Random Issues and Commentary, Vol. 12, Issue 5

Dear Etiquetteer: When someone sees a bit of food on your face, or a smudge or something else that shouldn't be there, should they tell you about it? Even if it's small?

Dear Smudged:

The question isn't the size of the apparent Impediment to Perfection, but the ability to do something about it. For instance, Etiquetteer has on more than one occasion come home from a party with a dark green bit of spanikopita on his teeth, which would have been easy to remove had someone quietly said, "Etiquetteer, you have a bit of spinach in your teeth." On the other hand, Etiquetteer, like many men, occasionally cuts himself shaving. When the answer to "You have something on your chin" is "It's a scab; I cut myself shaving," you've overstepped.

Etiquetteer should hasten to add that it's impertinent of a gentleman to inform a lady who is a stranger to him of anything out of place about her. These days such "helpfulness" is too easily misconstrued as harrassment.

Unfortunately, the threat of being expelled from Best Society no longer deters people from behaving badly in public. Several instances have appeared in the news today:

  • Students at Tufts University were reprimanded for excessive drunkenness and public urination at the Tufts Winter Bash at a Boston hotel. Do you know why Emily Post, Lillian Eichler, Amy Vanderbilt, and other 20th-century etiquette writers never had to specify that ladies and gentlemen never urinated in plain view? BECAUSE PEOPLE KNEW BETTER. Etiquetteer blames Woodstock. If it were up to Etiquetteer, these students would be expelled. In the meantime, Etiquetteer hopes that Tufts will choose a less violent name for their winter dance than "bash."
  • Some good clean fraternity fun veered into Imperfect Propriety when a University of Michigan fraternity was suspended indefinitely for using a semi-nude photo in a party invitation. The photo features a row of ten Pi Kappa Alpha brothers wearing only a very thin American flag. While Etiquetteer chooses not to doubt the intentions of these young men - although one of them does appear to be enjoying himself a bit too much - Etiquetteer does have to disapprove. You see, the photo was used in a party invitation to a sorority, and this Image of Implied Nudity can easily be construed as Forcing One's Attention on a Lady, which as we know is Simply Not Done. A photograph of the brothers fully dressed would not have been offensive. Etiquetteer hopes this Error in Judgment will be rectified soon.
  • The Black Mental Health Alliance has launched an ad campaign emphasizing the legal penalties of sagging. For those who might be unaware, sagging is the practice of wearing one's pants below the waist, often to such a degree that they are completely below the buttocks - exposing undergarments, and often more. Etiquetteer agrees with rapper Tamara Bubble, quoted as saying "Sagging should stop now. Girls don’t like it and people don’t take you seriously in general. You can’t get job with it. If you go to court with it, you’re probably going to lose your case. In all aspects of life, it’s not healthy." But even Etiquetteer questions the penalties mentioned: a $300 fine and up to three years in jail. Etiquetteer can only imagine the hue and cry there would be if such a campaign was put into place for those who wear pajamas in public* - a practice that is carried out by too many people of all races.
  • Then there's the report of Judy H. Viger, the 33-year-old mother who hired strippers for her son's sixteenth birthday party. CAUTION: The linked article includes what most people would call a "Not Safe For Work image" and what Etiquetteer calls Most Indelicate. From the article: "The dancers stripped to thong underwear and bras and gave lap dances to some of the teenagers." The article also mentions that this party was held at a bowling alley, and it isn't clear that it was in a private lane. Ms. Viger has been arrested, and Etiquetteer would like to see her sentenced to public service working with victims of sexual abuse.

And that should be Quite Enough from Etiquetteer tonight! Now go forward and sin no more.

*Of course Etiquetteer exempts those going to or from a pajama brunch, but it is advisable not to run errands along the way.

Dining in Public, Vol. 12, Issue 4

From Etiquetteer's Facebook page comes this query: Dear Etiquetteer:

Last night my family, including my husband's parents and sister (who were visiting from out of state) had the pleasure of attending dinner service on the Napa Valley Wine Train. All the lady seated behind my sister-in-law could do was complain, loudly. We didn't allow her to ruin our good time, but felt trapped! As did the lovely couple seated across from the bitter bitter woman. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of the right way to handle the situation and would like never to find myself lacking the Perfectly Proper way to handle the very uncomfortable situation she was causing. How would you recommend handling this situation, should it present itself during another evening?

Dear Entrained and Entrapped:

Etiquetteer's guiding precept has always been that No One Cares How You Feel or What You Want. Etiquetteer thinks it's a pity this Dining Virago was not so educated. One wonders why such people ever leave home, since they are so clearly unhappy away from it. Etiquetteer's beloved Ellen Maury Slayden joined her Congressman husband on an official delegation to Mexico in 1910. Commenting on one Senator and his wife, she wrote "I wonder why they come on a trip like this, all made up of scenery and adventure, when they could get so much better pie and cereal at home."*

You and your family, however, were clearly brought up on the maxim "Don't borrow trouble," for which Etiquetteer commends you. Because let's face it, in Real Life, confrontations such as these are always messier than they are in TV sitcoms. For instance, had you leaned over and asked "Excuse me, I hate to interrupt your diatribe, but did you happen to bring any earplugs we could borrow?" you would not have been saved by a commercial break. The Fantasy of the One-Line Putdown That Works is just that, a fantasy.

The first and best recourse is to speak (quietly) to the waiter or the manager and ask if anything can be done. It's in their best interest to be sure that all their diners are enjoying themselves, not only the Dining Virago but also you and your party. They can take what action they feel is necessary to get her to pipe down, whether it's a complimentary dessert, picking up her entire check, or promising her that she'll never have the chance to complain about their service again after she's banned from returning.

Etiquetteer thinks you and your family might have put a more positive spin on the situation by sending a bottle of wine to "the lovely couple seated across from the bitter bitter woman," creating a secret community able to smile over a special bond: Endurance. Etiquetteer can just see you all toasting each other silently across the aisle while the Dining Virago obliviously keeps on ranting.

Etiquetteer wishes you and your family well on future dining excursions!

