He was tucking in his shirt? Turned away from the door, in a room with only another guy?
I'm with Woodrow -- no big deal AT ALL.
But for this--the coworker in question has... boundary issues, shall we say--I'd be with Woodrow.
The mixed-gender nature of the office is the issue here, rendering the pants-unbuttoning and depth-tucking possibly just a bit inappropriate.
Share the stories of coworker's boundary issues!
the coworker in question has... boundary issues
This is the key. In the absence of evidence of weirdness, we'd default to saying no harm done or intended, an innocent moment of flightiness, etc. But if the guy has boundary issues, it's much more likely that he got a charge out of being a bit undressed somewhere he might be "caught." So definitely not ok.
Hey, the guy needed some deep tucking. Why hate?
Hmm.. I think other people and I are reading "boundary issues" differently. What does the phrase mean, exactly?
The shirt-tucking's not a big deal, but the boundary issues are.
If he thought you were not coming back, no problem with a quick tuck with his back to the door.
Now he has been caught in the act, no more tucking.
But, you shouldn't let any of those scandalous bra straps ever peak out either! And no VPL or VP. This is a professional setting, after all.
Just wait. Woodrow will take to his sickbed, and you'll get to make all the hard calls.
Eh, my hair tends to shed and I find myself plucking strays from my cleavage a few times a day in my not-so-private office. I try to be discreet, but it hardly seems worth going to the bathroom just so no one has to be embarrassed by me grabbing around near my breasts.
What does the phrase mean, exactly?
He believes Danzig is part of Germany.
I'd say that it was Woody who was off base. I'd have to agree that if you're opening your fly, you should probably be in the restroom.
Of course, I will heap shame and scorn on Edith if she ever adjusts, e.g., her hosiery, in any kind of public setting.
I wouldn't say 10 is in the same ballpark, but I'd still say that Woodrow was in safer grey area here. Seems weird, especially since you can just loosen the belt and tuck clothing in (unless your pants have no slack whatsoever, which just means you need better clothing choice or to lose some weight). He should avoid the full open-fly deep-tuck in the future.
And sorry for the first digression, but has anyone else seen this ad? When I first saw it, it looked so much like a dig at Edwards. Now it's starting to look a little more like a 50-something lovechild of Edwards and Roberts. Sure, it's just a white politician-looking guy with nice hair, but the resemblence is still interesting for a very new ad campaign and a high-profile candidate.
13: I think evidence of an open fly was inconclusive at best. I suspect that was just Edith's vivid imagination getting the better of her.
But I like fat chicks!
Sorry, I just wanted to get ahead of the argument for once. No one's posted anything about the Thursday Styles "chicks eating steak" article yet.
My father's boss was known, at work-related banquets and events, to periodically stand at the table and tuck in his pants through his fly. That is, he would unzip the fly, reach inside, pull and straighten.
This behavoir was attributed to his child-like good nature, and his being Polish.
I am not pleased with this brave new blockquoting world.
Typography issues aside, any unbuttoning/unzipping should be done in the bathroom.
7 gets it right. Absent actual indecent exposure, clothing adjustments shouldn't be a big deal if they're just clothing adjustments, but if someone is getting jollies by making others uncomfortable, that's a different story.
If it were a private, windowless office, it might have bordered on OK
Bordered on okay? I change clothes completely, twice a day, in my private, windowless office. There's a lot more privacy in my office than in the men's room.
This is not a big deal. Men have shirts. Decorum occasionally demands that they must be tucked. So I have to go into a secret hidey space to tuck my shirt because the sensitive might imagine they could see a flash of underpants? He was facing away from the door, dammit. As bitch says, the boundary issues are the real concern. But, if the shirt-tuck freaks you out enough to write this:
this was so inappropriate that I'm surprised Woodrow thinks there's even a question about it.
I have no idea why this would offend anyone.
Agree on the boundary issues consensus.
I admit to being a shirt-tucker. I have faced away before in private. Most of the time, I am very, very fast. In an elevator (by myself), I can tuck in my shirt from the second the door on the 1st floor closes 'til the time it hits the 3rd. Luckily, it never stopped on the 2nd.
Now that I have an office, I close the door.
Is that okay? I worry about the belt-tinkling issue.
given this gasp of prissiness (and the machine-gun use of the word "inappropriate" which is always a total red-flag for me - try and say it without whining, I dare thee) over such a small incident, I am not exactly inclined to take the "boundary issues*" at face value either. I also note that our correspondent managed to take in a hell of a lot of quite specific visual information in the split second between walking into the room and averting her eyes, which is an entirely unfair thing to point out, but I mention it because at heart, I'm not a very nice person.
My advice? Punch him or fuck him. I think I've given this advice before on entirely different topics. Or possibly start drinking your own urine in the mornings.
*"issues" - also something of a red flag.
23 might be amended if the poster explains what "boundary issues" means. But really, he was facing away from the door. If this isn't part of a pattern of behavior, then it's nothing.
Bordered on okay? I change clothes completely, twice a day, in my private, windowless office.
Heck, I do it in my private office that has a window, admittedly one that nobody can see in through. Just close the door and it's all good. I don't think I'd be happy about someone knowingly doing it in front of me in a shared space, though. Not that it's such a big deal, but I'd just rather not. I'm good at sharing space, though--it even bugs me when someone is working just outside my office.
The Yale Center for British Art has a beautiful long hall (intended no doubt as a nod to British architectural history) at the back of its galleries that runs their length. At either end are large offices that are not only shared by multiple people (three or more), but are completely visible to the public through glass walls and doors. They are lovely rooms, airy and light with high ceilings and artwork on the walls, but my god, I would absolute hate to work in one.
"inappropriate" which is always a total red-flag for me - try and say it without whining, I dare thee
Easily done. Imagine it being said in a disapproving mama voice.
Heh. I'm now reminded of our high school soccer team. We practiced and played at the nearby elementary school field. Everyone changed clothes in the parking lot, which was usually full of faculty and staff leaving for the day.
If you like, you can ring me up and I'll say it for you over the phone.
It was the belt-undoing and the hand positioning that really got to me. If the belt's undone, then it's too extended a tuck for a semi-public space. The mixed-genderedness of the office occupants is also an issue, but really, people are popping in and out of this office all day, so there's no "safe" window when you can be sure a woman won't be in the room.
As for the boundary issues, it's not that he's trying to get a rise out of people, it's that he doesn't even see when things he does or says violates people's comfort zones. He has this issue with both men and women
The question really isn't about my coworker, though, it's about how differently Woodrow and I saw the behavior. I'd like to hear more women's opinions on this because we both suspect this breaks along gender lines.
Look, it's clear that this coworker is a cheating asshole.
It was the belt-undoing and the hand positioning that really got to me. If the belt's undone, then it's too extended a tuck for a semi-public space. The mixed-genderedness of the office occupants is also an issue, but really, people are popping in and out of this office all day, so there's no "safe" window when you can be sure a woman won't be in the room.
As for the boundary issues, it's not that he's trying to get a rise out of people, it's that he doesn't even see when things he does or says violates people's comfort zones. He has this issue with both men and women
The question really isn't about my coworker, though, it's about how differently Woodrow and I saw the behavior. I'd like to hear more women's opinions on this because we both suspect this breaks along gender lines.
32: My high school track team would get changed in Central Park. There was a long, drawn-out battle between us and the coach: he would tell us he was receiving complaints and that we had to stop, we would ignore him.
Anything short of full nudity in public places should be acceptable. Hell, it is acceptable, so I don't understand how someone could complain.
HRC in 10: The key words there are "quick" and "discreet." Undoing one's belt and shoving both hands down one's pants is neither. All, please go reread paragraph #3 of the post before you write me off as a prude.
Suckers and your tucked-in shirts!
I think if you're unzipping or unbuttoning your clothing to get at whatever you need to adjust, and you're in a professional situation, excuse yourself and take the ten seconds to go to the restroom or close the door to your office. It's not a huge faux pas, but it's just courtesy given that chances are you have a wide range of ages and prudishness in the office.
Turning your back to the door and quickly tucking in your shirt is, even if it involves undoing one's belt, fine.
I don't really get why it's not. OK, you probably want to do it when other people aren't around -- purely because you want to maintain that suave Cary Grant thing -- but it's hardly exhibitionism.
Well...I still don't see anything wrong with it, since he was facing away from anyone who might see him. That is, IF he was tucking in his shirt and not engaging in personal hygeine or gratification.
Yeah, I gotta go with the "don't undo your clothing in public" thing.
It doesn't break along gender lines for me, or at least my being female doesn't make me uneasy with the behavior. I am a total, total prude who dresses with extreme modesty. I'm very anxious about not violating various unspoken norms of behavior (partly because I'm fat, and as in yesterday's discussion, socially speaking a skinny chick whose skirt rides up is hott and a fat one is gross/disturbing/inappropriate). And yet I'd like a little bit less appropriateness-anxiety on everyone's part, just because it gets exhausting and sad sometimes. So it was sort of an awkward thing to do, yeah, but maybe we could just pretend (as with many socially-inrecognizeable events) that this sort of thing doesn't happen even if we see it.
