etiquetteer is going to update parts of George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation. Etiquetteer bets you didn't even know George Washington wrote an etiquette book! He copied 110 maxims when he was only 14. Several of these have to do with precedence and are, shall we say, overly exaggerated for the 21st century. But others remain classic at the core, and need to be restated. For instance:

GW 1.0: "7th, Put not off your clothes in the presence of others, nor go out of your chamber half-dressed.

GW 2.0: The idea is, you show respect for others by looking put together in public. Don't leave the house until you're completely dressed; for ladies this means completely made up, too. No one should have to see these things in action: mascara wands, buttons, belts, and especially underwear. Say no to the fashion of sagging! Say no to gaposis! And, as Etiquetteer mentioned earlier this year, don't wear your pajamas in public!

GW 1.0: "18th, Read no letters, books, or papers in company; but when there is necessity for the doing of it, you must ask leave."

GW 2.0: George's essential truth is still sound, that the person with you in person is more important than the person with you through another medium. Do not text or take or make phone calls in the presence of others, especially at the table, unless you ask permission first. This is especially difficult at table, or in a car, when your prisoners - um, Etiquetteer means companions - might be unable to continue talking themselves while waiting on you.

GW 1.0: "22nd, Show not yourself glad at the misfortune of another, though he were your enemy" and "23rd, When you see a crime punished, you may be inwardly pleased, but always show pity to the suffering offender."

GW 2.0: Refrain from flaming on online comment boards, especially anonymously. It's no surprise that people give in to their baser instincts when their identities are concealed. Such behavior does, however, brand one a coward.This is only one reason you'll never see a comment board here at etiquetteer.com (not that readers of Etiquetteer behave that way, of course.)

GW 1.0: "48th, Wherein you reprove another be unblameable yourself, for example is more prevalent than precept."

GW 2.0: Simply put, "Practice what you preach." It is very bad form, for instance, to advocate for the sanctity of marriage when one has been divorced, and certainly when one has been divorced more than once.

GW 1.0: "50th, Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement of any" and "79th, Be not apt to relate news if you know not the truth thereof."

GW 2.0: Don't trust what you read on the Internet and do your own research. Sad to say, partisans on every side of the political spectrum, in their eagerness to paint as dark a picture as possible of their opponents, do not adhere as zealously to Truth as they ought. Inflammatory email that gets circulated and recirculated, charts and graphs that appear on social media such as Facebook, more often than not contain errors of fact, bald or nuanced. All this has led Etiquetteer to take refuge in the pages of The Economist.

GW 1.0: "110th, Labour to keep alive in your breast the little celestial fire called conscience."

GW 2.0: No change needed for GW 2.0. This little phrase still summarizes the entire book perfectly.

Tardiness, Vol. 11, Issue 4

Dear Etiquetteer: I am late. Woefully late. Inexcusably late.

I am about a week late on returning an e-mail and about three weeks late on returning a phone call. Most frustrating, I am about a month and a half late on returning a corrected item to a customer. As you may have assumed, I am self-employed.

I have reasons for these delays largely surrounding a family medical emergency. However, being late is still impolite and unprofessional. At this point, I am afraid even to interact with these people out of embarrassment.

Better late than never is the refrain, isn't it? How exactly does one approach, apologize for, and move on from the lack of any semblance of propriety?

Dear Tardy:

Fear makes everything worse. A dear friend of Etiquetteer's once asked the question "Well, what's the worst thing that could happen?" He would walk himself through an exercise of the worst thing that could happen if he did or did not take a particular action or respond to a particular problem. He would deliberately bring this chain of circumstances to an end at the point where he was living in a box underneath the stairs of a busy subway station. This usually brought home the absurdity of his reluctance to take action.

What is true is that any further delay will compromise your professional reputation. Make the decision to respond to the customers in question today, adding only, "A family emergency has taken me away from my work. I apologize for not letting you know about this sooner." It is not necessary to provide additional information about the emergency in question. If asked for specifics, you need only say something like "Everything's been taken care of" or "The situation has stabilized. Thank you for your concern." Then give them a deadline when you will respond to their requests, and be sure to honor it.

Most people do tend to be sympathetic in such circumstances. Now go forth in confidence!

