Tesco store bans grocery-shopping in pyjamas

Discuss

113 Responses to “Tesco store bans grocery-shopping in pyjamas”

  1. Gloria says:

    “Maybe you’re more used to seeing people in food/sweat/?-stained PJs, than me, but to me PJs are just a set of clothes that you wear to be comfy and sleep in. Hygiene (physical or mental) doesn’t come into it.”

    I thought the point of wearing PJs was the convenience — you could just roll out of bed and go, having marinated for eight hours or so in your sheets. I personally take a shower in the morning after getting out of bed, because I had spent the whole day getting progressively less showered. After the shower, I don’t put the same clothes back on, because it’d defeat the point, so I put on new clothes. So yeah, if I see you in your PJs, I automatically think you look unshowered too, whether you are or not.

    I think your point about hygiene would be more relevant if people kept clean PJs to wear in their dresser — which, hey, maybe they do.

    “Or genuinely gives them the right to project a whole personality and moral-brearing onto the pyjama-wearer, to somehow explain how they thought it was ok to transgress the Sacred Social Dress Code?”

    Actually, yeah. Then it’s your right to be outraged about it.

    And what’s with the emphasis on “genuinely”? Of course if somebody says something here, unless it’s obviously sarcastic (right), genuineness is probably assumed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds more like you’re equating “genuinely” with “deeply.” Offense can happen at all kinds of levels; I’m offended if you wipe your nose on your hand on the bus, but I’m also offended if you call me a chink. Doesn’t mean I’m less “genuine” on either account.

    “But who the fuck am I to tell you you look like a dick?”

    I haven’t told anybody. I feel OK saying so here though, because it’s a discussion on the very point. Somebody just walking on the street isn’t asking for my opinion, so I’m not giving it to them.

    “Look dear, he’s wearing a dinner cravat to the opera! Tut! Tut!”

    Ah, yes, making snobs at the opera! A time-honoured tradition. I assure you people are perfectly snide at all social levels, despite their cultural leanings.

  2. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    It’s becoming apparent that, while the participants in this thread do have some differences of opinion on appropriateness of various kinds of clothing, what we mostly have are very different images of what “wearing pajamas in public” means.

    Agreed! I’m seeing that too. Perhaps the UK has less scary PJers per head of population.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Haha how absurd. What, are people going to stop shopping at their local because they’re ‘offended’ by the PJ-brigade? Seriously? What about some of the girls who wear shorts so short their butt-cheeks are visible? Now THAT is offensive. But flannnies or a dressing-gown, I could really care less about. So long as people have clothes on I’ve got no problem with what they wear. And to be frank, it’s really no-ones business what they wear.

    Reminds me of how glad I am that I was born in (and live in) Australia.

  4. Antinous / Moderator says:

    I live in a resort. 75 year-old men go grocery shopping in speedos. Y’all are amateurs.

  5. Larskydoodle says:

    I’m reminded of something I heard once (it may have even been on BB)….that women wearing pyjama bottoms in public is cute, but men wearing pyjama bottoms in public is kind of creepy and gross.

    I suppose that’s why the bathrobe is so important.

    • Anonymous says:

      Women wearing pajamas in public is cute if the women themselves are cute. Women get away with a lot if they’re cute.

      That said, as a man, I realize I’m not Hugh Hefner and don’t wear my PJs in public. But I don’t care if YOU do. It doesn’t affect me in the least.

  6. nanuq says:

    Up until this moment, it never would have occurred to me to go grocery shopping in my pajamas (which I don’t wear anyway). Now I’m feeling miffed at this loss of my freedom. Is there a protest group for this?

  7. cos says:

    i have no problem with people wearing pyjamas in public .whats the big deal.dont know if ireland have this ban in place ..anyone know ?

  8. Jonathan Badger says:

    The idea that there needs to be law against shopping in one’s PJs reminds me of US states that have laws against marrying one’s first cousins. The states that don’t have such laws aren’t really endorsing the concept; they are just taking it at a given that most people can avoid doing so without any legal threat.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I live in Argentina and this alleged “right” to go to the store in your PJs is utterly incomprehensible to me. It’d have never crossed my mind…

    … kudos, though.