If the fellow in question is always saying work-inappropriate things, I can see how this would render minor tucking behavior more disturbing, but it also seems to make him less likely to be changeable.
You know, ever since college I've always had at least one friend with a bizarre and embarassing tic--a guy who tapped his foot and jiggled his leg uncontrollably, someone else who (and I wish I knew how to bring this up in a kind fashion) tends to pluck at his pants when sitting down in a way that is, I don't know, inappropriate, someone whose rather disgusting respiratory habits I'll spare you...all men, all very bright, all driven, and two given to obscession of the record-collector/every-detail-of-Marxist history sort. All three people of whom I've been very fond, and I've just sort of decided that the tics go along with the people and embodiment and all that.
Right. I think the anxiety here is that he might have been doing more than tucking, given his other behaviors, right? That you fear you're being generous by deciding it was a tuck?
This workplace isn't the Rural Payments Agency in Newcastle is it?
40: After 34/38, "prude" is coming to mind for me, too, but I'm resisting. I think there is a variation on this stuff, but I suspect it breaks more or regional/cultural lines than gender.
If an office is being shared, presumably some knowledge of the co-worker's moral fiber/habits/leanings etc have been gleaned. Maybe said co-worker thought your working relationship had developed to the point that a more determine shirt-tuck wouldn't rile any feathers. I'm a woman, trying to contribute to the gender reporting on this; if I came across that situation at my current job, with my current sharing-an-office male co-worker, I'd probably just say "Hey" and sit down at my computer. It really just depends on the person, their creep factor and your knowledge of them.
Usually there's an office culture, and that's controlling. If the guy has issues with other people over a variety of things, it seems more likely that he was violating the relevant norms.
But I don't have a deep problem with someone changing in their office, even if shared. I would bar nudity, but dropping to boxers or that weird bra thing women do after a game doesn't bother me at all. But I'm relatively comfortable with the idea of co-ed bathrooms, so I may be an outlier.
that weird bra thing women do after a game
You mean like when soccer players exchange jerseys?
More, much more, on the RPA Newcastle
If the generosity mentioned in 47 is even an issue, given past behavior, he should most definitely retreat to the bathroom. However, that would require a pretty serious history of boundary issues, especially since he's apparently clueless rather than maliciously creepy.
Strange how this does seem to be breaking down along gender lines, though. I wouldn't I have thought it would be controversial.
53: What on earth is 'bareback Parkour'? Without shoes? Without clothes? While actually engaging in anal sex?
And on the larger issue, if you don't think he's doing it to get a reaction, I don't think it's any worse than not terribly smooth. Not ideal maybe, but a little uncouth at the worst. If I've misunderstood, and it is some kind of deliberate attempt to make people uncomfortable, that's different.
Strange how this does seem to be breaking down along gender lines, though.
Umm, what? Excluding Edith, I count 2-1 at the moment.
53: That...that's a joke, right? Just some of your crazy British humor? It's not real. I'm not believing it.
When I think I used to long to move to the UK!
Sorry, I missed AWB and Frowner and LB, so 2-4, in favor of Woodrow.
Leaping from filing cabinet to filing cabinet while in a state of undress, in the case of at least one employee, total undress. They apparently nipped off to the toilets for unprotected anal sex, using the corridors for impromptu breakdancing competitions and the reception area for fights.
The grim thing is that in the same year, at least a couple of farmers committed suicide due to bankruptcy occasioned by the RPA fucking up their subsidy payments.
So what's the Mineshaft-approved solution when you're sitting in a meeting and realize there's a pube stuck in your zipper?
#60 would be better submitted to "Ask the Rural Payments Agency in Newcastle".
59: No, the really grim thing is all the government-hating libertarians reading the article and singing hosannas over having all of their suspicions confirmed. There were probably too many farmers anyway.
There were probably too many farmers anyway.
If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
Strange how this does seem to be breaking down along gender lines, though. I wouldn't I have thought it would be controversial.
How ironic.
realize there's a pube stuck in your zipper
Yours or a co-worker's?
How ironic.
Even more ironic? He's wrong.
I think the gender split here has more to do with the fact that, as a woman, the comfort level you have with dude friends at work really does make a difference. If I worked in an office with two guys I really liked and felt comfortable with, I'd change shirts, discreetly, if I needed to, in front of them. But most work relationships with dudes are more sensitive and complex than that. It's really uncomfortable to share a workspace with someone who you would not be surprised to find doing a foreskin check after lunch over your desk.
68 seems like it doesn't need to be gendered.
It is gendered. Sorry. If I'm uncomfortable with a creepy dude at work who I suspect of being able or wanting to humiliate or hurt me for his own pleasure, that's a lot different from you thinking there's a kinda gross girl in your office who tugs at her tights suspiciously overmuch. You're not as likely to fear her.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to respond to this without blowing pseudonimity, but: I am not a prude. I don't care what people do outside of the office, even if my delicate virginal eyes should set upon it. What you all seem to be reading as pearl-clutching moral dread is me being grossed out that this particular individual was the one who did it, as anyone who knows him would be. And as icky as I found the situation, I'm equally convinced he wasn't trying to be creepy, he just wasn't putting much thought into it.
Let's set aside the issue of Clueless McCreeperson for a minute, though. Can we all agree that removing clothing at the office, in the absence of explicit agreements to the contrary, is not OK? Or (as the consensus appears to be) am I just a fragile little being who just needs to chain her knees together and be done with it? Because if it's the latter, I'm beginning to think Tia was on to something.
It's really uncomfortable to share a workspace with someone who you would not be surprised to find doing a foreskin check after lunch over your desk.
*hangs head*
I didn't realized that it bothered anyone.
You're not a fragile little being, Edith. I just suspect that you're from more polite society than I am. For me, the creepiness of the guy matters more than the possibility of shirt-tucking in a shared space while you thought your coworkers were away for a moment. I'm assuming that if you were creeped out by it, it's not because someone was tucking in a shirt while he thought he had a moment alone, but because you don't trust this guy, and that's important.
Or (as the consensus appears to be) am I just a fragile little being who just needs to chain her knees together and be done with it?
I don't see that consensus at all. People have said (a) they're more comfortable with it than you appear to be, and (b) that his prior behavioral issues might/would play a part in how we interpreted this behavior.
That is, I say this as someone who occasionally readjusts tights when I think no one's looking, and if someone were to walk around the corner, it might look funny.
Okay, now I'm surprised by how controversial this is.
See, I think that Clueless McCreeperson is the issue. Or at least the specifics of the office are...for instance, when AWB talks about some guy doing something creepy on purpose in order to hurt or humiliate his female co-workers, well, that's so different from any office culture that I've ever experienced (and I've experienced some toxic ones) that it's difficult for me to know how to react.
I think it's clear that it would be better for people to do major clothing removal and adjustment in private in the office, but I just hate the whole "ooh, I saw his backhair/her cellulite; how can I look across the conference table at him/her now?" thing, with its accompanying need for constant self-policing. And I hate that in a specificly gendered way, now that I think about it--self-policing is much more constant and internalized for women.
Could we perhaps say that if it's really creeping you out, you have the right to a non-creepy office and something should be done? That Creepy McCreeperson's shirt-tuckings don't take priority over your ability to feel at ease in the office?
Ms. Wilson, do you work with Lowell P. Thurber?
What's the problem with saying that someone shouldn't undo their damn pants in public?
78: It's not like he did it in the middle of the street, or on purpose in front of his coworker.
In general I wouldn't find it anything more than slightly amusing in a ha! caughtcha! kind of way. It sounds as if his history of boundary issues - which are unquestionably bothersome and doubtless make it unpleasant to work with him - is more one of cluelessness than intentional abuse. If the former, I'd chalk this one up to Yet Another Boneheaded Thing He Did. Sometimes the bathroom is awfully far away for a quick tuck; on the other hand, I definitely retire to the gents' for said activities or at least the privacy/phone room or something.
Could we perhaps say that if it's really creeping you out, you have the right to a non-creepy office and something should be done? That Creepy McCreeperson's shirt-tuckings don't take priority over your ability to feel at ease in the office?
"Zactly. Or, to look at a similar issue, I swear a bit more than some and have on occasion used imagery that not everyone is comfortable with. If there were someone who was uncomfortable with the language I used--because of religious reasons or because they have kids or because they're just irritated or creeped out by it--and they mentioned it to me, I'd try very hard to change. I think I should give way to their sense of comfort. But I don't start out assuming I'm some sort of beast around whom they'll be uncomfortable, largely b/c that hasn't been my experience.
78: Well, they shouldn't, but if it's not intentionally meant to make the environment hostile, it doesn't seem worth all that much of a reaction. I dunno, though, this may really be a 'you have to be there' kind of thing.
I'm tucking in my shirt right now.
Is that so wrong?
Right, and Tim's swearing is a good example. I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd say "I never want to hear the words 'shit' or 'fuck' in the workplace. Does that make me a prude? I don't think it's professional." And, sure, we might all agree that it's probably not professional. But that's how some people talk sometimes (as I often do myself). But when someone creepy or dumb curses a lot in the workplace, it deeply grates on my nerves.
