Is clothing or grooming a requirement to define a gentleman?

[alex2363]

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.

I said person for the sake of being politicaly correct

 

[alex2363]

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.

Hey I like Rogue

 

[Kit Walker]

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.

Translation: He's supposed to be a two-legged lemming.

 

[Rockminer]

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.

So, the only difference between a guy who does everything a gentleman does, and any of the other words used to describe those actions, is clothing/grooming? Sounds an awful lot like a requirement to me.

I still haven't had anyone answer me, when I ask "what if you can't afford it?" If one can't afford what's expected, and still be called a Gentleman, then why have any of that as an expectation? If one can't be a gentleman without conforming to clothing/grooming, then it would seem clothing/grooming is a requirement. It has to be one way or the other IMO.

And while we're on the subject of conforming to society. If that's something a gentleman does, wouldn't he have to dress according to the environment he's in? Meaning, if he's around homeless people, he should dress like the homeless. If he's around people who dress with their pants around their thighs, he should also dress that way, right? Otherwise, the only thing a gentleman is conforming to is his own idea of fashion.

 

[Rockminer]

Hey I like Rogue

Me too

 

[Tim_McD]

And while we're on the subject of conforming to society. If that's something a gentleman does, wouldn't he have to dress according to the environment he's in? Meaning, if he's around homeless people, he should dress like the homeless. If he's around people who dress with their pants around their thighs, he should also dress that way, right? Otherwise, the only thing a gentleman is conforming to is his own idea of fashion.

There are outliers along the spectrum of "society"; those that are homeless, dress as Goths or embrace a prison fashion culture are examples of those at the ends of the societal bell curve, rather than the bulk of society.

A Gentleman dressing *appropriate* to the environment would mean that he wouldnt don a three-piece suit to participate in a day at the beach. Decorum doesnt require putting on what would amount to a costume to fit into a specific situation, doing so would be ungracious at best, mocking at worst - both ungentlemanly behavior.

And to the question of economics (i.e. "what if one cannot afford it"), you make do according to your means. If your day-to-day ensemble is befouled rags, odds are you have issues that would preclude you from even the most generous interpretation of a Gentleman.

If you are clean, wearing clothes that clean and in good repair - and posses the qualities that were outlined previously - then odds are you would fit the definition of a Gentleman.

 

[Rockminer]

There are outliers along the spectrum of "society"; those that are homeless, dress as Goths or embrace a prison fashion culture are examples of those at the ends of the societal bell curve, rather than the bulk of society.

A Gentleman dressing *appropriate* to the environment would mean that he wouldnt don a three-piece suit to participate in a day at the beach. Decorum doesnt require putting on what would amount to a costume to fit into a specific situation, doing so would be ungracious at best, mocking at worst - both ungentlemanly behavior.

And to the question of economics (i.e. "what if one cannot afford it"), you make do according to your means. If your day-to-day ensemble is befouled rags, odds are you have issues that would preclude you from even the most generous interpretation of a Gentleman.

If you are clean, wearing clothes that clean and in good repair - and posses the qualities that were outlined previously - then odds are you would fit the definition of a Gentleman.

I completely understand what you're saying. I do however have a couple of questions. Would a homeless, goth, prison fashion, urban person that had all of the attributes of a gentleman be able to dress their own specific way that doesn't equate to the bulk of society, and still be called a gentleman?

And if they can, and I don't know them specifically to know if they're being true to themselves or not, then why should I worry about dress at all when I see or hear that they have all of the other attributes that make a gentleman?

And to the question of economics (i.e. "what if one cannot afford it"), you make do according to your means. If your day-to-day ensemble is befouled rags, odds are you have issues that would preclude you from even the most generous interpretation of a Gentleman.

Could you give me some specific examples of some of the "issues that would preclude you from even the most generous interpretation of a Gentleman" simply based on dress?

 

[Tim_McD]

I completely understand what you're saying. I do however have a couple of questions. Would a homeless, goth, prison fashion, urban person that had all of the attributes of a gentleman be able to dress their own specific way that doesn't equate to the bulk of society, and still be called a gentleman?

The short answer is no. In my experience, folks that adopt those styles do so (in part) as a conscious move away from mainstream society and expressing themselves - as such, they would reject the entire concept of being a Gentleman

Could you give me some specific examples of some of the "issues that would preclude you from even the most generous interpretation of a Gentleman" simply based on dress?

Sure, folks that choose to live in befouled clothing are non compos mentis.

You have to decide that you want to be a Gentleman, bestowing the title is somewhat meaningless. I will cite my prime example; the members of Congress addressing each other as "gentlemen" (as in, "I yield to the gentleman from....")