Have you had a difficult experience dining out? Etiquetteer would love to accept your queries at <queries _at_ etiquetteer dot com>.

*It should surprise no one that Etiquetteer is quoting from Washington Wife: Journal of Ellen Maury Slayden from 1897 - 1919.

Seven Actions for Perfect Propriety in Public Life in the New Year, Vol. 12, Issue 2

Here we are, embarked on a New Year, and Etiquetteer is working hard to maintain a Feeling of Hope for increasing Perfect Propriety. Etiquetteer has identified seven areas -- some simple, some quixotic -- where action should be taken. At once. 1. Homeowner associations (HOAs) need to write exceptions into their governing documents allowing homeowners to display the American flag on or from their properties without being fined or censured. Every year an HOA makes the news when it sues or fines a homeowner who displays an American flag on his or her property against the HOA rules about decorations and displays. These stories are even more poignant when the flag is tattered or in otherwise less-than-perfect condition, usually because of its association with a family member who died in service to this nation. If you live in an HOA, take the initiative now to modify your bylaws to permit display of the American flag on one's property.

2. Anyone who has charge of an escalator, whether it's in a shopping mall, transportation hub, government or office building, or any other public place, needs to be sure that every rider knows that standing is on the right, and passing is on the left. This can be achieved with signage or a painted line down the center.

3. Retailers need to stop colonizing private life and pandering to our baser instincts by scheduling outrageous sales events on holidays - and we need to stop letting them do it by buying into this manufactured "excitement." Etiquetteer was outraged that some retailers actually scheduled some sales to begin on Thanksgiving Day Itself, and appalled viewing some of the video footage of the Black Friday mélee. Etiquetteer has extreme difficulty reconciling this with the True Spirit of Christmas. If it was up to Etiquetteer -- which, of course, it ought to be -- Black Friday sales would not be allowed to begin until 10:00 AM on Friday. Even if the retailers don't, Etiquetteer wants you to make the commitment to refrain from shopping on holidays.

4. Unfortunately, Western civilization has reached such a low level of sloth, selfishness, or contempt that more and more people don't care about being properly dressed in public. Indeed, many don't even know what proper dress is. With great reluctance, Etiquetteer must endorse the use of instructional signage, such as "No Visible Undergarments" and "No Sleepwear" so that standards can be reinforced.

5. Theatres and concert halls need to enforce more vigorously the rule not to use recording devices of any kind (cameras, recorders, smartphones, etc.) during concerts. Anyone who has ever had their view of a performance blocked by rows of upraised arms with iPhones will appreciate this. Etiquetteer believes that violators should be evicted, which means that ushers will need to be more vigilant and prowl the aisles during performances more often. (It is interesting to muse on how differently Woodstock might have affected Western culture if everyone there had had a smartphone or videocamera. Etiquetteer is mighty relieved they didn't.)

6. The battle between drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians must stop. To quote Stu Ackerman, "There is only 'we.' 'Them' is a hallucination born of fear." Everyone has the same goal: to get wherever they're going as quickly as possible. Etiquetteer would like them to get there as safely as possible, too. And this means being aware of one's own situation and of other travelers around one. For pedestrians, it means looking left, right, and left again before walking across the street -- and only at intersections. For drivers, it means knowing where one is going before getting in the car and relying on an often-faulty GPS. For cyclists, it means awareness that both pedestrians and drivers, through no fault of their own, will have to cross the bike lane. For all it means putting away one's electronic devices so that one can travel with full concentration and without distraction! Etiquetteer's heart has leapt into his mouth more than once seeing a pedestrian blithely walk into an intersection while staring intently at a smartphone screen, or a driver making a sharp left turn with one hand on the wheel and cellphone held to the ear. In summary, no one group of travelers is evil, as many would like to think. Rather, there are impatient and inattentive travelers in each group. Etiquetteer urges you to represent the best aspects of your particular Mode of Travel.

7. If parents are not going to enforce Perfect Propriety in their children when dining out, restaurants are going to start having to do it for them by either asking them to leave, being sure they know not to come back until the children can behave, or banning children altogether. While hastily acknowledging the very many good and attentive parents who understand and train their children well, Etiquetteer must note that the legions of oblivious and ineffective parents make dining out difficult for everyone.* The stories from waiters and waitresses (one need only search the Web) can curl one's hair.

And that, as they say, is that. Etiquetteer welcomes your Perfectly Proper queries resulting from these recommendations at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

*It's worth noting, too, that every time Etiquetteer sees a news story about Chuck E. Cheese, it's because grownups started a brawl there.

The War on Christmas, Vol. 11, Issue 19

For some time Etiquetteer has had a presence on Facebook, which is the source of today's query: Dear Etiquetteer:

What does Etiquetteer think of the people who are griping about being told "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas? I think people should just take the salutation at face value, and not get ornery about how it's given!

Dear Greeted:

Etiquetteer, with increasing dismay, has seen something that is really quite trivial become a flashpoint for annoyance. Really, some people take offense at any other holiday greeting but the one that they celebrate themselves. And yet in a democratic society which enjoys Freedom of Religion, it's inevitable that one will encounter at least 12 people who Choose Another Holiday Than One's Own.

You may not be responsible for the behavior of other people, but you are certainly responsible for your own. There's nothing to stop you from replying "And a Merry Christmas to you!" What Etiquetteer finds tedious is lengthening what is supposed to be a brief greeting -- "Merry Christmas!" "And a happy holiday to you, too!" --  into a drawn-out discussion about what holidays one does or does not celebrate and why. It doesn't matter! Can't you all just wish each other well without getting lost in a Quagmire of Specificity?

Actually, for social and professional acquaintances, Etiquetteer does understand. Knowing what holidays a person celebrates helps others to understand that person. Responding to "Happy Holidays!" with "Thank you, I'm looking forward to a beautiful Christmas this year" establishes oneself as a Christmas celebrant* without offering offense. Nor should offense be taken. Further discussion, however, easily becomes unctuous and should be avoided.