A girl at my grad school who, for some reason, uses the word "shit" like "smurf" to replace various words in sentences, once asked me "AWB, do I have shit in my teeth?" "Jeez, I hope not. Yuck." Had one of my friends asked the same thing, I would have been polite. I just don't like her.
I don't think it matters whether it was intentionally meant if it's makign her uncomfortable and I think Edith handled it just fine. She politely asked the guy to go to the restroom if he wants to unzip his pants.
And while I don't think anyone needs to be running around assuming he's some sort of beast, there's something weird about the sort of "What's your problem, little lady, you didn't see my peeper" vibe coming off of this. It's a public, co-ed place that isn't a sports team. "Keep your pants on" doesn't sound like that much of a stretch for co-ed office etiquette.
"Keep your pants on" doesn't sound like that much of a stretch for co-ed office etiquette.
And where are you drawing that rule from? Personal experience, I'd bet. Which is where everyone else is drawing their rules from, I think. Again, I'm happy to say that the more restrictive rule ought to win out, but I don't see why I should be required, right from the start, to assume the experiences that informed my sense of the norm are not, in fact, the ones that best describe the norm.
I don't think anyone has (or not many people have) suggested that Edith did something inappropriate in asking for changed behavior.
Can we all agree that removing clothing at the office, in the absence of explicit agreements to the contrary, is not OK?
Wait, are you including the shirt-tucking-in situation as a form of "removing clothing"? That certainly doesn't make sense.
Also, since you say it wouldn't be creepy except for the person doing it...then we have no ability to answer your question unless we know the person. Of course it would be creepy if it was a sufficiently creepy person.
85: Maybe this is some kind of crazy problem with tone and typeface and stuff, but I'm really not getting a "what's your problem, little lady?" feel from this whole exchange.
On mature reflection, I think that "no unbelting of pants unless in total privacy when at the office" might be the most economical way to manage the whole matter. Obviously, in some situations some people will feel strongly about this matter; in some situations, co-workers will be genuinely creepy rather than forgivably clueless; and it's a tremendous waste of time and energy to worry about which is which. So just keep the pants buckled and we're all happy.
Just as with the lunch-with-colleagues-and-pizza discussion yesterday, it seems that we might be better off with a touch more formality in most offices just because informality can rapidly turn exhausting and frustrating. Lunch on food of your choice on your own time! Keep your pants on!
Ooo, nothing along the lines of 'no big deal' I said was meant to imply that Edith shouldn't have asked him not to do it again -- that was perfectly, absolutely appropriate. I myself would have phrased along the lines of "Jesus, where were you brought up, a barn?" but polite works too.
"Civil servants at Newcastle's Rural Payments Agency (RPA) went out on a bender last night to celebrate their notoriety after the local paper revealed staff were caught on office CCTV leaping naked from filing cabinets."
Right. As any fule kno, it isn't the money that makes a government job worth working at, it's the benefits.
I myself would have phrased along the lines of "Jesus, where were you brought up, a barn?"
No wonder you'd have trouble upstate.
I think I should make it clear that regardless of his intent or lack thereof, it's entirely within the bounds to ask him not to do that and Edith is in no way overreacting by doing so.
What's the problem with saying that someone shouldn't undo their damn pants in public?
This is somewhat devil's advocate, but: most of us wear underwear to the office most of the time. The amount of skin coverage provided by underwear counts as "not exposed" in some circumstances in which one might encounter a co-worker (beach, pool, running on a hot day). And if one's back is to the door while unzipping and tucking shirt, it's unlikely that anyone's even going to get a flash of underwear. So where's the issue? We know that there's underwear and maybe even genitals under the pants, we know that they get touched sometimes, and if we're not seeing it, why is it a huge issue to think that it might be happening in our presence? I'd put it somewhere in the same neighborhood as trimming a fingernail in the office: I wouldn't want someone doing it in the middle of a meeting, but I wouldn't be scandalized if I walked in on it, either.
As noted many times above, boundary issues are another matter. If that's what's going on here, then that's the issue, not the shirt-tucking.
I agree with 92. The reaction was not an overreaction. I just don't see the need for any reaction at all, but again we don't know what the guy has done in the past.
Unbuckling one's pants is not removing clothing, it's loosening clothing.
it's entirely within the bounds to ask him not to do that
And everybody who agrees with this statement also agrees that it's entirely within the bounds to ask a nursing mother to go somewhere private as well, right?
Am I the only one who wants to bang their head against the wall at this point?
Don't. Unzip. Your pants. In public. I can't believe you guys want to quibble about so elementary a social norm.
Don't. Unzip. Your pants. In public. I can't believe you guys want to quibble about so elementary a social norm.
If everyone disagrees with you, consider the possibility that you fucked up the social norm.
I also got a whiff from the description of the position of his hands that Ms. Wilson feared he might be rooting around down in there. Unbuttoning pants? Not itself a problem in my book. Creepy dude rooting around in his balls for something? Major problem.
96: Be our guest. What we're saying is that the norm isn't so elementary as you're asserting.
FWIW, my wife violates the asserted norm more frequently than I do, despite being a pretty modest person.
95: Analogy. Apo is banned, with extreme prejudice.
Look, it's not a big deal. The guy tried to do a quick shirt-tuck in the office, which we've all done, and he got walked in on. BFD. But the fact that we all do it and that it's not a major issue doesn't mean that, once caught, it isn't an actual faux pas. You apologize and move the fuck on, but you *do* apologize because you *aren't* supposed to unzip in public.
Oh, LB. I have not yet begun to troll.
So you guys are saying that it's not against social norms to unzip in public?
I just want to get this clear.
Edith wasn't even sure the pants were unzipped, for cripes sake. The guy saw no one was in his office, turned to face the wall, and adjusted something.
"Hey, can you not do that in our office without closing the door" is a perfectly reasonable response to this; "this is so inappropriate that no one can question the inappropriateness in good faith" is clearly not.
, but you *do* apologize because you *aren't* supposed to unzip in public.
Cite?
the consensus appears to be [I am] just a fragile little being
I don't read that at all. As far as there is a consensus, it is that
a)I can't count,and
b)The creepiness of Tucky McCreepster is an issue outside of any tucking.
103: Not completely against social norms, no.
"at least the top button, possibly the fly." Okay, fine, I exaggerated slightly. But I still find it kind of amazing that y'all are asserting that there's nothing wrong with unbuckling and unbuttoning in public.
YES people do it all the time, and YES we usually overlook it, just as we overlook when people scratch their ass or blow their nose or what have you. But the fact that we overlook it and that tucking in a shirt is a normal and inoffensive act doesn't mean that when you get right down to it, you ought not unbutton your pants in public, and that if you do, you at least ought not get caught doing so.
Where the hell is Slol to back me up on this one?
Not completely against social norms, no.
Men are pigs.
Is it clear that pants were unzipped? I thought it wasn't.
Also, was the guy in the office with him bothered? If so, then I'd say he was crossing some line. If not, then I'm going to stick with "prude."
105, 107: Oh, come on. You wouldn't do it on the sidewalk, or in a meeting. The question isn't whether it's normal to unzip your pants in public, it's whether your shared office counts as private enough to get away with it. To which the answer is, "Not if it bothers people."
Wait, B, now I can't blow my nose in my office anymore either? This is bullshit.
Bitch, what about an empty office is, at that moment, public? Do you make no distinctions between different kinds of privacy? If I really needed to adjust the crotch of my tights and I thought I had two seconds alone in my office, I'd do so, dammit.
I disagree with 96 to the extent that "public" includes "in a room containing nobody else, facing away from the door".
79: He did do it in front of another (male) coworker, who was glad he was looking elsewhere at the time. The bathroom is only 20 or 30 feet away, so ducking out to attend to the tucking in private would not have been a hardship.
Wait, are you including the shirt-tucking-in situation as a form of "removing clothing"? That certainly doesn't make sense.
If the belt is undone to the point where I can see one of the ends at a casual glance from side-behind, then yeah, that counts as clothing removal in my book. If your hands need that much room and/or you're taking that much time about it, then you're probably doing something that your coworkers would really rather not watch.
Also, I'm drawing a distinction between "creepy" and "not office-appropriate." From this guy it was creepy. From anyone else, it would have been a caught-you-nosepicking kind of "not OK." I'd rather not see it, but it's not criminal either.
112: I can and do in parking lots from time to time. Face the car, verify that no one's nearby and looking, unzip, tuck, zip. Not a big deal.
Not only that, but I routinely take off my belt at metal detectors, yeah verily even in courthouses. Transgressive, that's me.
To which the answer is, "Not if it bothers people."
Totally agreed, which is why I the relevent question is are other people in the office bothered? If so (and there's some indication that the answer is yes), then yes he's clearly doing something wrong. If no, then I think it's undue sensitivity on Edith's part.
But I don't necessarily think it's a problem that she asked him not to do it again. Although I'm not sure about that.
Yes, Edith, this is what I was hoping to get at. He was rooting around in his balls, right? A real, live, honest-to-God shirt tuck does not make people look away and wish they were somewhere else. I think that's why we all assumed there was something more than a shirt-tuck happening, and that banning shirt-tucking seems to be targeting the wrong behavior.