Air Travel, Vol. 11, Issue 3

Dear Etiquetteer: I happen to be an "above average" sized individual who was fortunate enough to get to spend a month overseas.  The flight over was wonderful as I had first/business class accommodations and the design of that particular aircraft was such that there were only single seats at the sides (bulkhead) and double seats in the middle.  I had a window seat so my size was not really an issue except for my own comfort.  Coming back, however, I still had first/business class accommodations, but the design of this aircraft didn't include single seats anywhere.  I ended up with a seat next to a gentleman who was obviously used to flying "solo" and enjoyed his creature comforts.  As I was one of the last to board I ended up having to get settled into place after he was already seated and settled.  I managed to get my bag stored overhead and crammed myself into the window seat and buckled in.  A short time later the flight attendant came back and apologized to my seat partner, of which neither of us had spoken to the other, stating that there were no other seats available in first class for him to move to.

This leads me to my dilemma.  It was quite obvious to me that my seatmate was in all likelihood not pleased at the fact that this "above average" sized person was seated beside him.  Being self conscious about such a thing, I tended to keep myself pressed as tightly to the bulkhead as possible, which made for a very cramped and uncomfortable 8-1/2 hour flight home.  In a situation such as this should I offer up an apology to the seat partner, try to be a congenial seat partner and engage in some form of polite conversation even if only briefly or do as I did and try to make my "above average size" as minute as possible and miserable?

Dear Seated:

First of all, Etiquetteer isn't entirely sure your size is the issue. Everything you've indicated about this man's demeanor indicates that he'd rather have no passenger at all in the next seat, of whatever size. Indeed, he sounds like a First Class Pain in the Neck! He only paid for one seat, after all. But Etiquetteer cannot fault him for appealing privately to the attendant for a change of seat; such requests are often made in Coach, too, and for a variety of reasons. He may even have felt that you would be more comfortable with an empty seat next to you, too.

Etiquetteer recognizes your awareness of your size, and sympathizes. But Etiquetteer can see no reason for you to apologize. You were occupying a seat for which you had a ticket, just like every other passenger on board. As for conversation, Etiquetteer is one of those air travelers who prefers to be Left Alone. The only thing worse than agonizing over what to say is being forced to listen to a total stranger you cannot avoid. Aside from the Unavoidables -- such as "Would you excuse me please?" or "Here, let me get out of your way" or "May I reach down your suitcase?" or "Quick, the barf bag, I'm gonna be sick!" -- Etiquetteer wishes everyone would let Silence Be Golden during the flight.

Etiquetteer received the following response to last week's column about Tim Thomas Declining an Invitation to the White House:

"This was an interesting comment, but I'm afraid I disagree with you.  We have been taught  --  in life, in politics, and especially in sports  --  always to respect your opponent.  Mr. Thomas's act seems to me to show a lack of respect, and I find that unacceptable.  In addition, athletes, whether they like it or not, are role models to kids, and I think this action shows the young sports fans that that is an acceptable way to act.  I also think it's especially unfortunate at a time in our country's history when our elected members of Congress are unable to cooperate in any way and one of our greatest institutions has become dysfunctional.

"You say that this is a democracy and that everyone is free, but freedom also has responsibilities, and I believe one of those responsibilities is respecting the opinions of others.  We have always touted as a basis of our form of government the comment that "I might disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."  Mr. Thomas has taken it upon himself to turn that on its head.  (By the way, someone pointed out on the radio today that Mr. Thomas attended a state college on a scholarship and didn't, at that time, object to excessive government spending.)

"I'm sure Mr. Thomas was in the right, but he was still wrong.  (Although I would defend to the death both his and your right to hold your respective opinions.)"

Declining an Invitation to the White House, Vol. 11, Issue 2

Suddenly many people are upset because Tim Thomas of the Boston Bruins, the team that just won the Stanley Cup, declined an invitation to the White House to be received by the President of the United States. To hear some of the carry-on you'd think Mr. Thomas had flouted a Divine Command of the Deity of Your Choice! So you may be surprised to learn that Etiquetteer fully supports Mr. Thomas's decision not to attend this event (although he could have done so without making a statement to the press about it). The United States of America remains a democracy. Its founding cornerstone has been Liberty. Citizens have the right to accept or decline invitations from anyone as they choose, including invitations from the Chief Executive. Such invitations are not Royal Commands! Etiquetteer is fond of historical precedent in such cases, and indeed, Etiquetteer's beloved Ellen Maury Slayden supplies it. In 1902 she wrote "That snobbish twaddle about invitations to the White House and elsewhere being 'virtually commands' is having quite a vogue lately, chiefly, of course, among those just 'arriving' socially. I wish I could reproduce the savage humor with which Senator Vest treated the subject when we discussed it before him. He said he had been declining invitations to the White House for fifteen years because he didn't want to go and had not been threatened with impeachment yet."*

Of course Senator Vest was able to decline an invitation without making a sweeping statement to the press criticizing the Nation's government as a whole. While Mr. Thomas may exercise his Freedom of Speech to say whatever he pleases, and while the press may exercise its own essential Freedom to report what Mr. Thomas says, Etiquetteer can't find it Perfectly Proper for them to have gone to all this fuss.