Those who truly wish, as the saying goes, "to keep the Christ in Christmas," do so best by receiving greetings other than "Merry Christmas," with Christlike forbearance, in the spirit in which they were intended.

Another issue which Etiquetteer has watched with increasing dismay is the bitter battle between those advocating for and against the display of nativity scenes on public property throughout the United States. This honest disagreement has led many Christians to behave in ways other than what is espoused in Christian doctrine. What is the best way to display Christian values or virtues? Is it insisting on Christian precedence in a nation that enjoys Freedom of Religion? Is it by emphasizing the display aspects of an important holiday over its intended message? Opinions vary widely.

Etiquetteer has come to believe that the best way to display a nativity scene in public is in one's behavior. This is done by treating all one encounters, regardless of sameness to or difference from oneself, with kindness and forgiveness. It also means obeying established rules of behavior, both written and unwritten. For instance, the able-bodied should not be parking in places reserved for the handicapped, bargain hunters should not be switching price tags, and no one should be cutting in line.

Now, let's get on with everyone celebrating the Holidays of Their Choice!

*So many non-Christians celebrate Christmas, Etiquetteer can't really assume that saying you celebrate Christmas establishes you as a Christian.

Introductions for the Absent-Minded, Vol. 11, Issue 15

Awhile back, on Etiquetteer's Facebook page (did you know Etiquetteer had a presence on Facebook? Etiquetteer uses it mostly to post relevant media articles about manners, or the lack of them, and the occasional one-line etiquette tip. Please stop by.) Etiquetteer posted a handy tip on social introductions: "When out in public with friends or acquaintances and encountering other friends or acquaintances, always introduce everyone to everyone else. No one likes to be overlooked." To which a reader replied "I would love a suggestion on what to do when I can't recall someone's name and I need to introduce them." And which led another reader to query "A problem arises when the friends you meet know you and you cannot remember ever having seen them before! Etiquetteer, what does one do then? I am quite serious."

This column endeavors to answer these questions. As Ellen Maury Slayden once said (about another situation entirely, but it still applies here): "Keep cool. This is a test of breeding."

Naturally it's very embarrassing to realize that you can't remember someone's name, or even whether or not you know them, or how. Three courses are open to you, once the flames of panic have been suppressed: introduce the other person first (though this may be out of precedence*, Etiquetteer will give you a dispensation), buy time by drawing the out the conversation hoping that a clue will jog your memory, or frankly admit that your memory has failed you. Believe it or not, the latter course is often the better one. A simple "My goodness, this is so embarrassing. I have completely forgotten your name! Please forgive me." ought to win everyone over to your side. It's such a direct appeal for sympathy, and you'll underscore it by maintaining eye contact with that person, and not looking away shamefacedly. You must then, if you can, follow it up with the memory of some kindness that person did for you, to prove that your temporary mental lapse was only the person's name, and not their value to you.

On a more comic note, you could also try the Scarlett O'Hara Approach -- "Every time I have on a new bonnet all the names I ever knew go right slap out of my head!" -- or the Tallulah Bankhead Approach -- "I don't really care what your name is, I just want to call you all Dahling, especially when you come to make love to me at five o'clock. If I'm late, start without me." The latter should startle everyone enough that you can make a clean getaway swooping off to the bar.

Whatever you do, don't try to con them into saying their own names by saying "And I've had so much trouble pronouncing your name you'd better introduce yourself." The name you've had "so much trouble pronouncing" might be "Joe Smith."

When you can't even remember who those people are, much less their names, often the best course is to ask "My goodness, I can't even remember the last time I saw you! Where was it? And what have you been up to since?" This puts the onus of the conversation on them, which should lead to many clues.

The real test of breeding is, when you discover that your own name has been forgotten by someone else, passing it off lightly and not taking it to heart. This sort of lapse happens to everyone.

*Precedence for social introductions used to be much more complicated than it is today. Etiquetteer boils it down to these:

  • Gentlemen are introduced to ladies. "Mrs. Oldwitch, may I present Mr. Randy Wicket."
  • Younger people are introduced to older people. "Miss Dewy Freshness, may I introduce you to Mrs. Raddled Oldwitch?"
  • Junior employees are introduced to senior employees or executives, regardless of gender. "Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to meet Jeremy Filing, from the Accounting Department. Jeremy, this is Gerald Chairman."
  • Everyone is introduced to elected officials, regardless of gender, age, or rank. "Mr. President, may I present Mrs. Raddled Oldwitch."

It's almost October, which means that the Perfectly Proper are already thinking about their address lists for Christmas, New Year's, or other seasonal greeting cards. Should you have queries on this or other subjects, don't hesitate to reach out to Etiquetteer at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com!

Potluck Assignments, Vol. 11, Issue 14

Dear Etiquetteer: I'm part of a community that regularly holds potlucks for holidays and events. Different people coordinate each potluck with loosely organized online spreadsheets for people to list what they'll bring. We often suggest a theme, and our community has a few dietary restrictions, but otherwise we let people bring what they like -- as long as they bring enough for others, of course!

This arrangement has worked well so far. The person coordinating the latest potluck, however, has already decided on a Mexican-themed menu featuring make-your-own tacos. To that end, the person has told people to sign up for specific dishes as well as for specific ingredients -- for example, "fresh diced tomatoes" and "chopped cilantro" for around forty people. The person has also designed the online spreadsheet in a way that discourages people from listing other items.

It seems like poor form to dictate the terms of a so-called "potluck" so carefully, especially given the precedent we've established in our community. It also makes the potluck less fun: we have many members who would have gladly prepared more interesting Mexican dishes. What is your take, Etiquetteer?

Dear Potlucked Out:

Certainly it appears to be sufficiently different from your group's usual practice, which is cause enough for concern. The need for control at a meal one is coordinating but not entirely cooking oneself can be tricky, particularly for meals as large as the number you indicate; probably the worst example can be seen here. Perhaps this is La Reina de México's first time to coordinate for your community potluck? A potluck coordinator does need to be allowed some authority, even when acting as part of a group instead of as an independent host. Still, this sounds unnecessarily limiting, but Etiquetteer doesn't attribute it to bossiness on the part of La Reina de México. This person probably likes tacos, or just thought it would be a good group activity without considering the extensive range of True Mexican Cuisine.