116: So what was exposed to you was one end of his belt?
YOU HAD TO HAVE BEEN THERE
Anyone else noticing some similarities between this thread and the steroid one?
Look, see, this is the thing about social norms of this nature. We all fart and pick our noses and unbutton our pants and yank our tights up when we think no one's looking.
If you get caught, though, you fucking excuse yourself because it *is* a social faux pas. On the other end of things, if you walk in on someone in the bathroom or in their private office with the door closed and you catch them yanking up their tights, *you* apologize, because *you're* the one committing the faux pas by catching them doing a socially inappropriate thing in a place where they have an appropriate expectation of privacy.
And no, Brock, you're actually not supposed to blow your nose in front of other people.
Anyone else noticing some similarities between this thread and the steroid one?
Are you saying this guy was trying to locate his steroid-shrunken testes?
114, 117: This is like Miss Manners on nose picking -- "If no one sees it, it didn't happen." For sure, if you're in a nominally public place and no one can see you, you can do anything you'd do in private. But you do have to be reasonably good about knowing that no one can see you. If you screw up and get busted, it's not the worst thing in the world, but it does count as a screwup -- you weren't allowed to do whatever you were doing because it's okay in public, but because if no one's there, public spaces can function as private.
I occasionally unbutton a few shirt buttons to apply deodorant during the day. Whenever I do it without closing my door, I think, "I should really have my door closed." If someone saw me doing it, they would either say, "Dude. Close your door when you do that," or they would snark about it to someone else in the office.
So I'm going to go with, "Mildly inappropriate, clearly exacerbated by undisclosed creepiness."
124: The question, though, is whether a shared office counts as a public or private space for these purposes.
126: Exactly.
Metal detectors and the like are areas where we're all required to suspend the notions of propriety that otherwise operate. Not only do we take our belts off, we also let strangers rifle through our personal possessions, neither of which we'd allow elsewhere.
128, see 126. It's private if you don't get caught, it's public if you do. He got caught. It was public.
I disagree with 124.3. Since the alternative is sneezing all over people or picking your nose in front of them, I think blowing with a sheepish "excuse me" is fine.
131: The alternative is to go to the bathroom and blow your nose.
Which admittedly very few of us ever do, but as you admit, you say *excuse me*. You acknowledge that you're doing something mildly improper.
Whose side are you on, LB? Your fence-sitting is unacceptable.
Metal detectors and the like are areas where we're all required to suspend the notions of propriety that otherwise operate. Not only do we take our belts off, we also let strangers rifle through our personal possessions, neither of which we'd allow elsewhere.
And if we're really lucky, they run that electric wand thingy all about our bodies. Ah, security.
Amanda Gamble says leave the room if possible. Emily Post's grandson Peter says that "while there are nose blowing situations that call for leaving the room, such as a formal dinner or a serious business presentation, it's not practical all the time", so carry tissues.
The latter, nota bene, is in a press release for Puffs. Wither our heros?
I was also going to diverge on 124.3. If I couldn't blow my nose in public, I couldn't leave the house for at least a couple of weeks every year. Don't you get colds? I am sheepishly apologetic about it (once went to a job interview with a bad enough cold that the interviewer offered to get me soup. I know I should have rescheduled, but I was too sick and stupid to think of it as an option. Did get the job, though.) but once I've apologized, I blow.
130: OK, now we're going in circles. The question was whether it was unacceptable for him to be doing it at all. Your argument seems to be that it's OK but you have to say "excuse me" if someone catches you at it. I don't have any beef with that.
136: I took the LSAT with a monster cold. I hope no one around me was too grossed out by the pile of tissue that accumulated by the end.
There was a time when I got pulled aside every time I flew to get my thighs and tits rubbed up. WTF? It's not like they could have learned anything from it.
133: Other than on nose-blowing, I'm with B., and kinda with Edith. You don't undo your pants in public, and while you can stretch a point if you're sure no one will see you, if someone does see you that means you weren't sure. Edith seems more disturbed than I'd be, but I'm guessing that AWB is right, and that this looked like something more adventurous than mere shirttucking.
Maybe agreeing that it's not impermissible, but you must say "excuse me" could be applied to the Pretzel Logic conundrum as well.
Bitch seems to be drawing a line where anything you'd say "excuse me" for is unprofessional. But I think most of us are thinking of the other line, beyond which no "excuse me" will excuse, like a foreskin check in a shared office, or the squeezing of a thigh-pimple. These things must must must be done in the bathroom, alone.
There was a time when I got pulled aside every time I flew to get my thighs and tits rubbed up. WTF? It's not like they could have learned anything from it.
Don't sell yourself short, AWB. Maybe they couldn't have learned anything security related, but I'm sure they were learning something.
But I think most of us are thinking of the other line, beyond which no "excuse me" will excuse, like a foreskin check in a shared office, or the squeezing of a thigh-pimple. These things must must must be done in the bathroom, alone.
Comity!
I think they learned that I was ticklish. I would flinch really hard and gasp, just to make sure they felt as uncomfortable as I did.
I'm guessing that AWB is right, and that this looked like something more adventurous than mere shirttucking.
Okay, clearly a brief testicular massage is out of the question in a public office. But that's not a very interesting inquiry, is it? And Edith actually gave no indication that anything other than shirt-tucking was occurring, and said that she was pretty sure that's all it was. I don't know why you'd assume there was more going on, other than because she was so bothered by it. But that sort of begs the question as to whether she was unduly bothered, no?
142: I'm not saying it's unprofessional, I'm saying it's something you ought not do in public.
137: I'm saying that you excuse yourself because it's socially unacceptable. We accept that people do mildly unacceptable things because, as LB points out, it would be impossible to leave the house otherwise--what if you got a rock in your shoe? A run in your stocking? What if a bird shat on your head? Acknowledging the fact that we often extend mercy over mild faux pas doesn't mean that they aren't faux pas.
Tweety, you're not allowed to leave the house, ever.
OK, the reminder that there was someone else in the room already really does push me over into "completely creepy" territory, but I'm sure I've already related the story of a sort-of-boss who did this ridiculously creepy 'I'm tucking in my shirt, my pants are halfway to my knees and I'm taaaaaaaaaaking my sweeeeeeet tiiiiiiime about it' thing after having made what could be construed as a suggestive comment. Ick. Ick ick ick. Completely creepy.
Also, if the woman breast-feeding weren't a friend already, well, to be honest I'd be pretty uncomfortable. I'm not talking about on a city bus, though. You step into public space, you take your chances and c'est la vie. If it were in my office I'd probably suggest she make use of a conference room. Actually, at Ma Bell I had two co-workers who were new mothers and needed to pump several times a day. No big deal, they just reserved the conference room for privacy and locked the door behind them with a Do Not Disturb sign out for anyone who might have a key.
146: The description of the belt positioning made it sound weird. A quick shirt-tuck, when I've seen it done, is a loosen belt, unbutton top button affair, not a both ends of the belt are flapping merrily in the wind kind of thing. Even if he was just tucking, that sounds more undressed than I'd be happy with in my office.
We accept that people do mildly unacceptable things
We seem to be working with different definitions of "acceptable." Perhaps "appropriate" would work better?
Acknowledging the fact that we often extend mercy over mild faux pas doesn't mean that they aren't faux pas.
Extend mercy? I think if these things bother you enough that you feel you have to make a conscious effort to "extend mercy" and look past them, the problem is yours.
I submit that the whole concept of the "social faux pas" is a tool for perpetuating classism.
150: Also, if the woman breast-feeding weren't a friend already, well, to be honest I'd be pretty uncomfortable.
Fair enough, but I've always thought it was kind of a faux pas to mention discomfort about breastfeeding. I'd be uncomfortable in an environment where people would need to lock themselves behind closed doors to do it.
IOW the category is "things you ought to be discreet about," not "things you're not allowed to do in public."
150: I would totally draw a distinction between breastfeeding and pumping. First, if you're reasonably competent at it, you can breastfeed pretty discreetly. Not so much with the pumping. And with the breastfeeding, you need to be someplace you can settle down comfortably with the baby, and you need to do it on the baby's schedule, mostly. Pumping is more under your own control.
Man, did I hate pumping. Didn't do it much, but hated it.
You people are all insane. That said, I'm thankful for threads like this and the pizza-party one for reminding me why I work alone. L'enfer, c'est le bureau.
Miss Manners would point out that expecting a person to interpret why a gentleman has his pants unbuttoned is itself a social faux pas.
150: Pumping is totally something you do in private. Feeding a baby is something you're allowed to do in public.
I agree with Brock. If someone points out that I've forgotten to zip up, or have some BBQ sauce at the edge of my lip, I say "Excuse me." But I'm not looking for mercy, or apologizing to them for something to which I've subjected them. I'm saying, "You've caught me at less than my best. Please forget this moment." For my sake, not theirs.
And, per DaveL, I've ducked into doorways and turned my back in order to fix my shirt.
Fair enough, but I've always thought it was kind of a faux pas to mention discomfort about breastfeeding.