To conclude, Etiquetteer thinks complaints about Mr. Thomas "insulting the President" by turning down this invitation are unjustified. If one is going to complain about Mr. Thomas, one is more justified complaining about the manner in which he did so, not the mere fact that he did.

* From Washington Wife: Journal of Ellen Maury Slayden from 1897-1919, page 41, copyright 1963. Used without permission.

Etiquetteer very much hopes to see you on Wednesday, February 1, for Good Manners at the Gibson House with Etiquetteer! Please contact the House today to reserve your tickets!

Two Current Events, Vol. 11, Issue 1

Two items in the news recently came to Etiquetteer's attention, each disturbing in its own way, and each worthy of comment. First, let's turn attention to Patron X, the gentleman whose smartphone stopped the New York Philharmonic mid-Mahler and enraged both the audience and the conductor. First, Etiquetteer has only praise for conductor Alan Gilbert. Not only did he sensibly stop the performance, later in the week he graciously accepted the personal apology of Patron X. Other artists of a more, shall we say, "artistic" temperament might have swooped down like a flock of harpies and banned the offender forever from concerts. It is to Mr. Gilbert's credit that he has accepted this man's sincere apology, and even to express sympathy for his predicament.

The situation could not have been more humiliating. Patron X was sitting in the front row of the concert hall with a new iPhone (received the day before from his company) that he only partly knew how to work. When the iPhone alarm clock went off, Patron X was near powerless to stop the noise. Etiquetteer believes that the contrition of Patron X is genuine and forgives him for this horrifying lapse of Perfect Propriety. But the entire experience boldly underscores the unquestioned necessity of powering off all personal electronic devices during a live performance of any kind. Not just to "silent" mode or "vibrate," but OFF. There is nothing so urgent that you need to know about it in the middle of a performance, and if it IS that urgent, maybe you shouldn't even be there. Power off completely and experience the performance completely! Dividing your attention will diminish your pleasure, and could eliminate the pleasure of others distracted by you.

When speaking in public, Etiquetteer begins with a "ritual power-down," so that everyone in the audience can switch off their cell phones and other paraphernalia together, making a group commitment to Perfect Propriety and Mutual Respect.

Then there's the Caddo Parish official trying to ban the wearing of pajamas in public:

Etiquetteer cannot claim to have seen people (of any age) cavorting about in their nightclothes, so perhaps this Lapse of Decency is only a local problem. What bothers Etiquetteer more is the careless attitude of offenders. Shreveport resident Khiry Tisdern is quoted saying "I'm an American, and I can wear my clothes anywhere I want. I'm a grown man. I pay my own bills, so I can wear my clothes the way I want." Mr. Tisdern may be a grown man, but he's not a grown-up. Grown-ups don't wear their pajamas in public.*

Even worse is the slovenly attitude of mother-of-three Tracy Carter, who says "... they're covering everything. I've got a three-year-old, a five-year-old and a 12-year-old to deal with." Her implication that Motherhood is so difficult that her family should be excused from putting on street clothes is an insult to parents everywhere who work hard to raise their children to behave and be strong, contributing members of Society. Etiquetteer's contempt for Ms. Carter cannot be stated too clearly.

This proves, too, that Perfect Propriety cannot be legislated. But because one has the Freedom to do something does not mean that one should do something.

*Some wag will certainly ask "Well, what about a pajama brunch?" And Etiquetteer will Heave a Weary Sigh and explain what is Perfectly Obvious: "If one is attending a pajama brunch in a private home, that falls under the definition of a costume party. If one is attending a pajama brunch in a restaurant, one attends in street clothes to avoid appearing like one is Trying Too Hard. If one is waiting tables at a restaurant's pajama brunch and one has to wear pajamas, they become one's uniform for the shift."

Etiquetteer hopes to greet you in person on February 1, 2012, at the Gibson House Museum for "Good Manners at the Gibson House with Etiquetteer."

Lessons from Childhood, Vol. 10, Issue 7

Truly it has been said that it takes a village to raise a child. Children learn about Perfect Propriety from many other people besides their parents: teachers, neighbors, friends, and other family members. Etiquetteer recently had cause to contemplate this idea with the death of his Lovely Aunt Joan. Because while Etiquetteer promotes Perfect Propriety, Etiquetteer was not born Perfectly Proper. Lovely Aunt Joan once took an opportunity to teach Young Etiquetteer a gentle lesson in Paying a Compliment. As in many families, children's clothes are passed from one child to another, and Lovely Aunt Joan's daughter, Little Cousin, was just the right age to receive things from Etiquetteer's Little Sister. During one large family gathering, Young Etiquetteer artlessly paid a compliment by saying "Cousin, don't you look lovely in Little Sister's old dress!" "No," interrupted Lovely Aunt Joan, who was sitting with us. "The best thing to say is 'Don't you look lovely in your new dress!' That's nicer." And she said it nicely, without making Young Etiquetteer feel unwholesomely small.