As is so often in the case of manners, Communication is the solution. Those who felt limited by the options available should have communicated privately with La Reina de México to offer other dishes, or at least share concerns from the group about the departure from Standard Operating Procedure. One could ruffle a few feathers by using the spreadsheet differently from its original intent -- Heaven knows Etiquetteer has met enough people who have perverted online surveys and spreadsheets for their own purposes! -- by merely adding unrelated text in a field with one's own comment, such as "I'm going to bring chili con carne for 40 - hope you don't mind!" But Etiquetteer cannot recommend this approach because it will embarrass La Reina de México publicly and unnecessarily. The next time La Reina de México ends up volunteering to coordinate, be sure this person knows that freedom of choice is a central value of your potluck community.

Etiquetteer does have a few rules about potlucks:

  1. The host/coordinator should be responsible for the meat dish, since that's often the most expensive. That said, for very large groups like this one, other guests may be assigned meat dishes.
  2. If the host/coordinator gives you an assignment that you are unable to fulfill or just plain don't like, communicate with that person privately; this is not a time for "Reply All." Thinking host/coordinators will offer another assignment. Otherwise you might need to plan to visit your friend Bunbury in the country.
  3. Arrive on time! Nothing affects the service of a meal more than a portion of that meal not actually being in the house. Be sure to confirm with your host/coordinator at what time the buffet is to be open (as opposed to what time everyone is to arrive) so that you can plan accordingly.
  4. The portion of the meal you bring should be ready to serve when you arrive in the house. Do not expect to prepare and cook it when you get there. The only preparation that should be required is to uncover it, and heat it if necessary. This is especially true for salads and other dishes that require lots of chopping, mincing, or shredding. No kitchen has infinite counter space, you have no idea how many people may be fighting to use the one cutting board in the house, and the host/coordinator will still be preparing the meat dish. This is probably why Etiquetteer continues to find casseroles the best potluck food.
  5. It is kind, but not required, to offer to help with the dishes. That said, expect to take home dirty the serving items you brought.
  6. Don't quarrel over the leftovers. It's so petty.

Returning Wedding Gifts, Vol. 11, Issue 13

Dear Etiquetteer: I recently sent a very nice gift for my niece's bridal shower. Unfortunately, the wedding was called off shortly thereafter.

A few weeks later, the mother of the groom sent me a gift card to "compensate" me for my gift and my inconvenience. I am the only one in my extended family who received such "compensation." I suspect she sent it because we occasionally run into each other in the same social circles. Although I don't care about the money, the gift card is actually for much less than the cost of the gift.

I was offended that the groom's mother sent me the gift card because I do not feel it was her place to step in. My niece should have been the one to communicate with her own family. I would have preferred not to hear at all from the groom's mother. My current concern is what to do with the gift card. Should I keep it or return it to the groom's mother? I really don't want her gift card, so if I return it, what should I say?

Dear Unregifted:

A few years ago Etiquetteer was invited to a wedding. About three weeks before the wedding day Etiquetteer received a card in the mail that matched the wedding stationery with the announcement that

The wedding between

Miss Dewy Freshness

and

Mr. Manley Firmness

will not take place.

Underneath and to the left one found the sentence "All gifts will be returned."  Because let's face it, the first thought one has when learning of such a thing is "Am I going to get back that gift on which I spent so much money?"

It appears that your niece and her family have observed neither of these necessary social niceties, something you may want to take up with whichever Parent of the Bride is your Sibling. In the event that your niece does marry, Etiquetteer would absolve you from giving another shower gift -- but acknowledges that other etiquette writers may differ.

The involvement of the groom's mother certainly muddies the water. It's really not her business, but Etiquetteer has some sympathy with her, having been put in an awkward position (the cancellation of her son's wedding) through no fault of her own. And for all Etiquetteer knows, this lady has already raised the issue of returning gifts with the former bride-to-be and her family. Since you haven't yet received your gift back, the results may not have been satisfactory to her, prompting her to send gift cards to all her relatives and friends who sent gifts as well as to you. Etiquetteer does wish, however, that the lady hadn't used the term "compensation," which suggests that you needed to be paid for your troubles.

By all means return the gift card, but cut the lady some slack. Send the card back with a Lovely Note thanking her for thinking of you, but suggesting that you don't feel quite right keeping and using this gift card since your bridal shower gift to your niece was freely given. It's also Perfectly Proper to express sympathy with this lady over the cancellation of the wedding, and best wishes for the future happiness of her son.

Layoffs and Colleagues, Vol. 11, Issue 10

Dear Etiquetteer: I was recently catching up with an acquaintance and asked “How’s work?” and got the reply “Well, I was laid off.” I’m not sure what to say beyond “I’m so sorry to hear this.” How does one respond supportively, but not obtrusively? It’s a little easier with a closer friend as you can be a bit more intimate.  If it’s someone you don’t know so well, it can be tricky.

Dear Properly Concerned:

How Very Delicate of you to consider how best to respond without Unnecessary Prying. More often than not those in Unwilling Professional Transition are pestered with coded queries such as:

Question: "What happened?" (Meaning: "Were you fired?")

Question: "Were you downsized?" (Meaning: "Were you fired?")

Question: "Did they let a lot of other people go, too?"  (Meaning: "Were you fired?")

Question: "What are you doing?" (Meaning: "Were you fired?")

Question: "Are you OK?" (Meaning: "Were you fired?")

Question: "I suppose you'll take some time to yourself now." (Meaning: "Did you get a good severance package when they fired you?")

People react differently to being unemployed. Some go into complete tailspins. Others express anger, take a philosophical attitude, proactively begin networking by making the job search their Topic Number One, or decline to talk about it altogether. Gauge your response by that of your acquaintance. For the reluctant, drop the topic. For the angry and the depressed, listen and make Noncommittal Sounds of Sympathy. For the philosophical, speculate with them on ideal or fantasy careers.