  10. GreenTara says:

    As long as you’re fully covered you should be allowed to wear what ever you want. ALLOWED. It doesn’t mean in any sense of the word, that you SHOULD.

    Sure if you’re popping out for milk or tooth paste or band-aids at night, or on a camping trip or when you are sick it’s okay to not look your best. We all have been, or will be in that situation at some point. But 80% of the people out in their jim jams at anytime between 9am-9pm are just lazy slobs or college aged girls who think they are being cute. They are not being cute. I’m pretty sure any anti-PJs commenting is aimed at people who have every ability to get dressed but choose not to.

    Plus, while comfy is nice, self-respect is even nicer.

    Hadlock “Cashier didn’t even bat an eye at the pajama pants.” Oh cashiers blink, it’s just on the inside. They aren’t soulless automatons, they just mostly have the good grace not to give people grief about what isn’t their business. Which more people should do on a regular basis.

  11. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    The only clothing I abhor more is corduroy (it’s a long story).

    A long story that I fear we all share, to some extent.

    /I am arkizzle’s green corderoy shame

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      Does your’s have something to do with being from “the wrong side of the tracks”? If yes, then we certainly have something in common.

  12. creeto says:

    Has anyone registered peopleoftesco.co.uk yet?

  13. schwal says:

    Anyone else have a sudden flash of The Big Leboski?

  14. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    Gloria,

    OK, we clearly have different ideas on both social-expectation and things-to-get-offended-about.

    That you get offended by someone wiping their nose on their hand is more than enough for me to think we are not going to see eye to eye, here. Or reading someone else’s hygiene-routine from the clothes they are wearing in the 5 seconds you witnessed them, and within that finding something to form a negative opinion about, means we are probably not going to agree on the rest.

    I’m not snubbing you at all, but we are not going to agree about this.

    And I meant genuinely, not deeply. Genuinely offended; as opposed to just joining in the poking, but not really caring one way or the other. You sound genuine.

    I assure you people are perfectly snide at all social levels, despite their cultural leanings.

    Fine, classism wasn’t the point I was making.

  15. Rick. says:

    Pajamas are clothes. As long as what a person is wearing covers all the good stuff, I have no problem with it.

  16. hadlock says:

    I wore pajama pants with a fleece pullover and flip flops to Walmart (who, I think, owns Tesco) this morning around 3am to get the week’s groceries. I have no regrets. If it’s after midnight and you’re grocery shopping the only people who are going to see (judge?) your clothing is a) the stockers and b) the cashier. Cashier didn’t even bat an eye at the pajama pants.

  17. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    Hand-me-downs and bad timing?

  18. Darren Garrison says:

    I once shot an elephant shopping in my pajamas…

  19. Xopher says:

    Well, Arkie, if they think you’re self-righteous, they’re half right…you’re righteous, dude! *high-fives Arkizzle*

  20. coop says:

    @Darren Garrison,

    What was the elephant doing in your pajamas?

    ;-)

  21. John D. Berry says:

    Tesco’s customers may or may not be appropriately dressed now, but what Tesco mean in their sign is “we ask that our customers *be* appropriately dressed.”

  22. Architexas says:

    I honestly don’t have a problem with this. Have you ever seen a woman walking around a store in thin pajama bottoms and no undies? Yeesh. How long does it really take to slide on a pair of jeans? Even when I’m incredibly sick, I still manage to put on real pants and a sweatshirt to go to the pharmacy.

  23. Zippy Gonzales says:

    But Snuggies are still allowed, right?

  24. Xopher says:

    Thanks Gloria. But I was just explaining my overreaction, which I in my turn apologize for.

    Hey, the thought of a guy in his PJs gets me worked up, too! Mmm, guy in PJs. :-)

  25. Mark Crummett says:

    I worked in a drugstore in North Carolina for a while. One day a woman came in wearing jammies, a robe and slippers. She strolled around for a while while waiting for her prescriptions. I figure if you’re too sick to get dressed, you’re probably too sick to go shopping.