The point, of course, is that it's unkind to underscore the perception of charity in public. (Indeed, one thinks of Meg March in Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" dressed up in another girl's ball dress at a house party.)

You see how the Innocence of Childhood needs to be refined to become Perfect Propriety. Thank you, Lovely Aunt Joan, for your Gentle Correction, and so much else.

Family Occasions/Deterring Signage, Vol. 10, Issue 6

Dear Etiquetteer: I'm not even the one being slighted and I don't know how to act.

My paternal grandmother is nearing a milestone birthday, and my parents have organized a party for her at their home. This party is in less than two weeks, and original invitees included friends and her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Over the past week, my father's brother has been telling-- not asking-- my father to invite my grandmother's siblings' children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He lives out of town and has offered no help whatsoever in the planning or execution of the party. My father has not invited any more people, explaining on the one hand that he's not even sure that he saw some of them at the last funeral, and on the other that he doesn't want to have to rent more tables and chairs and buy more food. Today, my father received an RSVP in the positive via text message from one of these suggested invitees.

I am grown and live with my own family, and so in that sense I am every bit as much an invitee as my uncle. In that respect, I have no grounds for indignation. That said, these are my parents and I am very protective. Is there anything at all I can do to make this miserable situation less so for them?

Dear Daughter:

Family Occasions are incomplete without Family, but it appears that your uncle's definition of Family includes more branches of the Family Tree than your father's. While Etiquetteer does have to fault your father on one tiny thing -- family is still family whether or not they came to the last funeral -- it's his party and he therefore has the Unquestioned Right to invite (or not) whoever he pleases. Uncle Trouble is officially Out of Line by inviting other family members without the permission of your father (and presumably without even his knowledge).

This matter concerns your father and his brother, and it's up to your father to decide how he wants to address these issues. (For all Etiquetteer knows, they've been treating each other like this since childhood.) Unless you want to look like a real Madame Buttinsky, you'll stay in the background. But since your uncle is telling, not asking, your father who to invite, Etiquetteer thinks your father should tell, not ask, his brother how he is going to contribute to the success of the party through ordering extra furniture, food, etc. And for you to protect your parents, this may mean that you need to fulfill this function by actively getting involved in the preparations before, keeping these disagreements from your grandmother, and seeing that everything goes smoothly at the party, no matter how many "extra" family show up. Because above all, no one should be turned away once they show up! Whether their invitation came from your father or not, it will only reflect badly on him if they're told "Oh sorry, Uncle Trouble wasn't supposed to invite you."

And if things go well, perhaps Uncle Trouble will get his comeuppance when someone announces that he'll be hosting the next family reunion . . .

Dear Etiquetteer:

I have the problem that professional sex workers are using my backyard to entertain their clients. Is there a Perfectly Proper sign for my gate to gently dissuade them from doing so?

Dear Trespassed:

Your query reminds Etiquetteer of the story of the Boston theatre with the perpetually leaky roof. It was replaced and replaced, and kept leaking and leaking, until the building management threatened to sue the roofers. Someone got the idea to put up a videocamera to see what might be happening. To general surprise, it was discovered that Ladies of the Evening were bringing their Gentlemen Clients up to the roof via the fire escape, undoubtedly to Admire the View. Their spike heels were puncturing the rubber roof.

Etiquetteer is at least relieved that your neighborhood's Ladies of the Evening have not yet mounted your roof. Etiquetteer can suggest Perfectly Proper signage that might be found at the local hardware store: "No Loitering/Police Take Notice" and "Premises Under Surveillance" (with a small graphic of a camera). While Etiquetteer is unacquainted with your views on gun control, you would not be best served by posting "Proud Member of the National Rifle Association." Heaven forbid some Fatal Accident take place, your entire household would be put under suspicion.

It might be more effective to invest in a motion-detecting light that will turn on whenever anyone enters your backyard. While such solutions have their drawbacks, the last thing any of These People want is to attract attention. In the meantime, Etiquetteer hopes that you have notified your local police force about these occurrences.

Please do send Etiquetteer all your queries about Perfect Propriety to queries <at> etiquetteer dot com.