And yet it's also a faux pas to express great enthusiasm. Just one little "Titties! Hooray!" and they start looking at you funny. So tricky, this social behavior stuff.
I just flossed my teeth at my desk (in my private office, but with the door heedlessly left open (though I am at the end of a little tributary hallway off the public hallway, so it's not that heedless)). That's pretty gross. I wonder if I should bury the floss in my trash can so the cleaning person doesn't have to see it and be grossed out.
And yet it's also a faux pas to express great enthusiasm.
It is?
Shit.
if these things bother you enough that you feel you have to make a conscious effort to "extend mercy" and look past them, the problem is yours.
We don't make conscious efforts to overlook other people's social faux pas. But when you've got a bunch of doofuses standing around going "huh? What's wrong with unbuttoning my pants in public?" you have to spell things out in a painstakingly detailed way.
Yeah, breastfeeding's weird. Seems inappropriate to me, but I string along with the majority, and so, you know, whatever.
If no, then I think it's undue sensitivity on Edith's part.
This is not often a good standard. I worked in an office where the one guy had a swimsuit edition screensaver and the guys would regularly chat about going to strip clubs. The guys were all okay with it.. The women, not so much. Undue sensitivity or were they out of line?
I'm not saying we all have to be Victorian here, but there's nothing prudish about assuming that work standards are somewhat conservative.
My wife has in the only person in her office with a male officemate. There's really no place but her office for her to pump. She just told him the first day "sorry, I'll have to pump every day." I'm under the impression that he just sort of awkwardly tried to pretend as if nothing's happening.
163: I had a boss who would floss his teeth in (smallish) meetings. Wasn't cool.
156: It's a continuum, but there are "Things you should minimize, and do discreetly as much as possible, but they're going to happen in public some: sneezing, burping, minor scratching and clothing rearrangement", then "Things you can, and really should, do only in private -- major scratching, major clothing rearrangement -- but getting busted doing them is a screwup, but not a nightmare," and then "Things you do only when your privacy is absolutely assured -- popping thigh pimples, foreskin checks." I'm thinking this guy was a category 2, edging toward a category 3 based on the flapping belt-ends, and because I'm assuming Wilson isn't just being silly.
I worry about when it's nice or not to alert a friend to an embarrassing bit of food stuck to the face. I'd much rather be told, so that I'm not wondering why my conversation partner is staring at my chin instead of my eyes, but I'm also pretty sensitive facially and it doesn't really happen. It seems to happen to guys a lot, and my instinct is to quickly, cheerily give them a heads-up. I just don't want to seem invasive or overly intimate.
Breastfeeding is weird because we're not used it it; it's an act that's transitioning from "inappropriate" to "appropriate." For obvious reasons, I'm firmly in the "appropriate anywhere, and fuck your 'be discreet' nonsense". But the reasons that particular act are transitioning are clear to everyone.
If you want to argue that minor readjustments of one's clothing *shouldn't* be socially inappropriate, then do so. But that's not the same thing as acting like you don't *get* why people think they are.
166: I mean, obviously bottle-feeding is what God intended, but we have to extend mercy.
. I just don't want to seem invasive or overly intimate.
It isn't, and we (I) genuinely appreciate being told.
168: Oh, poor thing, that must completely suck for both of them.
Breastfeeding falls into my category of "appropriate" right next to tucking. It's something that needs to be done, and could be done in private, but why the fuck bother? Although I'd consider asking someone not to breastfeed way ruder than the tuck equivalent.
168: Dear god, your poor wife. She and her male office mate should file a class action suit.
167: the plural "women" there makes clear that no it wasn't okay. And if there was only one woman in the office and she was uncomfortable, that's probably also not okay. But if it's a mized gender office and only one person has a problem*, then it's probably just that person's problem.
*which, again, doesn't sound like Edith's case. Just the general point.
174: Right, so you're saying that for the moment, breastfeeding, like shirt-tucking, sits in the inappropriate box, but that it's subject to change. Unless you can think of some bad reason why people might want to shirt tuck in the office rather than the bathroom, I think you can probably figure out why they err on the side of assuming a lenient standard.
Breastfeeding is weird because we're not used [to] it
You just have to start early.
178 is ludicrous. Excusing yourself to tuck in your pants takes five seconds. Breastfeeding takes twenty minutes or so, and where are you going to excuse yourself to--a restroom? Where you're going to sit on the toilet while nursing a baby?
A friend of mine had to pump at work, and would go into a private office to do so. But the door didn't lock and the local asshole thought that was a good time to come in and chat her up, compliment her boobs, etc., all the while talking about how natural and comfortable we should all be with breastfeeding. What a dick.
If you want to argue that minor readjustments of one's clothing *shouldn't* be socially inappropriate, then do so. But that's not the same thing as acting like you don't *get* why people think they are.
Say what? Don't social standards get defined by what the mass of people consider acceptable and change when enough people decide that they don't buy the prevailing standard? And aren't conversations along the lines of "people do that, and it's not a big deal" pretty much exactly the process by which the formerly unacceptable becomes acceptable?
But if it's a mized gender office and only one person has a problem*, then it's probably just that person's problem.
That's a pretty major assumption. There are a lot of women who are willing to excuse a lot of pretty egregious behavior as normal.
181: No, I'm saying that at the moment breastfeeding is appropriate--which is why even if you're uncomfortable about it, you know better than to say anything--and pants-tucking isn't. And that it's completely not my business to be thinking about why a guy might have his pants open.
183: Why not, exactly? In the first case, you're subjecting someone else to 5 seconds of discomfort rather than 20 minutes or so.
185: No. We don't vote on social standards. E.g., the fact that most people think it's perfectly appropriate to wear jeans to the opera doesn't mean that jeans are appropriate evening clothes.
I don't get the difficulty with this sort of thing. Did your parents never teach you people anything at all about manners?
182: Oh, Sally did that.
And yeah, the thing with breastfeeding is that if you can't do it in public, you can't leave the house with the baby. They need to eat when they need to eat (oh, you've got ten minutes or so delay, but not a whole lot more) and it needs to be someplace you can settle down for twenty minutes. 'No breastfeeding in public' is a real hardship, no undoing your pants, not so much.
Well, I should have been more explicit with my wording. When I said 'my office' I meant a little room with a door in which I and only I work, not a shared environment. If it were shared space, our office, it would be hers as much as mine. In that situation, I would probably relocate for a little while in order to give her privacy or simply get over myself; I certainly wouldn't act offended that she was doing her thing in what is also her office.
Regardless, it's a poor analogy. Even a baby-hating doofus like me realizes babies get fed when babies are hungry, period. A shirt tuck can wait a moment or two.
No, I'm saying that at the moment breastfeeding is appropriate--which is why even if you're uncomfortable about it, you know better than to say anything--and pants-tucking isn't
Note the phrase "stringing along with the majority." Note that we've decided that even if the majority are OK with back-turned shirt-tucking, there still might be issues. Then remind me why you're the final arbiter of appropriate and inappropriate.
183: I wasn't trying to equate breastfeeding with tucking, just saying that I apply the same type of etiquette-logic to both. Obviously you justify breastfeeding on different grounds, but I was just trying make my position clear.
187: Because *that's just the way it is*. Social conventions aren't always fair.
When you are opening up your pants, you are doing something that people do not expect to see you do in public. Sure, if you just tuck in your shirt, they're then going to go, "oh, he's just tucking in his shirt." But the point is, it's kind of inappropriate to put people in the position of thinking about *why you have your pants open.*
When you nurse a baby, you are doing something that people do not expect to see you do in public, and yes, they have to make that mental leap to "she's just nursing the baby." The point here is that it's inappropriate for people to think about *the fact that that woman feeding her baby is using her boobs to do so*. Feeding a baby in public is perfectly acceptable; it's the use of the boob to do it that still startles people.
In both cases we're talking about the fact that there are some things people just aren't supposed to admit to having. In the pants case, you're responsible for making the very minor concession (stepping away) to prevent their having to think about your dick. In the breastfeeding case, we've agreed that the public is responsible for making the minor concession (averting your gaze, say) of pretending not to think about your tits.
because I'm assuming Wilson isn't just being silly
Maybe that's where we differ, LB. See, when I read something like "If it were a private, windowless office, it might have bordered on OK", I think we've moved beyond the silly into the absurd.
some things people just aren't supposed to admit to having
things s/b thoughts.
Did your parents never teach you people anything at all about manners?
Yeah! And to you people who leave stir sticks and little dustings of sugar on the counter when you make your coffee, were you abused as children or what?
I don't get the difficulty with this sort of thing. Did your parents never teach you people anything at all about manners?
You are just trolling now, right? Or is it really not obvious that maybe our parents (and our peer groups) teach different manners?
I took "windowless" as hyperbole, I admit.
remind me why you're the final arbiter of appropriate and inappropriate
This is just one of the mysteries of the universe, Tim.
I of course don't have a problem with a women breastfeeding, but I think I ought to be allowed to pull out my cock while they do. It's only fair.
187: Or, spun the other way, in the first case your asking someone to take 2 minutes of inconvenience to avoid making you uncomfortable rather than asking two people to endure 20 minute of discomfort to avoid making you uncomfortable.