    • Oceanesque says:

      @ Mark Crummett if you’re too sick to get dressed, that’s exactly when you need to be able to go to the pharmacy (drugstore) – to get over the counter or prescription medicines, and/or medication advice.

      Not everyone has a spouse or adult child they can send to pick up their medicine – for many adults (especially the elderly) if they don’t get their medicine in person in their PJs, they won’t be able to obtain their medicine.

  26. Berk says:

    I don’t necessarily agree with the store’s policy or justification, but is it really so much hassle to get dressed before going out?

    Most interesting to me is the quote “It’s not as if they’re going to fall down or anything like that. They should be happy because you’re going to spend all that money.”

    Which indicates to me that it’s probably a main shop, and not just bits, which for me (being a single male) usually takes about an hour. Is it really that big a deal to like, put some clothes on? Especially considering that if you have anything else to do during the day, you’re likely to need actual clothes, not undercrackers and a vest.

    Basically, I get the impression the only reason to go shopping in your PJs is laziness, put some bloody clothes on.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Im glad for this. There’s no reason to walk out in public looking like your walking around your house.

  28. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    And at the end of the day, if the thing that gets me the most worked up is (the idea of!) some guy in his PJs, that’s a pretty good day.

    Pretty good? It’s positively luxuriant! :)

    And I understand your meaning of offense too. You’re right though, I probably wouldn’t use it as broadly, but I see the scope for it.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Wearing pyjamas in public is like shouting “I’ve given up on getting laid ever again, and now the closest I can come is the giddy thrill I get while showing everyone what I wear to bed!” or something like that. This post made me feel awkward.

  30. MadRat says:

    This makes me so mad I want to put on my naughtiest, Fredrick’s of Hollywood nighty and go grocery shopping! Well, except that I live in the US… and maybe that I don’t own any lingerie… and I’m a short, fat, middle-aged man and would get arrested for disturbing the peace, inciting a riot and public nuisance before I got from my house to my car. Fine! Just keep your stupid pajama ban then!

  31. sam1148 says:

    Get a union suit. One of the red ones with the butt flap..those are really nice for night wear. For public..not so much, unless the butt flap access panel comes into play.

    You can dress this look up with suspenders and jeans..if you want to do pants..some jungle boots would be a nice touch for footwear.

  32. Anonymous says:

    whats this- Victorian times over again?
    we Brits used to SET the trends music/fashion culture gay exceptance etc etc

    America is at least 16 years ahead of us- wearing p.j bottoms in public ( walking kids to school while still sipping coffee)
    now the Californian kids wear thick, patterned p.j bottoms to school as a fashion, have done for a couple of years..
    Brits are getting boring again, or pandering too much to our ‘guest’s culture

  33. Stooge says:

    This aggression will not stand, man.

  34. benher says:

    Don’t worry, it’s not so bad. The supermarket’s policy will matter very little after the Vogon’s complete their hyperspace bypass. Than most of the surviving humans will be hitchhiking around space in their dressing gowns.

  35. Anonymous says:

    I think people go out wearing more stupid outfits than pyjamas. I mean, what about girls who go out on the town in hardly any clothing? I’d rather see people in pyjamas than in hardly anything at all – or in leather or fur, which are both dead animals. I think people should be allowed to wear pyjamas if they want. It’s really no big deal. I once bought a pair of velvet pyjamas (the top was a vest top, not a shirt) that I thought would be cool to wear out – although I never did end up wearing them out as I was too paranoid – but I think this rule is stupid. Are they going to ban people with tattoos next or people with blue streaks in their hair? Can’t the world just accept everyone, no matter what they look like?

  36. Gloria says:

    How sick do you really have to be to forego dressing properly? Surely you’d have to be dying to be so weak as to be unable to pull on clothes? If you can get up, lock up your apartment, drive/take transit to the pharmacy, you can pull on a dress/leggings or pants/t-shirt.

    Hell, I don’t even wear pants anymore. I wear dresses pretty much all the time (and just layer properly in the winter), and there really is no sacrifice of comfort.