Hacked Hand-Me-Downs, Vol. 10, Issue 5

Dear Etiqueteer: I have a question about hand-me-downs - a particularly thorny issue to begin with.

In my family, infant clothing is passed down. It is commonly understood and practiced without discussion. My daughter, Effie, is currently in line between two of my cousins who are sisters. We will call them Abby and BeBe. Their daughters are Cici and Deedee, respectively. Cici is a year old, Effie is four months old, and Deedee is currently wearing newborn sizes. In theory, this works very well.

In practice, to be short, it does not. Cici's clothing is generally off-season. Whether the print is sunflowers or snowmen matters less than whether it is a sundress or snowsuit. More importantly, the clothing is not wearable. It is stained, tattered, threadbare, and paint is peeling off of snaps. Goodwill and Salvation Army would not sell clothing so worn. I do not use this clothing. Currently, everything Abby has given me is in a box in the closet.

On one occasion, Abby borrowed a bib from me. She had it for only a few hours and returned it stained.

To further complicate things, Abby is pregnant. This child would very reasonably follow Deedee. The clothing that I pass on to BeBe would be passed on to Abby again within a matter of months.

BeBe and I take very good care of our things. The clothing that I pass on to BeBe is nearly new. When I see Deedee, I can tell that BeBe is treating these hand-me-downs as well as if they were freshly store-bought. We have also both received very nice gifts, and so our daughters each have beautiful clothing.

I get rags from Abby. Because the only hand-me-downs Effie gets are those previously worn by Cici, she effectively does not have hand-me-downs. Therefore, everything passed from Effie to Deedee is new. Everything BeBe passes down after Deedee has outgrown it, I'm sure, will still be in very good condition.

There is a social issue with Abby as well, in that she constantly requests my professional services without hesitating to point out that they are not worth what I am asking. When I stopped discounting, she stopped patronizing- but not requesting.

I am not at all comfortable with that clothing being passed on to Abby, who clearly lacks appreciation for a variety of things. I am also sad to know that anything she gets will be ruined.

I have another friend who is pregnant, but passing clothing to her would mean that BeBe would not get my hand-me-downs. Deedee would instead only get Cici's clothing. I would not wish on BeBe what I am I trying to escape.

It is important to note that my husband and I have decided that Effie will be our only child.

Question One: What to do with the box.

Question Two: How to avoid receiving more.

Question Three: What to do with my hand-me-downs.

I have been struggling with this for weeks now. Thank you.

Dear Gigi:

Let's see if Etiquetteer can untangle the path of the baby clothes through your Family of Alphabetical Pseudonyms. Three cousins share hand-me-downs as needed. Currently they begin with Abby, for her year-old daughter Cici; then to you, Gigi, for your four-month-old daughter Effie; and then to BeBe for her newborn daughter Deedee. They will then return to Abby for her expected newborn (probably Heeheeheeheehee).

Because the hand-me-downs you're receiving from Abby are no longer fit to wear, Etiquetteer assumes that you are having to buy new baby clothes and/or acquire hand-me-downs from another source which will then go into the family's collective bassinet. You resent the expense and the necessity for this, and would like to spare BeBe your troubles by eliminating Abby from this silently operating Family Tradition.

Etiquetteer suggests ending this Family Tradition because it is not equally respected by all the participants. Since you and your husband are not planning to have any more children, pass on the box to BeBe (Question One) and declare to all that you are Out of the Loop (Question Two). This then becomes BeBe's problem, to manage with her sister Abby in any way she sees fit. Which means that you should say nothing about it evermore unless BeBe asks you.

As for your own hand-me-downs (Question Three), since they're yours, direct them where you think they will be most appreciated and cared for: either to BeBe or to your friend, or divide the lot and send some to each.

And should you and your husband end up having another child - which has been known to happen - make it clear from the beginning that you won't resume the Family Tradition.

Signs of the Times, Vol. 10, Issue 4

Etiquetteer observed both of these lawn signs this morning. One is Perfectly Proper; the other is not. Etiquetteer suspects you will recognize which is which.

While signs have, unfortunately, always been necessary to guide careless dog owners, Etiquetteer does not think it necessary, or helpful, to spell out the situation so, ahem, graphically.

Indeed, one reader, Dan Hochman, suggested a new sign: "Dogs, Curb Your Owners."

Birthday Parties for Grownups, Vol. 10, Issue 3

Dear Etiquetteer: My next birthday will be one with a zero at the end, and I know my sweetie will want to have a big party. That's what Sweetie always wants for his birthday.  For me, I'd rather have something low key -- like a yoga retreat far away from everything that distracts me.  Any suggestions on how to kindly say, please don't give me something that you think I want, without hurting his feelings?