The sentence "I'm so sorry this happened to you" is often the best response. Etiquetteer advises care with "If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know." Only say this if you truly intend to help out when asked! Few things are as embarrassing for those in Unwilling Professional Transition than asking for help from those who have said  "If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know" -- whether it's for a professional introduction, review of a resume or correspondence, or even grocery money -- and then not getting it.

Dear Etiquetteer:

I need your help. My male colleague in the next cubicle wears the most annoying cologne. I think this is a fairly new habit because I have never noticed it until today. I have been sitting next to him for the last five months but we have never really talked so I can't just tell him "whatever you're wearing must stop". But I guess I have to. Is there a kind way to do this?

Dear Asphyxiated:

Someone once decreed that one's perfume should not be noticed in a room where one is not, in fact, present. Which is the problem with cubicles -- they're all in the same room!

Questions of Hygiene in the Workplace must be approached sensitively. And questions of cologne are especially sensitive, since scent is used to enhance one's Personal Appeal. (Please note: Etiquetteer did not say Sex Appeal since the setting for this query is the workplace. Those looking to enhance their Sex Appeal in the workplace . . . well, all Etiquetteer can say is, they'd better watch out, or they could find themselves laid off [see above].) It must be a jolt to find out that something one thought of as a positive has turned out to be such a negative that it's created a problem for a colleague.

Your concerns must be approached with sensitivity, too. Many people have olfactory health issues that are exacerbated by heavy or pungent scent, leading them to lobby for Fragrance Free Zones in their workplaces. Whether or not your own reaction to this is medical or just annoyed, Etiquetteer imagines it impacts your productivity. No one can type well while holding a handkerchief to one's nose.

Etiquetteer believes most people who apply their scent heavily don't realize the impact it has. You can bring up the topic casually ("Did you just get some new cologne?") and then segue into the heart of the matter ("Actually, it's quite overpowering.") If the idea of raising this issue creates too much anxiety, talk to your supervisor about it. That's what supervisors are for, after all! Your supervisor can address this issue anonymously on your behalf with your Highly Scented Colleague, or can arrange for a Fragrance Free Zone for you by moving your cubicle.

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."

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.

Random Issues, Vol. 9, Issue 2

Dear Etiquetteer:
Last night, I took a dear friend as my guest to an expensive art gallery dinner, held in honor of a newly opened show. It was meant to be a special treat for us, as my friend is just emerging into social life again, after a devastating divorce.
Unfortunately, we were seated at a table of loud, bawdy drunks, who had come as a group, and found each other hilarious. After attempting polite introductions and brief small talk with our fellow diners, we two girlfriends tried to converse quietly together. But conversation was rendered impossible by the group's rude comments, and shenanigans such as dinner rolls being thrown across the table.
The room was otherwise full, and no alternative seats were available. The gallery owner ignored the situation. I was mortified to subject my friend to such obnoxious buffoonery. She is not native to the US, and the group even mocked the pronunciation of her name. We left as soon as the dessert had been served.
What on earth can one do to rescue such an evening, short of leaving as soon as possible? I apologized to my friend for the disastrous experience. As her her host, what else should I have done?
Dear Subjected:
Etiquetteer can only respond to you with the deepest compassion. The only thing worse than dining with "a table of loud, bawdy drunks, who had come as a group, and found each other hilarious" is dining with "a table of loud, bawdy drunks, who had come as a group, and found each other hilarious" who are your closest friends of whom you expected better.
The best way to guarantee your enjoyment at the sort of dinner you describe, which sounds suspiciously like a fund-raiser, is to round up enough friends and acquaintances to fill a table. As you have sadly learned, when Money is the only criterion for entrée, ladies and gentlemen are not safe from Bad Manners. (The roll-throwing tempted Etiquetteer to hope that perhaps these drunken bawds had once read P.G. Wodehouse, but this does not really seem likely. There are restaurants that cater to the roll-throwing crowd, like Lambert's Café, a more likely influence.)
It seems that you did everything possible at the time to salvage the evening, except speaking directly with the gallery owner. You indicate that s/he was ignoring the situation; you had the power to call it to his/her attention in no uncertain terms, by beckoning, or at worst, leaving your table and going to him/her. Another temporary solution might have been to take your dessert into the lobby.
Now that this ghastly dinner is behind you, Etiquetteer encourages you to create a new social opportunity for your newly-divorced friend: a dinner party in your own home given in her honor, with your own friends whose Perfect Propriety you know well enough in advance. You may also correspond with the gallery owner and sever any possible future connection with that organization.

Dear Etiquetteer:
I am a new, part-time teacher at my school.  I teach music in a building that is away from the main building and I very rarely socialize with other teachers; I'm just not around them much and don't eat lunch with them or chat in the teacher's lounge.  I received an invitation to a bridal shower for one of my coworkers.  He is getting married soon and I only know him by his last name.  I met his wife at the Christmas staff party, but can't remember her name.

What should I do about this shower?  I don't want to go, because I don't know the groom at all, and I know the bride even less.  Do I have to send a gift if I wimp out on attending?

Dear Teaching:
Undoubtedly this invitation was sent to all school faculty as a courtesy, and the groom didn't want you (or others) to feel left out. At least, that's how Etiquetteer could explain this situation charitably. (Whoever heard of a groom inviting professional colleagues to his fiancée's bridal shower?!) You need not attend, or send a gift, but please do send a Lovely Note of Congratulations to the Happy Couple on your most Perfectly Proper stationery.

Unwanted In-Laws and Current Events, Vol. 8, Issue 8

Dear Etiquetteer: We live near my husband's brother, who is constantly inviting or letting my mother- and father-in-law invite themselves.  We (my husband, two kids, and I) are always faced with the "threat" of their every other month visits.  These visits usually last at least five days.  The events involved are excruciating to me.

What should I or my husband tell my brother-in-law and his parents to make them understand this is totally inappropriate?

We have invited them one time in seven years.  All the other visits, which have been every other month for the last seven years, have been them inviting themselves and no one saying anything.  Or my brother and sister-in-law inviting them for some reason.

