Lipstick on a pig
Is clothing or grooming a requirement to define a gentleman?
- Thread starter Rockminer
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #42
Apparently not, according to the poll results so far.
- Thread starter
- #43
I agree. I think that term has morphed with the times, and no longer means what the strict definition says it does. Otherwise, on top of clothing, were going to have to vet people for their social class and how much money they have.
If being a Gentleman means I have to be born into money, within a certain social class, and then live by the morals and actions associated with that word:
1. Who actually qualifies for that here?
2. Who actually looks at that as a good thing?
I think that if we as a world, used the original definition only, to describe a Gentleman, then none of us would use it, and that word would garner a large amount of negativity, other than the rich people of high social class, that were lucky enough to be born into it.
I voted yes, and I argue that being a gentleman is a whole package deal. But being well dressed and well groomed isn't - to me - the same thing as being expensively dressed or expensively groomed. Although being well-mannered, kind and generous makes you a good human being, I still think that the extra touch of being a gentleman comes with an outward appearance fit for the situation at hand.
Someone in an evening coat isn't by default a gentleman, but neither is someone who's kind. I would, for example, not say that a kind person in an evening coat is a gentleman by default, if the situation doesn't call for an evening coat. Being well dressed is, in many cases, being appropriately dressed. It therefore is an extension of someone's behavior.
Someone in an evening coat isn't by default a gentleman, but neither is someone who's kind. I would, for example, not say that a kind person in an evening coat is a gentleman by default, if the situation doesn't call for an evening coat. Being well dressed is, in many cases, being appropriately dressed. It therefore is an extension of someone's behavior.
I voted no, because while I believe in principle to the parable of 'the clothes make the man or woman', I have met many a person who were dressed 'to the nines' and impeccably groomed, but sadly did not measure up to even the basic standards of being a gentleman or lady. [FONT=&]
[/FONT]
On the other hand, the reverse can be also true (being a gentleman or lady, but sadly in need of a 'make-over'). Being a gentleman is a 'learned' skill-set. You can't read about it...you can't wear it...you have to 'live it'.
The old sage advice of "You can dress 'em up, but you can't take them out", rings true in this case.
"A gentleman [I like to think of myself as the southern sentimental kind] is one who puts more into the world than he takes out". George Bernard Shaw
On the other hand, the reverse can be also true (being a gentleman or lady, but sadly in need of a 'make-over'). Being a gentleman is a 'learned' skill-set. You can't read about it...you can't wear it...you have to 'live it'.
The old sage advice of "You can dress 'em up, but you can't take them out", rings true in this case.
Last edited:
It's the action that determines the gentleman. Dressing appropriately for the situation--and within ones means--is simply one of those behaviors.
Most answers seem to be yes and No so it may be uncertain.....what im stating is that it's not necessary but it comes with the package. It seems that you just want to make it look like I'm saying the contrary. I'm not suggesting that proper dress and groom makes a gentleman, I'm just saying it comes with the turf if the person can afford it.
If an individual goes all out to be nice to another, then why not be nice to himself and go all out to be presentable.
Last edited:
68 members voted so far out of 68,503 members. 25 % said yes and 75% said no. But out of 75% most said yes and no. So it is a uncertain.
- Thread starter
- #49
So you've agreed with me this whole time? You voted no in the poll? I specifically left out the maybe answer in the poll for a reason. I've maintained, since this started, that one should do the best they can with what they have regarding clothing and grooming. The problem is one persons best is another persons trash, and not every person who's labeled a gentleman is known by the person who labeled them whether or not that person is doing the best they can based on what they're wearing at that specific time ( my doctor analogy in the other thread).
I'm not comfortable with the word expected when it comes to clothing and grooming, anymore than I'm comfortable with it when it comes to social class and hierarchy, which is pretty much the first thing mentioned in the true definition.
How would a thread go here If it said something like "Before one could even be considered a Gentleman, they are expected to be of a certain elite social class?"
Ultimately, the true definition of the word gentleman has some fairly negative definitions that go with it. I think that the word has evolved over time to mean something different than the strict definition. I choose to look at clothing and grooming like I do with the social status part of the definition. I can no more tell how rich someone is or how elite their family name is, than I can if they're doing their best in the clothing dept. that particular day simply by looking at them, so I just don't bother with it. I choose to define a Gentleman based on what he does and not how he looks, because the alternative is adhering to a strict definition that if most people had to use the word in that context, probably wouldn't use that word ever again, and certainly wouldn't use it the way most of us use it here, or outside of here.
- Thread starter
- #50
I disagree. The people who voted no are saying that it's not a requirement, but they have no problem when a Gentleman tries his best, whatever that clothing/grooming may be.
The poll question is not very good as it ask and OR question, but only gives a yes/no response.
I would say grooming is, in that not smelling of B.O. and not being "dirty" in general. (obvious exception for work that makes you sweaty and smelly) SWMBO likes it when I come in from working outside all day and have my "man smell" but she also really likes it when I am freshly showered and shaved.
Clothing no.
Actions speak louder than words but if you smell so bad no lets you get close enough to be a gentleman then it doesn't matter how nice you are.
I would say grooming is, in that not smelling of B.O. and not being "dirty" in general. (obvious exception for work that makes you sweaty and smelly) SWMBO likes it when I come in from working outside all day and have my "man smell" but she also really likes it when I am freshly showered and shaved.
Clothing no.
Actions speak louder than words but if you smell so bad no lets you get close enough to be a gentleman then it doesn't matter how nice you are.
- Thread starter
- #52
You say that grooming is, but you admit that your SWMBO likes the "man smell". Couldn't there be others who like certain smells? Couldn't there also be people who wear a certain AS or cologne that others find repulsive? Judging everyone by ones idea of a good smell seems awfully subjective.
You can see that I been saying that it's expected or it comes with the package. I never said it's a requirement. Only if they can afford proper dress and groom. Being a nice person to others and being a gentleman are two different things.
- Thread starter
- #54
What's the difference between a "nice person" and a Gentleman?
I seem to remember some saying about putting lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
Rockminer:
Maybe a way of putting it is that no person can be truly a gentleman...who is not also sometimes truly a rogue.
If the said nice person is SWMBO then I would strongly advise against calling her a Gentleman.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #58
I think I understand what you're saying, although I don't think I would use the word rogue. It has a negative definition towards actions, which I think a gentleman should not betray. It's the expected appearance of the individual that I have a problem with.
The reason I asked what the difference was between a nice guy and a gentleman, is because I don't think there is a drastic difference. I think a nice guy can have all the attributes/actions of a gentleman and perform those throughout his lifetime just like a gentleman. I also think a nice guy can have money, nice clothes, and be born into a specific social class just like a gentleman. He could also not have money and dress accordingly and still be called a nice guy. Ultimately were just using words to describe someone, and I think gentleman has intertwined itself with other words that essentially mean the same thing.
The reason I asked what the difference was between a nice guy and a gentleman, is because I don't think there is a drastic difference. I think a nice guy can have all the attributes/actions of a gentleman and perform those throughout his lifetime just like a gentleman. I also think a nice guy can have money, nice clothes, and be born into a specific social class just like a gentleman. He could also not have money and dress accordingly and still be called a nice guy. Ultimately were just using words to describe someone, and I think gentleman has intertwined itself with other words that essentially mean the same thing.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #59
I was just quoting his words for the sake of this debate, I'm assuming he meant nice guy, or at least that's the way I'm using it.
A gentleman would be expected to conform to the expectations of society such as proper groom\dress if he can afford it....being nice or polite don't require such confirmation to society.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