196: DS gets it.
197: Your parents didn't teach you not to unbutton your pants in public?
200: I think that may fall under the "too much enthusiasm" objection, Brock.
In both cases we're talking about the fact that there are some things people just aren't supposed to admit to having. In the pants case, you're responsible for making the very minor concession (stepping away) to prevent their having to think about your dick. In the breastfeeding case, we've agreed that the public is responsible for making the minor concession (averting your gaze, say) of pretending not to think about your tits.
Except that the majority of people, including a decent, if shifted, percentage of the women, think that it's normal to assume the person interrupting the shirt tucking will make a concession. Which is to say that the norm seems to run the other way. Again, I don't think the apparent norm has to be followed, or that there's anything wrong with Edith telling the guy to do that in the bathroom, or even in insisting that if Edith does so, then he should give way. But it's wrong to insist that the norm is self-evidently as you describe it.
This reminds me of a really bad Seinfeld episode. Not one in particular, but all really bad Seinfeld episodes rolled up into one self-involved symphony of uninteresting triviality.
Surely, you must all have seen people you're fond of do much more inappropriate things in a semi-public situation (e.g., work)? We forgive the people we like; for the others the slightest social transgression raises our blood pressure. This is obviously an example of the latter.
Ack. I made a very bad error in my comments above. I am talking my about idea of etiquette in prescriptive terms, which governs my reaction to other people's behavior (kind of a categorical imperative thing). My behavior is governed by my sense of other people's ideas about etiquette. So, while I would be perfectly fine with someone tucking their shirt in, I myself would do the bathroom thing.
187: Or, spun the other way, in the first case your asking someone to take 2 minutes of inconvenience to avoid making you uncomfortable rather than asking two people to endure 20 minute of discomfort to avoid making you uncomfortable.
Right. It could be either. These things get negotiated, in odd ways, over time. They're not handed down from on high, or on the basis of some platonic ideal of "appropriate," as B seems to be saying.
I can't believe the word "bourgeois" hasn't yet been used in this thread.
For the record, I have zero tolerance for people who are bothered by public breast-feeding. Public pants-unzipping is fine if you're wearing boxers, not fine otherwise. Under-clothing ball-scratching should be done in the bathroom, because you have to wash your hands afterward anyway.
Also, Because *that's just the way it is*:
Hell no. Etiquette is a social construct. It's kind of like if a blogger wanted to minimize silly arguments and decided to ban analogies.
200: Classy.
Look, you want to make this into a gender issue? Men are allowed to violate social norms if they have a medical condition, we almost all ignore stuff like shirt tucking and even ball adjusting 90% of the time, you guys don't have to wear bras, and no one really cares if your clothing's out of date as long as it's clean and in good repair. We get to whip our tits out in public to feed babies and if there's a camera crew from GGW around.
208: Or "bougie." "This reminds me of a really bougie Seinfeld episode."
211: As far as I'm concerned women can whip their tits out in public any time for any reason, or for no reason at all.
Public pants-unzipping is fine if you're wearing boxers, not fine otherwise.
Boxers as opposed to leopard-print thongs, or is "boxers" a metaphor for underpants in general, so that the prohibition only applies to those going commando?
Might there be any value in drawing a distinction between "inappropriate," "gets on my nerves," and "one more thing to dislike about somebody I already disliked?"
I'd almost go along with the nosepicking ana... uh... LB DID IT FIRST! ... Anyway, like that, only, not actually gross or unpleasant to look at. What are you going to see when somebody does an unbelted deep-tuck? The rest of his shirt, is what. *Maybe* some underwear, but only if you're looking for it. Mildly tacky is the harshest thing I can say about this behavior.
Etiquette's a social construct, but that doesn't mean that it's subject to a popular vote of whichever group happens to be assembled at a given moment.
It's hardly classist to say that men should keep their pants closed in public. Come on.
Brock, if you're going to take out your annoyance by baiting me with puerile Farkish sexism, I'm going to ignore you.
Etiquette's a social construct, but that doesn't mean that it's subject to a popular vote of whichever group happens to be assembled at a given moment.
Right, it's usually the traditional power structure that gives us our mores. Remind me how you'd describe those people again, B.
212: if that makes me a feminist then so be it.
Since boxers seem to be granted special status, I have a related mineshaft question:
- I have a newish (5 mo) female roommate, with whom I get along well.
- It's really goddamn hot in New York right now.
- I do not own a summer-weight bathrobe.
- I wear boxers.
So: that first trip to the bathroom in the morning, when I might run into the roommate - acceptable in boxers and t-shirt? If so, could I push it any further, like, getting the coffee going?
Agree with McQueen about breastfeeding, btw. Drives me crazy when people bitch about it.
BitchPhD is right that it's rude to force your coworkers to think about your dick. I don't know what exactly he was doing with his hands, but if I'd known when I woke up that morning that I'd have to ask myself that day, "Is Tucky McCreeperson rooting around in his balls or not?" I'd have called in sick.
interrobang is also right in that there's a sliding scale of judgement of boorish behavior.
221: These boxers, is there a button, or just a gap?
I wasn't baiting you B, and I'm certainly not annoyed at you or anyone else. 200 was just a throwaway joke. 213 was meant as a joke, although on re-reading I see that it's absolute truth.
BitchPhD is right that it's rude to force your coworkers to think about your dick.
I don't think she said that. If so, she'd think that that made breastfeeding rude as well.
It's hardly classist to say that men should keep their pants closed in public.
It's not intrinsically classist, but the category of "social faux pas" into which you've placed it, along with nose-blowing and wearing jeans to the opera, is classist.
221: It's your apartment, you're allowed to walk around in boxers and a tshirt.
Coworker readily agreed when I asked him to take it to the bathroom next time, but since then, Woodrow and I have been debating just how out of line this really was.
Coworker gets caught in an embarrassing situation, gets called out, and agrees readily not to do it again. Woodrow and Edith then spend hours debating the propriety of Coworker's actions. I submit that Coworker is the victim in this situation.
When you sneeze, or burp, or get caught picking your nose at a stoplight, the apology or the pantomimed sheepish shrug is all that's necessary. We're all gassy meat sacks, and we all inevitably get caught with our pants down or our finger up our nose at some point. True social grace isn't in never getting caught adjusting your clothing or dangly bits, it's in not making a big deal about it when you catch someone.
224: Good point. Depends on the pair.
If a women is going to breastfeed in public, the polite thing is at least to offer to share.
221: Hot weather, an apartment you live in, and you're gay so there's no worry that you're beginning a campaign of making sexual advances? I'd be fine with it. (I'd actually be fine with it from a straight roommate, but the orientation provides another level of security.)
But this depends on the roommate relationship. I've known shared living arrangements where the shared rooms were very much public space, and then, eh, maybe not.
227: Okay, you win. You are the superior leftist.
228: Well, yes, but the point is that because said roommate is both female and somewhat new to me, I don't have a sense of her comfort level with it; and because I'm a nice guy, I actually care.
221: You are cleared, as far as I'd be concerned in this situation. When I had male and female roommates, we'd all sit around in boxers in the summer, all day if we could. Button-fly is, of course, preferable.
The idea of "category" is kind of a classist presumption. Who's to say that that notion isn't obsolete if all men, and by extension objects and concepts, are created equal?
When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall flow,
There can be no power greater than the dropping of the trou;
We will rise to power as the bourgoisie will have a cow,
And the union makes us strong.
Granted, it relies on sight rhyme.
cerebrocrat, are you comfortable enough with her to ask her if it bothers her? If so, do so. If not, you're probably not close enough to walk around in boxers in front of her.
241: Oh, that's no fun.
240: I'd have to agree.
I'd still say absolutely fine for the first run to the bathroom -- making coffee, I can imagine it might bother someone, maybe, but I'd say 85% chance it's also fine. But I slop around the house in the mornings in a sarong, so my standards are low.
Sarongs are perfect for hot summer mornings. I can't find mine and it makes me sad.
231: Yeah, if your pair is hanging out of the boxers, you probably should put something else on.
I don't see why it would be more likely to bother her than a "summer-weight bathrobe" anyway. Those things offer a lot of genitalia-exposing opportunities as well, particularly if you're sitting down.
Huh, maybe I should get a sarong.
Try a bathroom run and see if she flinches. If not, you're clear for making coffee.
The poor victim, being the subject of a conversation between husband and wife.
I once made coffee in just my boxers and a t-shirt.
Worst. coffee. ever.
248: You should. They provide the illusion of coverage, but are super lightweight. Plus, you'd look hot.
If you have a nice ass, there's nothing more attractive. The traditional Samoan men's casual way of tying one also involves a large, fluffed out knot front and center, I believe as an implicit way of boasting about ones junk.
228: I don't understand this reasoning. Would it be okay for him to walk around naked? Leave the bathroom door open when he was using it? These are things I might do if I live alone, but having a roommate (which I suspect actually means apartment-mate) means making some concessions.
221: I think this depends largely on the person you're living with. But for most people it would be fine.
I'd ask her, but I suspect she's probably cool with it. Boxers are practically shorts.