 

[Rockminer]

The short answer is no. In my experience, folks that adopt those styles do so (in part) as a conscious move away from mainstream society and expressing themselves - as such, they would reject the entire concept of being a Gentleman




Sure, folks that choose to live in befouled clothing are non compos mentis.

You have to decide that you want to be a Gentleman, bestowing the title is somewhat meaningless. I will cite my prime example; the members of Congress addressing each other as "gentlemen" (as in, "I yield to the gentleman from....")

Maybe we should start from the beginning. What attributes and qualities do you associate with being a Gentleman? Do you feel that being of noble birth is also as important as dress?

Bolded:

It's been my opinion that most of society either uses that word wrong, doesn't truly understand the definition, or chooses a different definition. Would you agree with that?

 

[Tim_McD]

Ha - noble birth has never meant anything here in the good ol' USA and it isnt a contributing factor

b/t/w - I would agree with your definition and add on that perhaps the meaning of the word has been diluted

 

[Rockminer]

Spoiler

point taken. I'm just trying to figure out how helping people, volunteering time and general attributes are easier, or better, if the cloths are nicer. I'm completely willing to accept that there are people who want to adhere to a strict definition, and I'm fine with that as long as they adhere to every definition associated with that word. I just don't think the majority of people use that word under the strict definition, and just don't care about clothing or noble birth or being part of a land gentry etc. I'm quite sure I won't be able to change anyone's mind one way or the other, but I'm open to people explaining their views. I appreciate all views, I was just trying to get to the bottom of what the majority thinks.

 

[Rockminer]

Ha - noble birth has never meant anything here in the good ol' USA and it isnt a contributing factor

It isn't a contributing factor because we decide to overlook it here, just like some decide to overlook the clothing part IMO.

 

[Rockminer]

Some people think clothing matters, some don't. I don't know what more you're looking for.

Just having conversations. Have I done something wrong?

 

[Rockminer]

That's a whole nother ballgame, and while we could argue noble versus privileged, I'd wager it means a lot more in certain circles than most Americans like to think

I would too, or they wouldn't have put it in the definition.

 

[cleanshaved]

Noble birth went out years ago, I think we can all agree to put that one out to pasture for the modern gentelman.

I still think clothing has a part to play but is not in the way it did when noble birth was required.

I think a gentelman would never wear his pants so low that you can read the brand of undies he is wearing. In my view this person does not care that he offends some people, that is not fitting of a gentelman.

 

[Rockminer]

No, but aren't we getting somewhat circular in the argument here? The poll shows the majority of folks here don't think clothes maketh the man, but a significant amount do.
Rehash all you like, just wondering why when the point was made a week ago...

People quote me and I respond. If it's a problem, lock it up, I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

[Rockminer]

I'll stop posting.

I will say that I generally stay out of threads that bother me to the point that I need to comment on them.

I appreciate everyone who posted

I'm out

 

[nuclearblast]

I'll stop posting.

Why?

I've seen only one person complaining. Maybe that person could read other threads instead?

Just sayin' ...

 

[alex2363]

There are outliers along the spectrum of "society"; those that are homeless, dress as Goths or embrace a prison fashion culture are examples of those at the ends of the societal bell curve, rather than the bulk of society.

A Gentleman dressing *appropriate* to the environment would mean that he wouldnt don a three-piece suit to participate in a day at the beach. Decorum doesnt require putting on what would amount to a costume to fit into a specific situation, doing so would be ungracious at best, mocking at worst - both ungentlemanly behavior.

And to the question of economics (i.e. "what if one cannot afford it"), you make do according to your means. If your day-to-day ensemble is befouled rags, odds are you have issues that would preclude you from even the most generous interpretation of a Gentleman.

If you are clean, wearing clothes that clean and in good repair - and posses the qualities that were outlined previously - then odds are you would fit the definition of a Gentleman.

Once again precise and eloquently stated to the upmost point.

 

[alex2363]

So, the only difference between a guy who does everything a gentleman does, and any of the other words used to describe those actions, is clothing/grooming? Sounds an awful lot like a requirement to me.

I still haven't had anyone answer me, when I ask "what if you can't afford it?" If one can't afford what's expected, and still be called a Gentleman, then why have any of that as an expectation? If one can't be a gentleman without conforming to clothing/grooming, then it would seem clothing/grooming is a requirement. It has to be one way or the other IMO.

And while we're on the subject of conforming to society. If that's something a gentleman does, wouldn't he have to dress according to the environment he's in? Meaning, if he's around homeless people, he should dress like the homeless. If he's around people who dress with their pants around their thighs, he should also dress that way, right? Otherwise, the only thing a gentleman is conforming to is his own idea of fashion.

Not a requirement but .... I said conforming to the expectations of Proper society.