Dear Birthday Girl:

The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," just falls the ground in situations like this, doesn't it? Here's your beloved, secure in the knowledge that he knows exactly what a perfect birthday party is and his ability to produce it, but it's exactly the sort of celebration you don't like for you.

Sometimes the truest expression of affection is letting others express their own affection for you in their way, rather than in yours. This falls into the "Virtue is its own reward" department, which Etiquetteer has never considered very fair in the first place. But still ...

The key word here is sometimes, especially since it sounds like you've grinned and borne enough large birthday parties already.  But this yoga retreat plan sounds awfully like you'd be doing it on your own. Are you really contemplating a birthday celebration all by yourself at a retreat? If so, how do you think your beloved would like being excluded?

Etiquetteer suggests that you both widen the scope of your ideal Birthday Ending in Zero Celebration to include your beloved. Say, "Darling, I love you so much that I want you all to myself for my Birthday Ending in Zero. Take me away from all this squalor where we can love the world away!" (Cue Kenny Rogers on the soundtrack in three ... two ... ) And when Sweetie says "But Angel, this is an Important Birthday and we must have all our friends and family around to celebrate YOU!" you have merely to say NO in the firmest possible tone, and be absolutely sure he sleeps on the couch until he understands completely.

And when your beloved's Birthday Ending in Zero comes along, Etiquetteer knows you will organize exactly the sort of party he enjoys in gratitude.

The Case of the Coughing Coiffeuse, Vol. 10, Issue 2

Dear Etiquetteer: As someone who does not patronize a particular hairstylist, my beloved went one Saturday to get a haircut at one of those chain places where they just take your name, no reservations required. It was fairly busy, of course, and while waiting he noticed two of the stylists coughing a lot, but still working on customers.

Sure enough, the woman that drew his name was one of them, and she coughed all over him during the haircut. Consequently, he's been sick since, and I am recovering from it now.

Is there anything one can do in that situation, or is it merely one's punishment for deciding to get a haircut last minute?

Dear Coughing:

Etiquetteer sympathizes deeply with your beloved's reluctance to speak up in this situation. It is very easy to feel embarrassed about calling attention to a stranger's health or hygiene. Etiquetteer can just see him now, shifting uneasily in his chair as Milady Barber calls from across the room "Number 43, [Insert Name of Beloved Here], *hack hack cough* right over here dear!" To call back "Thanks, I'll wait for the next person! I don't want Typhoid Mary cutting my hair" does nothing to relieve the situation.

But protecting one's own health, and the health of one's family (in this case, yours), is more important. There is a way to manage it with Perfect Propriety --  Perfect Propriety and a big gulp of Courage, that is, because communicating Rejection is necessarily uncomfortable. With an Air of Infinite Regret, your beloved could have asked "Would you mind terribly if I waited for the next available stylist? I see that you have a bad cough and I am very very sensitive about my health right now." The Air of Infinite Regret is essential to managing this successfully. One must be sure not to give the impression of blaming Milady Barber for having a cold; after all, it may not be her fault she's sick.

Your beloved could have managed this more proactively by sharing his concern with the receptionist and trying to book a specific, healthy stylist as soon as he noticed the other two coughing. Depending on the level of Customer Service Orientation, the receptionist should be able to accommodate him without difficulty or attitude.

For the future, allow Etiquetteer to encourage your beloved to find a long-standing arrangement with a barber who is healthy.

Elbow, Vol. 10, Issue 1

Dear Etiquetteer:

Recently at lunch, a friend described his Thankgiving dinner where a 22-year-old guest (his gardener!) put his elbows on the table during the meal.  My friend, wishing to Socially Educate the young man, informed him that one may never put one's elbows on the table until after the meal.  I told my friend that I think it may be all right in these modern times to put elbows on the table between courses (i.e., while awaiting service of dessert).  I have searched your Wonderful Website, but I do not find an answer to my question.

Please enlighten us.

Dear Elbowed:

This is what comes from entertaining one's servants at one's own table. Once upon a time, everyone Knew Their Place.

The more important etiquette lesson here is how to make one's guests feel at ease, and Etiquetteer cannot think the best way to do that is to correct their table manners before others. Sally Quinn, in her book "The Party," tells an anecdote of her father being corrected by his host, something along the lines of "In my house, we don't do that." Her father's response was "In my house, a guest can do no wrong." The late Melville Bell Grosvenor (editor and Guiding Light of National Geographic for decades) took this above and beyond. As reported in a National Geographic piece after this death, at a party in his Florida home, he went upstairs to change into a pair of black shoes when he witnessed a young man who was visibly uncomfortable at not having worn white bucks, like all the other male guests.