Bear in mind that I have a special needs son who is 11 and my daughter is very active; she is six.  I home school my son as of about two weeks ago.  We live in the country and my husband could be losing his job.   Things are not perfect right now but it doesn't help to have people in your face that you would rather not see at all - ever!

Dear Daughter-in-Law:

You are correct to note that someone has to say something about this situation to solve it. Nearly everyone thinks that etiquette has a way to make problems disappear without them having to say or do anything. Unfortunately, since humans are involved, that's not possible. And Etiquetteer knows, to his sorrow, that the longer one seethes silently, the worse a problem becomes.

First of all, and this is true in any marriage, if it's his family, he does the talking, not you, and vice versa. On the other hand, you may find out that your husband isn't as opposed to these frequent visits as you are. Etiquetteer can't assume that he shares your revulsion for his family, although he may. Etiquetteer predicts a frank conversation between the two of you. Whatever the result, it's his family, and he has to deal with them. 

Etiquetteer hopes that your brother-in-law is not actually inviting people for multi-day visits into your own home! Only you and your husband have that privilege. 

All you have the power to change is your own participation and, in consultation with your husband, the participation of your children in these visits. If members of your husband's family want to get together outside your house, that's not your business. But Etiquetteer sees no reason for you to join them more than once over the course of five days. 

Now, how are you going to change the expectations of your in-laws, who are used to seeing you and your children a great deal after seven years? Etiquetteer recommends that you start not being available. Oscar Wilde created "Bunburying" in The Importance of Being Earnest, the subterfuge of leaving town to visit a fictional sick friend (in this case named Bunbury.) Etiquetteer doesn't think you need to go to those lengths, but you can create special activities with one or both of your children, or your own friends, that keeps you from joining your in-laws. Send your husband alone with the excuse that you'd already made other plans, or he can bring the kids and say you "need some time alone being worn out taking care of the children." If he doesn't want to go either, he can tell his brother that all of you have other plans, every night of the week, if necessary. 

You have probably already figured out that your in-laws are with you for life, until death or divorce severs your relationship with them. Rather than rely on those two courses (the first immoral and illegal if you arrange it, the second painful for your children), Etiquetteer very much hopes that you can stake out your own territory in your family life.

 

Etiquetteer has seen a lot in the news over the last week worthy of notice and comment:

Etiquetteer has seen a lot in the news over the last week worthy of notice and comment:

Etiquetteer applauds the Bill Duncan Opportunity School of Lakeland, Florida, for suspending Jonathan Locked, Jr. for deliberately disruptive flatulence. Unfortunately Young Master Locked's father is appealing the suspension, apparently believing that the punishment went too far. Etiquetteer cannot agree, and regrets that Mr. Locked isn't using this suspension to teach his son to respect the authority of teachers and school principals, respect for education and his classmates, and of course Perfect Propriety. Etiquetteer can only hope that the Locked family eats fewer beans after this unfortunate, um, outburst.

In Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin, a pastor and a congregant got in trouble with the law for shooting an arrow in church during a service. Reading the article Etiquetteer certainly got the impression that the pastor is more devoted to using props to illustrate the Word than the Word itself. This sort of sensationalism, plus the way the pastor evicted an objecting congregant, violates every sense of Perfect Propriety to Etiquetteer.

Also in church news, Etiquetteer was very interested to read about the innovations of Rev. Anne Gardner's iSermon Sundays at Phillips Academy. Certainly technology and References to Popular Culture will follow us everywhere, and Etiquetteer really has no objection. What raised Etiquetteer's hackles was the fact that Academy students were eating breakfast in the pews during church! Forgive Etiquetteer for sounding just a bit old-fashioned, but eating in church is NOT approaching worship of the Deity of One's Choice with Perfectly Proper undivided attention. Stop it at once!

Etiquetteer could not but agree with the Daily Telegraph's list of ten first date faux pas. 

Finally, Etiquetteer was both touched and amused to read the obituary of Stella Trafford last week. "The Grande Dame of Boston Parks," who was unafraid to wield a hoe or take on City Hall, received from her stepdaughter what Etiquetteer thinks is the ideal epitaph for a Working Lady to the Manner Born: "She died with her pearls on."

Etiquetteer has a new address for all your etiquette questions, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.

Belching, Vol. 8, Issue 7

Dear Etiquetteer: My sister, who is a beautiful, intelligent, and accomplished young woman, burps. She burps loudly, often, and without covering her mouth. She doesn't say, "excuse me," after the fact. She doesn't excuse herself to the restroom (or another private place) beforehand. In response, my family and I have said things starting at, "Your doctor could probably get something to help with your digestion," to, "That is rude. Please don't burp at the table."

Her response to the former is that she doesn't have any health problem that causes the burps, and to the latter, "I do what I want!"

Again, she is a young woman who has enough background to appreciate just how rude her actions are. She is highly educated and reasonably cultured. We don't understand where her dismissive attitude regarding eructation. Privately, it is uncomfortable. Around company and in public, it is mortifying. How can we address the seriousness of our concern and inappropriateness of her dismissive response?

Dear Digesting in Silence:

Your sister seems to have taken as her role model Princess Fiona in Shrek, which is most unfortunate. Etiquetteer has said often that "No one cares what you want or how you feel," and this certainly applies to your sister! Her willful eructation will surely obscure the beauty, intelligence, and accomplishments you mention, while also making her the darling of eleven-year-old boys everywhere. (But Etiquetteer must question how Reasonably Cultured a woman can be if she behaves this way. Certainly no woman willfully belching like that could be called a lady.)

Etiquetteer fears nothing will curb her evil behavior until she loses a job or a lover over it. Etiquetteer can just imagine her ripping out a large BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPP while interviewing for a job she wants, and then being shown the door. 