The poor victim, being the subject of a conversation between husband and wife.
Look, everyone! You can go gang up on Cala now.
254.1: I refuse to believe that you are really this dumb, interrobang.
a large, fluffed out knot front and center, I believe as an implicit way of boasting about ones junk.
Good idea, maybe cerebrocrat should dress like this around his roommate.
256.2: You're the one drawing conclusions that are largely unrelated to your arguments and more a factor of your (perhaps, widely held) prejudices. I'm just pointing it out. That obviously makes me dumb, because you seem to be insulted by disagreement.
258: because you seem to be insulted by disagreement.
Hey, wasn't it you who started out by saying (rightly) this whole topic was too banal to get worked up about?
258: I'm sorry, I thought it went without saying that there are some things--e.g., masturbating in the living room, leaving the bathroom door open--that you don't do regardless of the sex of your roommate.
I forgot that any time one is dealing with a question where gender's involved, you have to start from scratch.
Boxers as opposed to leopard-print thongs, or is "boxers" a metaphor for underpants in general
Good Lord, man. Boxers as opposed to tighty whities, thongs and all related junk-hugging undergarments. The ones with a button are ideal, but the gap is fine as long as you're contained.
I have a newish (5 mo) female roommate
I can't see a 5-month-old caring one way or the other.
I was kidding about the sarong, but maybe I should look into it. I guess I didn't know they were for men too. I remember thinking that those skirty-looking things I sometimes saw on men in Hawaii were pretty flattering.
And of course I realize I could always just ask, but I'm not sure to get an honest response, for one thing ("oh sure, that's cool...(shudder)") and she's weirdly squeamish about things that I don't find predictable... like, I overheard a conversation between her and a girlfriend about how awful it was to find the girlfriend's husband's whiskers in the sink. You'd think he'd taken a dump in the sink, the way they carried on.
Also, if I'd just asked her, I wouldn't have been able to bring it up here.
I can't see a 5-month-old caring one way or the other.
Jesus is advocating nudity in front of minors!!! Teh horror!!!
Cerebrocrat, the whiskers-in-sink thing isn't so much about prudishness as it is a proxy for housekeeping habits.
262/264: he meant that she had only been his roommate for five months, not that she was only five months old.
263: That's just bizarre about the whiskers. This from someone who chose to live with a man? Unless there are pubes on the soap, it ain't none of my nevermind.
Boxers as opposed to tighty whities, thongs and all related junk-hugging undergarments. The ones with a button are ideal, but the gap is fine as long as you're contained.
I would think that the boxer gap, being much more likely to expose That Which We Aren't Supposed To Admit To Having, makes regular boxers much more dangerous than, e.g., junk-hugging boxer-briefs.
266: You're Standpipe's co-blogger?
Whiskers in the sink is bad, particularly if they get on other things like soap or toothbrushes. Getting a mouthful of someone else's discarded hair in the morning is sub-optimal.
267: AWB, do you not rinse out the sink if you spill makeup?
But the risk of flesh exposure has to be compared with the near-guarantee of shape exposure of the form-fitting underwear. If we're supposed to not be revealing or exhibiting at all, then the close-fit is no benefit.
I've learned 2 things from this thread:
1) I'm so, so glad I don't work in an office
2) This damn place could probably find a way to argue about whether puppies are actually nice, or whether it truly is cool when you find $5 in your pocket after doing the laundry.
271 cont: More to the point, would you rinse it out if you were living with someone and sharing the sink?
269: You'd think, but in hanging around with men in boxers, the gap doesn't seem to be a problem. Sitting down in boxers, and spillage through the leg hole? Much more likely of an issue.
Puppies are cute, but they shit on the floor. Verdict: not as nice as you think.
269: the problem isn't really just exposure, though, it's your roommate being made aware that you have that which you aren't supposed to admit to having. The relatively low risk of exposure in boxers is more than offset by the very real threat that junk-hugging boxer-briefs will reveal the fact that junk is there to be hugged.
spillage through the leg hole?
Dear god, yes. Which is also why men should be really careful about what kinds of shorts they wear.
272 gets it right.
Also, it's pretty hard to rinse whiskers out of the sink. They aren't soluble. You fill the sink with water, they are all floating. Then you let the water go down the drain, even if you're continually swirling it, a bunch of the whiskers are still in the sink. You have to do repeated rinses and then use some toilet paper to wipe up the remaining whiskers.
277 totally and completely pwned by 272.
266: I claim no greatness for the joke, Brock. But it was a joke.
269: That's why the button is ideal. But in the unzipping-and-tucking situation, you're unlikely to reveal in either case, provided you're not, you know, enraged.
Which is also why men should be really careful about what kinds of shorts they wear.
In my quest to create a parallel and nullifying situation for every comment in which men are blamed for something, the topic of sideboob leaps to the mind here.
279.2: Really, much easier to just use your hand to sweep the whiskers to the drain and then finish by washing your hands.
281: I am aware that it was a joke.
273 is completely ignoring the lost time-value of the money inherent in the laundry situation.
283: Washing the whiskers off your hands so that the running water can deposit them on the sides of the sink again!
260: Yes, that does go without saying that some things are out of bounds. In fact, that was my point. I think we disagree because I think that walking around in boxers is borderline, and depends on who you live with and how they feel about things, and you think it's always okay. At least, that's the best I can make out from what you've written.
I'd also recommend having a pair of boxers on hand for just this situation. Even if they aren't the most comfy under pants, it's good to have a button-hole, longer-legged pair for hanging around the house in. I have a pair of shorts very like boxers that I'd never leave the house in, but I'd happily wear them to eat cereal in the kitchen with roommates.
283: Or shave in the shower.
I am so looking forward to this thread going to 500 on the topic of sideboob.
I've just realized that there are people posting regularly on Unfogged who are even more angsty about bodily propriety than I am. You have saved me, all, from a lifetime of feeling outcast and sorrowful. Of course, now I'm worried about you, just a little bit.
"Puppies are cute, but they shit on the floor."
Ah, but what if they make sure they're alone first?
Kosher?
Kosher?
Depends what they've been eating.
286: Hmm, must be the magic soft Portland water, I don't have that problem. Set the tap low and rinse it down.
289.1: Agreed, best place to shave. But, sometimes, I gotta use the sink.
Also, it's pretty hard to rinse whiskers out of the sink. They aren't soluble. You fill the sink with water, they are all floating. Then you let the water go down the drain, even if you're continually swirling it, a bunch of the whiskers are still in the sink. You have to do repeated rinses and then use some toilet paper to wipe up the remaining whiskers.
All the more reason to just leave it for someone else, then.
The women of Unfogged: objectively anti-ballwalking.
288: I have exactly the same sort of not-actually-underpants boxer shorts around for the same purpose.
On occasion though, I've stretched their usage into very quick trips to the store late at night or in the morning. This apparently wouldn't go over well at an Unfogged sleepover.
You know, I think it is safe to say that 295 is 100% correct.
apo, stop adding things to Urban Dictionary just so you can link to them.
287: I think that walking to the bathroom in the morning and/or making coffee in boxers and a tshirt is always perfectly acceptable in a roommate situation, yes.
My mom used to wear a bathrobe when driving me to the bus stop. This all changed when we drove into a snowdrift one day and she had to give me specific instructions on how to go find a pay phone and make several calls, first to call someone to come and pick her up before the tow truck arrived, then to call the tow truck, then to call the people who the tow truck would have to call in order to find out where we were. Or something like that.
She wore sweatpants and sweatshirts after that.
299: so if you were cerebrocrat's roommate, he'd have nothing to worry about.
298: If I had added it, it would have been "bagwalking", which is the term with which I was familiar. Google returns zero hits on it, though.
301: Yes. And because I am the arbiter of all that is correct, he has nothing to worry about anyway, other than out of the goodness of his heart and his desire not to offend his roommate in the event that she's mistaken about this issue.
The whisker thing was weird; it wasn't that the guy hadn't washed out the sink, it was that he had washed it out and missed a few. And they were going on about how gross it was. A whole sink full of beard hair? Yes, gross. Stray whiskers? Lazy housekeeping, maybe, but not gross. So his wife refuses to share a bathroom with him.
The only time I ever have problems with escapage through the gap is when I'm clothed, especially with a shirt tucked in, and there's just all that fabric down there pulling things this way and that. When pants-free, leghole escapage while sitting is, as LB maintains, a greater threat. And I wouldn't think of wearing junk-grabbing underpants around the house; it's all I can do to wear a tight swimsuit at the pool.
304: Ah, okay. Then yeah, that's weird. Either your new roommate is a wimp, and felt compelled to agree with her uptight friend, or else she's got bizarre hangups and you might want to hold off on the boxers thing until you get a better sense of her.
No no, cerebrocrat. Boxers are appropriate and she ought to deal with it. Fuck the patriarchy.
On occasion though, I've stretched their usage into very quick trips to the store late at night or in the morning
Heh. That reminds me that once, when I lived in Berkeley, I walked to Safeway in my bathrobe. It was close to midnight, and I was in the midst of an asthma attack (I was going to buy an inhaler), and I just couldn't be bothered with getting dressed. I consider it practice for my warmly-anticipated future days as an eccentric codger.