Which brings us back to elbows. The best way to teach (especially in the presence of others) is by example. Your friend should be absolutely sure he keeps his own elbows off the table while carrying on a conversation. And if he is intent on tutoring this Young Person in Perfect Propriety, Etiquetteer would suggest saying a quiet word when they are unobserved -- or even tutoring him privately over a meal as Aunt Alycia does for her great-niece Gigi, though without the ultimate intent of Gigi's aunts to prepare her as a demimondaine . . .

Signs of the Times, Vol. 9, Issue 11

Etiquetteer felt these two admonitions against cell phone use in public were Perfectly Proper enough to share. Please, curb your conversation!

Remember, if you'd like to have a private conversation, have it in private.

Etiquetteer looks forward to responding to your queries about Thanksgiving and the December holidays at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

Etiquette Faux Pas Hallowe'en Costumes, Vol. 9, Issue 10

In a fit of pre-Hallowe'en whimsy, Etiquetteer began thinking today of a few faux pas that might make interesting costumes: Emily Post Spills the Sauce

The original Doyenne of American Etiquette, Emily Post Herself, spilled her lingonberry dessert all over herself back in 1938. Unfortunately she wasn't alone at the time, but attending the New York Gourmet Society's annual banquet . . . as guest speaker. The press had a field day, as you can imagine, but Etiquetteer is delighted to report that Mrs. Post refused to cast blame on the waiter since it was her own fault. You can appear as Mrs. Post in a matronly evening gown with a huge splotch of sauce on the front. Carelessly brandish the sauce boat about for added effect, if you aren't drinking a cocktail out of it.

What Is Needed: An evening gown in the style of the late 1930s, silver gravy boat, lingonberry sauce (or some equivalent), red evening shoes (Mrs. Post's favorite shoes were red).

White House Maitre'd with Slip

Etiquetteer is horrified not to locate the reference, but recalls well the story of a lady at a White House function one evening whose slip disengaged from her person and gently cascaded to the floor. It just lay there on the floor under the gaze of the multitude until the maitre'd (undoubtedly either Charles Ficklin or Alonzo Fields) strode to center of the floor, picked up the slip, folded it over his arm as though it were a napkin, and walked out of the room.

What Is Needed: white tie and tails, including black patent leather evening shoes for men, white satin ladies slip (full length) with lace trim.

Top-Popping on the Dance Floor

Once upon a time during the Lyndon Johnson administration, Cristina Ford was frugging so enthusiastically on the dance floor that she popped her top!

What Is Needed: Strapless evening gown, cleavage (real or manufactured).

Leaking Bag of Lemons

One night at St. Germain during the reign of Louis XIII, a charming Mlle. de La Fayette found something so funny that she couldn't stop laughing until she had . . . ahem . . . lost control of herself. This resulted in a huge and very visible puddle around her chair. The Queen made so much fun of her that one of Mlle. de La Fayette's friends said right out loud that Mlle. de La Fayette's bag of lemons must have been squeezed.

What Is Needed: 17th century court dress (basically cinch a bed pillow over each hip with a belt and rig up some old drapes for a skirt), big hair (real or manufactured), string bag of half a dozen lemons to hang from the waist, puddle (or just wet the back of the skirt before arrival).

Elbows on the Table

One of the more flouted etiquette conventions. Find a couple tiny dollhouse tables to stick onto your elbows, and you're all set!

What Is Needed: Clothes of your choice, two dollhouse tables, sleeve garters to secure tables into place.

References: Emily Post by Laura Claridge, Upstairs at the White House by J.B. West, History Laid Bare: Love, Sex, and Perversity from the Ancient Etruscans to Warren G. Harding by Richard Zacks.

Wondering what other faux pas might come up this Hallowe'en? Please drop Etiquetteer a line at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

Acknowledging Circumstances Gratefully, Vol. 9, Issue 9

Dear Etiquetteer: I'm applying to graduate school right now and a former manager wrote me a recommendation. I asked her in late May but she hadn't done so as of a few weeks ago when I submitted my application early. I nudged her gently over e-mail (as she said I should do in May), didn't get a response, nudged her a week later, and she wrote it up for me that night. This was about a week ago.

Today I found out her sister has just died of cancer, and she was almost certainly distracted by that. I knew her sister had been sick for awhile, but didn't know she was at this stage.

I don't regret how I handled the "nudging," because I did it respectfully and had given her a lot of time, and since she kept her problems private, I can't hold myself responsible for inadvertent awkwardness. My problem is I'd hoped to get her a bottle of wine or something similar to say thank you, but that seems inappropriate now; similarly, anything I could to memorialize her sister (like a donation to [redacted]) seems like it should not be linked in any way as a "thank you." What would you suggest I do?