Etiquetteer has also heard much of the rivalry of sisters, both in life and in film. Possibly you are not the best person to give your sister direction. That said, there isn't any reason for you to accept her deliberately rude behavior. If you're in public with others and she belches in your presence, just leave the area as unostentatiously as you can. If she continues to burp at your own table, stop inviting her. Yes, even for functions at which all the family is present. Or, and here you will see Etiquetteer's Dark Side, set a place for her in the kitchen while everyone else dines in the dining room. Undoubtedly she'll take exception to this, and you can gently explain that the dining room is only for those who know how to behave like grown-ups at the table. 

Etiquetteer has a new address for all your questions about manners, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com. 

Equality in Workplace Coverage, Vol. 8, Issue 5

Dear Etiquetteer: I am constantly confronted with co-workers who feel like they get a pass on helping with special events, working late, or covering shifts because they have family obligations (kids). Meanwhile, I (the only queer) become the default go-to person. In my mind, their kids, wives, etc., are not my problem and irrelevant. Their lives are no more important than mine. Whether I go home to a house full of kids or a bar full of fun friends or some late night tricks, it is of no concern. 

My question is, how do you tactfully express that? Having a big diva tantrum isn't going to help the situation, but the breeders need to know that my life is just as important as theirs and we all need to either take turns or as a group cover the undesirable hours.

Dear Working Girlfriend:

First, let's cast this question in such a way that it's free of sexual orientation. Gay parents are far from unheard of in the workplace, and so are single straight people. And considering the after-work activities you mention, Etiquetteer is obliged to point out that licentiousness knows no distinctions.

Assuming that these special events and other shifts are scheduled in advance, Etiquetteer recommends that you make yourself unavailable first, before your other colleagues do. No need to say why (and in fact, it would be none of their business), but set an expectation that you are not automatically free to be the default cover. When Entitled Mommy or Entitled Daddy respond, "But I can't that night! I always have to pick up Precious Snowflake at day care" or something, apologize and say you're still not available and that your plans are unbreakable. Refrain from getting on edge with a snappy comeback like "Too bad, I have a [Insert Profane Expletive Here] life, too!" Professional colleagues always have knives. 

Data becomes your best back-up in such situations. When you can point out that, of an office of six people you've been responsible for over 75% of overtime coverage, everyone must recognize that a more equitable solution is needed.

You need to speak with your supervisor about availability, specifically that yours is NOT determined by the fact that you don't have family waiting at home. Ultimately these after-hours assignments are his or her responsibility and if further advance scheduling is needed to assure that coverage is fair, so be it.

Etiquetteer has a new e-mail address for all your questions about Perfect Propriety, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com. Etiquetteer hopes to hear from you soon!

Entertaining at Home, Vol. 8, Issue 4

Dear Etiquetteer: My partner and I love to cook and entertain. We also love to be cooked for and entertained, yet it seems we've attracted friends who like to enjoy our hospitality more than extend theirs. I haven't exactly kept count, but we know couples who've been our guests much more than we've been theirs. I enjoy their company, but I'm feeling resistant to inviting them over to our house yet again since I don't wish to continue a non-reciprocal pattern. I know their house is neat enough and their cooking is good enough, so I don't know what's holding them back from inviting us. Their alternative to eating at our house always seems to be eating out. But we prefer a home-cooked meal-- and we don't always want it to be ours! I know it's probably rude to say, "couldn't you invite us over to your house for a change?" but I don't know what to do.

Dear Harriet Craig:

Your letter reminds Etiquetteer of the redoubtable Marie Dressler as faded stage star Carlotta Vance in Dinner at Eight. Reminiscing about her long string of past lovers and their gifts, she complained "I could only take what they had."

Here, you can only take what hospitality your friends offer, even though it isn't quite what you'd prefer. It might not be Perfectly Proper to speculate on why they would rather dine out with you than in their own homes. The most neutral assumption is personal preference. It might also be that what you think of as a joy they find a chore; they could be preserving their own hostly equilibrium by staying out of the kitchen themselves. All that said, they aren't out of line inviting you out to dinner, as long as they're picking up the whole bill at least some of the time.

When the imbalance of hospitality becomes inseparable from the idea of welcoming these friends into your home again, then your invitations need to cease. Those feelings will only poison your heart against them; Etiquetteer has seen it happen before. You could also suggest activities that don't involve food, like going to the movies or other cultural attractions.  But like you, Etiquetteer values a home-based social life. When worse comes to worst, make new friends who share your values of home entertaining.

It cannot have failed to have come to your attention that the economy is, um, not as robust as it used to be. New, reduced circumstances are affecting hundreds of thousands of people who may be retreating from social life because they can't afford their old standard. Etiquetteer would argue that a social life is even more necessary now; we must band together in adversity! But heading off to Mocambo, Romanoff's, Chasen's, the Stork, 21, or the Cocoanut Grove four nights a week for dining and dancing won't do, nor will laying out filet mignon, Scotch, and all the delicacies for a dinner party at home.

Never has there been a better time for Etiquetteer to trot out that familiar quotation from the real estate industry, "If you can't hide it, paint it red and call it a feature." In this case, make Poverty your theme with a Poverty Pasta night. Assign ingredients one per guest: pasta, sauce, garlic bread, red wine, cheese, etc. (The presence of non-essential items like green salad and dessert automatically upgrades the evening to Gentility Pasta.) Nobody should have to spend more than $10, and everyone ends up with a delicious pasta dinner, convivial company, and no tipping. Etiquetteer recommends the traditional red-and-white checked tablecloth surmounted by candles in straw-covered Chianti bottles, décor once standard in Italian restaurants and now only seen in black-and-white movies. Opera fans can put on a recording of La Boheme to complete an atmosphere of genial poverty. 

All Etiquetteer can add to that is a hearty "Bon appétit!"

Etiquetteer has a beautiful new address for all your queries about manners, morals, and Perfect Propriety in the 21st century, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com. Etiquetteer eagerly hopes to hear from you soon!

Electronic Thanksgiving Invitations, Vol. 7, Issue 21

Dear Etiquetteer: My husband and I decided  to throw a potluck Thanksgiving Day Open House to best accommodate our expanded family, including mothers-in-law, babies, cousins, and their busy schedules. We thought it would be much more fun and convenient for people to come and stay as long as they want rather than having one fixed formal mealtime -- and we all know how long those last during holidays! 