I'm impressed. I once went to buy cigs in my pajamas (pajama pants and a tshirt, no bra) but only after Stanley reassured me repeatedly that doing so was okay.
308: As arbiter of all that is correct, you should have just declared that wearing pajamas to the convenience store is acceptable.
308: I know! It totally sucks when I fail to exercise my own rightly-wielded power.
I'm taking 310 as a tacit endorsement of 309. Which is good, because I've actually done this. Once.
311: I think it is acceptable to do once in a blue moon. Sometimes ya just gotta take that "convenience" thing at face value.
I'm not the arbiter of all that is correct, but as the superior leftist, I declare that anti-pajama mores are the instrument of bourgeois oppression.
BitchPhD is right that it's rude to force your coworkers to think about your dick.
hahahaha. my deskie keeps humming obscene songs.
I am considered socially unacceptable in my neighborhood because of my tendency to appear either barely dressed (for doing laundry, running to the store, etc., in pajama pants and a T-shirt) or dolled-up (for going out, in a skirt and heels). Most Park Slopers do absolutely everything, from errands to fine dining, in Paragon sportswear and Merrells. Anything more or less, at any time, is obscene.
314: No worries, D2, everyone knows you have no manners.
I'm just worrying about what a 'deskie' is. Is this someone you share an office with, or a body part?
Most Park Slopers do absolutely everything, from errands to fine dining, in Paragon sportswear and Merrells.
Hahahaha. I didn't realize any parts of Brooklyn had become quite that... somebody help me with the right adjective here...
It would be awesome if this guy would comment here regularly.
I've never been to Park Slope, but this is pretty much how I'd imagined it.
You people are awful. Park Slope is a nice neighborhood with much awesome shopping and many good restaurants, including one with the best flan I have ever eaten in my life.
You know about the hat thing, though, right? It's like an Unfogged thread in its length and argumentativeness, but with all the irony-free shrieking cranked up to 11.
I remember that hat thing. No wonder B likes Park Slope.
trollin' right back atchya.
I didn't know about the hat thing. But when has there ever been a discussion about gender and parenting that didn't have some of those elements?
Is that graphic representative of the hat? Because despite being in a fashion I associate with puppet-bearing protesters and the sort of male college douchebags who wear jester hats, it is really kind of fucking awesome, and I would brave the wilds of Park Slope to get one.
325: It's true, I'd rather deal with humorless people who care about gender than with people who think it's all just a bunch of silly p.c. nonsense.
PK had a hat like that when he was a baby. Purchased for him by his aunt-who-now-lives-in-Park-Slope, as it happens. It was adorable.
327: The baby boutiques here have an extraordinary range of absurd hats for your gender-free baby's delectation.
No wonder B likes Park Slope.
If you want to troll me, Ogged, let me hand you a better weapon.
It's the extremeness of the psuedo-Medieval styling that does it for me, I think. This is no mere Jester's Hat, oh no; there is probably a hand-calligraphied tag on vegan faux-parchment that explains in which century and in whose court it was patterned on.
I don't want it for a baby, though, I want it for me. Natalist oppressors!
What bothers me about that conversation, B, is the bombastic tone with which PSers tend to talk about stuff like gender. Their children are ANGUISHED! And to hear casual descriptions is SO PAINFUL! And they HURT THE MOST! And they are willing to inflict all kinds of public scorn on people for having caused them such irreparable damage to their souls and to the souls of their innocent babes! I'm sure it would be refreshing to know that there is a community in which all the parents took gender studies classes and apply them on playdates, especially if you live in a community where everyone is constantly norming your kids for you. But this is the magic of Park Slope: it makes you hate everyone who agrees with you politically because these people are the biggest bourgeois douchebags, totally ignorant of what it would mean to suffer patriarchal heteronorming, and they are convinced that every experience they have is like a magical synecdoche for the entire world.
331: 3rd and 3rd is SO not Park Slope. It's Gowanus.
I have a rather awesome green and purple Sami hat made of polar fleece and trimmed with many fine ribbons (in the same way that the hat pictured at the link is trimmed). It's super warm and also great in the same way as the baby hat, only less jester-ish.
The link in 331 is very cool. Whole Foods shouldn't get a pass just because they carry lesbian tahini popsicles -- they should do green building, and reducing their parking (esp. in NYC) and having a green roof are two very good ideas.
Why pick on them and not the A&P or ACME whatever you have out there? One assumes they have a lower response threshold to environmental appeals because their reputation is tied to their green face. But sure, everybody else should do neat stuff too.
lesbian tahini popsicles
Snort.
337: That is really really spiffy! Okay. Down with Park Slope, up with Finland!
ahhh btw, B, it is the Proms season once more, and I have tickets for the Berlin Philharmonic performing Beethoven's 9th. The premier cultural event of the year, arguably and the jewel in the crown of one of the world's most prestigious concert seasons. I have not selected my outfit yet, but have recently acquired a rather comfortable pair of sturdy canvas "board shorts".
If you like the hat thing, you'll love "Ask an Uptight Seattleite" from the Seattle Weekly.
Just for fun:
Dear Uptight Seattleite,
A barista at my local coffee shop bitched me out for striking up conversations with girls there and asking for their phone numbers (I am a straight single male). WTF??? In the year I've been going there, I've asked two girls for their numbers, and went out with one of them--so I guess my attentions aren't entirely unwelcome. I thought a coffee shop was a social place. If you don't want to talk, it's easy enough to say, "Excuse me, I need to study," or to just drink your coffee at home. Please explain what I've done wrong.
Friendly Guy
Dear Friendly,
I see your point. The existence of one girl with self-esteem problems totally validates your right to harass the rest of the female population. Just like if a single date-rape victim anywhere in the world declines to press charges, it's open season on all of them. Nice going, frat boy. Way to reduce all women to sexual chattel.
341: Damn, I'm torn. On the one hand, I wish to push the native dress of my new homeland. On the other, opera.
If wear a nice dinner jacket with your board shorts I will allow it.
342 probably explains my high tolerance for that particular version of p.c. anguish, it's true.
What I want to know is since when does the Weekly have a sense of humor?
I hope I didn't just hear someone implying that Beethoven's 9th was an opera, because yer man w-lfs-n is just going to go fucking ape about that.
Since they were taken over by the Village Voice conglomerate. It made the actual reporting worse, but in exchange you get a couple of funny columns.
Oops, my bad. Symphony.
I wonder what An Uptight Seattleite would have to say about my error.
Then again, doesn't everyone hum along to the 9th?
349: Not if I can't unzip my pants for it.
349: Then again, doesn't everyone hum along to the 9th?
<Alle menschen joke goes here>
350: What do you think that cummerbund is there for?
Finally, we've found a topic on which we can all agree: hating Nazis.
345: The concept's OK, but read a few of the column's and you'll retract the premise of the question.
347: Weren't they bought by Village Voice Media before New Times bought VVM? Because that, IMHO, was the real catastrophe.
I woulda got away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling apostrophe.
354: <troll>Except that, really, we're hating on rednecks. Classism!</troll>
That said, what is up with Nazi t-shirt guy? Come on, that's not even trying you can get those for $5.99 for a three-pak at Walmart.
357.1: Nah. We all love Jackie and Dunlap.
How does the Seattle Weekly compete with the Stranger?
It doesn't. The Stranger is way more entertaining and takes itself marginally less seriously.
F's right. The Stranger is funnier and when they actually bother to do real reporting, they do it reasonably well.
tickets for the Berlin Philharmonic performing Beethoven's 9th
drool.
Drooling in public is such a social faux pas, JM.
9th symphony is pompous crap.
The whole XIXc was spent trying to write a symphony as good as Beethoven's 7th. Beethoven was the first failure, twice.
Since 1828, the symphony has been evil. The few good symphonies have not compensated for the infinite heat-sink represented by the symphony form.
Satie and Musorgsky rescued us. Two drunks. Got bless them!
I like the seventh, Satie, and what little Musorgsky I've heard. But c'mon, Emerson: you can't say you haven't ever marched along a sidewalk humming "Freude, schoener Goetterfunken..."
During my drunken Nazi moments, yes.
Listen to Musorgsky's operas!
Start with the smooth jazz version of 'Night on Bald Mountain'.
Excerpts from Boris Godunov or Khovanshchina. The operas in toto are great too, if you like opera at all (or even if, like me, you love Musorgsky but not opera.)
Someone whack d^2 please. Night on Bald Mountain and Picture at an Exhibition are the most abused pieces in the classical repertoire. NOBM actually was an amazing piece, the way it started out with a burst of raw energy. Abbadio conducted the original, unedited NOBM, and it's intense. It may be that this only comes through if you listen historically; it's kitschy now.
so we've established creepy guys and ugly women should be shunned. glad we had another thread about this.
The other things is so many people are afraid to talk about things.
What Emerson said. When John Boorman wanted a piece of music to accompany the giant floating head in Zardoz, he didn't pick Beethoven's 9th.
To save gdr from being the thread-killer: Roxanne Roberts' essay on breast feeding and social faux pas.