Dear Applicant:

A Lovely Note of Condolence is really the best way to acknowledge your colleague's loss as well as your thanks for her fulfillment of your request. Include something like "Your attention to my business school recommendation at a time when you must have been very concerned for your sister's health is doubly appreciated."

Wine would not be appropriate, but by all means send her a bouquet at some point. And if you're so inclined, a year from now you might make a memorial gift (should the family have specified a particular charity in the obituary). Etiquetteer suggests this length of time for two reasons. First, you want to avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo. Second, your relationship with your colleague will likely continue for many years, and she will be touched that you have chosen to remember her sister's death long after many others have forgotten.

As Etiquetteer writes this, Labor Day approaches, bringing with it the Official End of Summer. Ladies and gentlemen of Perfect Propriety will get as much wear as possible out of their white linen and white shoes this weekend before reverently folding them away -- with a tear -- until Memorial Day.

Etiquetteer is delighted to take your manners dilemmas at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

What Not to Wear: Weddings and Courtrooms, Vol. 9, Issue 8

Dear Etiquetteer:

I'm soon to attend an afternoon spring wedding for some friends. At the moment, I'm a little short on cash so while I might want to buy a fabulous new dress for the occasion, that's rather ill advised. I'm hoping to make use of what's already in my closet.

I've got this appropriately formal dress -- not too fancy, just right in style for their event. Unfortunately the dress is cream.

I seem to recall that it's not proper at a wedding for any woman other than the bride to wear white. These days folks are wearing black - even the bridesmaids a sea of noir - a style I'd been taught isn't Perfectly Proper so perhaps I'm not with the times?  Am I okay with my lovely cream dress to the wedding?

Dear Creamy:

Ladies, as you undoubtedly know, can be very back-biting about clothes. Etiquetteer worries that, if you wear your otherwise appropriate cream-colored dress to this wedding that you might be mistaken for the Malicious Mother of the Groom. The stereotypical advice for the mother of the groom has always been to "wear beige, show up, and shut up." Etiquetteer has heard more than once that the definition of "beige," "cream," or "champagne" has been stretched to include near-white shades -- or at least near enough to attract unfavorable attention not least from the Bride Herself.

The only way Etiquetteer can see out of this -- and ladies may have a different opinion -- would be to accessorize your cream dress with colors. Could you add hat, belt, handbag, shoes, gloves, and/or perhaps a shawl in some bright spring colors? This would keep you from appearing all in cream; since the bride is likely appearing all in white, the use of color in your outfit could deflect unjust criticism.

Like you, Etiquetteer has deplored the swelling tide of black at weddings, and has tried to promote midnight blue as a Perfectly Proper alternative that doesn't connote mourning. Brides, unfortunately, can rarely see beyond their own Selfish and Prosaic Visions, so this is still an uphill battle.

Etiquetteer applauds the jailing of Jennifer LaPenta, a 19-year-old woman who may never be a lady, for wearing a profane T-shirt in a courtroom. [Special to Etiquetteer's mother: please do not read the article; you'll be offended by the language.] Waiting for a friend's trial to be called, Ms. LaPenta was spotted by the judge in the gallery wearing a T-shirt that said "I Own the [Slang Term for Female Genitals] So I Make the Rules." Aside from its own vulgarity, wearing such a T-shirt in a courtroom assaults the very idea of Justice. Justice makes the rules, and that requires more sense than conferred by possessing a particular body part.

Ms. LaPenta's age, however, reminded Etiquetteer of two similar Experiments with Profane Expression as Rebellion when even younger. Young Etiquetteer once wore a button with a Profane Suggestion on it (no need for you to know what it was), and was publicly scolded by a bank teller to "TAKE THAT BUTTON OFF! TAKE IT OFF!" You may be sure that Young Etiquetteer flushed with shame for the rest of the day.

On another occasion, Young Etiquetteer wore a T-shirt to his summer job. On it was a quote from Louisiana  Governor Earl Long: "If you ain't got culture, you ain't got ****." Young Etiquetteer, of course, thought it was absolutely hilarious, and typical of the Long politicians. The boss, however, was unamused, and Young Etiquetteer had to wear that T-shirt inside out for the rest of the day.

Etiquetteer recognizes, as do many, that these expressions of Youthful Rebellion are made to test boundaries. Teenagers always seem shocked when their elders call them out, but Etiquetteer would suggest that shock and discipline are exactly the types of reactions they provoke. This also calls attention to the dreariness of using profanity to provoke a response. It's tired, people, just tired.