We posted an invitation on [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here] that included the line "Family and friends welcome." To my surprise, a distant cousin responded that he and his wife would not be able to attend because they were going to Thanksgiving at her family's house. I don't know either of them terribly well, but invited them as a courtesy and because we hope to get to know them better. However, even though he responded that they could not attend, he added six other people to our guest list (this was before I thought to disable that function!), none of whom I know -- I think one or two may be his children. 

I would have had no problem if he and his wife had attended and brought their adult children and spouses with them. But to send them along to a party (only 20 or so people were invited in total) that they would not attend seemed inappropriate. And it seemed a large number of guests to invite without checking with us first. 

I wound up deleting them from the guest list and "hiding" the replies. I am not in regular contact with the cousin, so I don't expect any complications. But what would be the appropriate response in the future? And am I correct in assuming that he crossed a courtesy line? 

Dear Perplexed Potluck: To answer your last question first, Etiquetteer gets the impression the courtesy line was so blurry here that it was difficult for your cousin to know just what he was crossing.  With statements like "Open House" and "Family and friends welcome," you led him to believe that all were welcome.  

Plus your use of [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here] makes it FAR too easy to add as many additional guests as one wishes without contacting the host or hostess. This is one of several reasons Etiquetteer dislikes such services. [Secretly, Etiquetteer's Evil Fraternal Twin, Madame Manners (the Etiquette Dominatrix) wants to invite hundreds of strangers to someone's wedding on [Insert Name of Electronic Invitation Service Here.] It would serve them right.] When Etiquetteer issues invitations electronically, they are sent e-mail to e-mail without an electronic intermediary. For those who insist on using an Electronic Invitation Service, Etiquetteer highly recommends suppressing the guest list (to respect the privacy of guests) and disabling any function that permits the guests too much control over YOUR party (such as the ability to invite their own guests). 

Etiquetteer does agree with you that, if a party guest is going to invite more guests to a party, he should accompany them to the party. But without realizing it, you created two opportunities for your cousin to invite his entire family to your home: first, by not disabling the "Invite additional guests" feature on your electronic invitation; and second, by saying "Family and friends welcome." It's also an open house, which you said you were giving because "it would be much more fun and convenient for people to come and stay as long as they want . . . " Even if your cousin and his wife WERE coming to the party, perhaps it might have been "more fun and convenient" for his six guests to come or go at times different from theirs. You'll infer from all this that Etiquetteer really prefers a set mealtime for holiday gatherings, whether formal or informal.

Etiquetteer remembers with great pleasure the many Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and Easter Sunday meals of childhood. At the homes of different family members in the 1960s and 1970s, Etiquetteer could expect long lines of card tables in every room set with snowy linen just like the dining room, the good china and silver, and a buffet in the kitchen groaning with turkey and all the trimmings. Having everyone together to break bread at the same time remains special. And of course early arrivals with fully laden plates would always use the Bible verse "When two or three are gathered in My name" to begin eating before everyone was seated. Ah, those halcyon days . . . 

Etiquetteer also calls to your attention a little but significant contradiction. You begin by saying you "invited them as a courtesy and because we hope to get to know them better," but later that you are "not in regular contact with the cousin, so I don't expect this will cause any complications." You can't get to know them better without starting some sort of regular contact.  Etiquetteer encourages you to consider another open house, for New Year's Day, and to make a special point of inviting this cousin and all his family to join you. You might end up starting the New Year by making new friends within your own family. 

Hell Is Other People: Etiquetteer’s Experience, Vol. 6, Issue 35

To continue with the theme of "Hell is other people," Etiquetteer feels compelled to share some of his own recent experiences:

In daily life Etiquetteer works on a large university campus, one feature of which is a large number of restrooms. One day not too long ago Etiquetteer entered a men’s room with some urgency and was disgusted – disgusted! – to find the toilet seat running with someone’s urine. Quite possibly that is the most cruelly inconsiderate thing one man can do to another: urinate without lifting the seat. Etiquetteer thinks it’s even worse than not flushing. At least that’s corrected simply! It’s the easiest thing in the world to lift a toilet seat. The squeamish can even do so with their shoes rather than soil their dainty hands.

The squeamish have another bad behavior Etiquetteer has seen on the rise, too. Snowdrifts of paper towels now appear near the men’s room door, discarded by exiting users who didn’t want to touch the doorknob with their bare hands. Littering is not the way to solve this problem! If you must do this, pocket that paper towel and throw it away in the office,not on the floor. Littering in this way – in any way – shows contempt for the other people in your community. They deserve your respect, and you deserve better yourself.

Etiquetteer, of course, recognizes that the squeamish have a point. Not everyone chooses to wash their hands after Performing a Bodily Function. Omitting this essential function of Perfect Propriety really isn’t an option. Your mother may not be watching over your shoulder, but anyone else in the restroom is aware. The time lapse from flush to exit is apparent to all! Please, spend 30 seconds purifying your filthy hands before leaving the room.

Etiquetteer has a couple special messages for members of the audience at last week’s "Night of Stars" gala presented byBoston Ballet:

To the woman across the aisle: If you absolutely must unwrap a cough drop while in the theatre, please use your intelligence to do so during applause, when it won’t disrupt those around you. As it was, those in your vicinity were vexed in the extreme. Your ability to stretch out all that crinkling to two minutes per cough drop defied all reason. Unless you can show more thoughtfulness to others, Etiquettteer suggests you stay home.

To the audible man: During a ballet, it’s not uncommon for a female dancer to part her legs. In fact, it’s quite usual. Female dancers have even been known to part their legs while being lifted by their partners into the air. This movement during any kind of dance is so ordinary that folks ceased commenting about it, oh, about 150 years ago . . . and certainly not in a voice audible seven to ten rows away! Please remember that a theatre is not a stadium, and also that people attend ballet performances to see ballet, not listen to the opinions of total strangers.

Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify <at> etiquetteer.com.