> "Just there, dictated by society in general, mandating blanket, blind and gratuitous conformance to an arbitrary standard" is bad, but disliking the way kids dress at high school is not? You're being inconsistent here.

Not really. I concede that there is gray area between those rules I'm condoning and those I'm condemning. However. Wearing torn jeans or exposing underwear is not a lateral call with regard to formality (i.e., black tux vs. white tux, or black t-shirt vs. white t-shirt) but a call about how formally one is dressed for the specific occasion of attending school classes. I fully realize this call is my personal opinion and may well fall within the gray area. But so what? So it falls within the gray area. "Don't wear white after Labor Day, no matter who you are, where you are, or what the occasion" is quite different.

> (especially if they're not violating a school's dress code!)

The presence of any dress code at all would change the scenario entirely. I was assuming none. With a dress code that disallows torn jeans, I would have all the more ground to stand on in denouncing them; with a dress code that permitted them, my (absolutely personal and subjective) beef would be with the dress code, not with anybody who made use of its lenience.

> If anything, "don't wear white after Labour Day" has more of a purpose than "wear a tie in here." Not wearing white after Labour Day (an admittedly arbitrary deadline) serves the purpose koalamom mentioned -- easier to keep stuff clean.

I disagree totally. Koalamom's practical reason only gives the rule a practical purpose on the personal level. But if this rule is established as one everyone is expected to follow, it disallows one from wearing white (1) because *this* day is not wet, (2) because one is not going to be outside much, (3) because one happens to be good at keeping clothes clean anyway, (4) because one carries spot cleaner in one's pocket, (5) because one won't be in a place where dirty clothing would fall below the formality standards of the occasion and doesn't give a crap about the condition of his clothes.

"Wear a tie in here," while admittedly enforcing a type of formality that makes use of one, is nevertheless a kind of rule that specifies a *level* of formality instead of purely how that is achieved.

To sum up, I'm distinguishing between rules that seem geared towards a level of formality rather than lateral constraints within levels of formality. And I'm also distinguishing between rules that apply to a place and occasion (dinnertime at an upscale hotel, classes at school) and rules that apply to everybody, all the time, regardless of circumstance or company.

> "Dressing appropriately" is not equivalent to being polite or courteous, because the way you dress does not necessarily impact your actions.

"Dressing appropriately" *is* an action. Show up to a wedding in a red leather studded jacket and partially bleached, torn jeans, and, unless this is a very unusual wedding, that is impolite and discourteous even if your every word and your every other action is the soul of graciousness.

Of course, if you bump into someone on the street, then I concede your point: the manner in which that person is dressed has basically no impact on that person's politeness or courtesy. But this distinction is exactly why I distinguish between fashion rules for an occasion and blanket fashion rules for everybody, all the time.

I'm not asking anybody to accept exactly where I draw all the lines on this topic. Disagree with me on the school issue, and that's fine: I can disagree with but respect that position. I *know* that fashion is subjective, and there is much gray area.

The only claim I'm making definitively here is that there is some black and white at the ends of the gray, and that stupid don't wear white after Labor Day rule, when applied as a blanket rule to all circumstances, is so far off the deep end as to be petty, superficial, and stupid.