    @20: I always thought that was funny too.

    That said, I don’t think a supermarket should have this kind of dress code and worry about offended customers. The only ones who should take the time to be really embarrassed by public PJs are the people wearing them.

  37. Mycroft says:

    I can never really figure out why, but people out in public in pajamas drives me nuts.

  38. Mr_Voodoo says:

    Wearing pajamas in public is the clothing equivalent of baby-talk. It’s lazy and self-infantilizing. The world isn’t supposed to be one big comfy bed.

    Wearing actual, comfortable clothes isn’t that hard. Trust me, it isn’t. I do it every day. Even when I’m sick, or just running out on a quick errand. Or flying on a plane.

    People who wear pajamas out in the world are the same people who talk loudly on cellphones in line at the grocery store, or treat movie theaters as if they were their living rooms. Or don’t clean up after their dogs.

    Sorry, Cory, but if I see you on a plane wearing pajamas, and that plane isn’t flying to the other side of the globe, I’m going to sit next to you and talk baby-talk for the entire flight.

  39. EH says:

    This is fine with me as long as pajamas are still OK.

  40. Anonymous says:

    This is an outrage. Shopping in PJs is a tradition, and a right. Nay, a responsibitiy!

  41. Anonymous says:

    Reminds me of the war on public pajama wearing here in Shanghai, China.
    As a waiguoren/foreigner, I tried it out a few times myself to the delight of my Chinese neighbors.

  42. Anonymous says:

    To me, it depends on the time. When I lived at my parents, there was a 24 hour supermarket near by. Sometimes, for whatever reason (usually when I or someone else was sick) a quick run to the supermarket to get tissues, tp, OTC meds or Farina (Farina makes me happy when I’m sick. Mmm…) was in order, and if it was late, well, your in your pj’s/sweats.

    Then, I think, its pretty acceptable to go to the store in your jammies. However, I usually wore a coat over them as well.

    As for being ‘too sick to go out’… well, sometimes, you have to. If there is no one around to go out for you, and no one near by delivers, sometimes you have to haul your sick butt to the pharmacy to get what you need.

    But generally, during the day, I have to agree – jammies aren’t dayware for extended grocery trips.

  43. asuffield says:

    If there was still any competitive spirit left in the UK retail market (which there isn’t), then by the end of the day we would see three other local stores loudly announcing “pyjamas welcome”.

  44. Neon Tooth says:

    Garish pajama bottoms with shit like tweety bird on them is a big thing with the Latina ladies in my hood. It’s not a good look. I also have a co-worker that sometimes wears *pink* sweatpants that are way to revealing, and have PINK emblazoned across the (very big) ass. It’s disturbing, and really I think clients are disturbed a bit as well.

    I guess you could say I’m a kind of scruffy/bummy bohemian type, but even I can’t do the sweats outside the house. There have been times I’ve been tempted to walk the one block to the corner to get some TP or something, but I can’t even do that.

    I don’t think it should be a policy though, but you wish that people would have some taste/style.

  45. chriziem says:

    Funny, Gloria, I just got back from a chemo session at my local cancer center, where there were lots of grownups not showing the backbone you display, as many of my fellow patients wore pajamas. I passed the time there by rereading Franny and Zooey; might I suggest that you do the same? It could be an enlightening experience.

    • Gloria says:

      Yes, I hate people with cancer. I’m also Hitler 2!

    • Gloria says:

      I’d have to point out that yes, cancer qualifies as dying. So you have my personal permission to wear PJs to chemotherapy. I’ll draw a certificate for you if you like; yon can fold it up and use it as a bookmark for the next book you take to the cancer centre and show it to anyone who dares question you, as a cancer patient, and your dress sense.

      Now I’m off to step on some kittens.

      • Xopher says:

        Wow, you really don’t have any heart at all, do you? I can’t believe you posted this.

        • Gloria says:

          Sigh.

          My point was that Chriziem was twisting my words and making a huge jump to believe that I basically equate somebody with a bad cold to somebody with cancer.

          My response was meant to be on the save wavelength of *utter ridiculousness.* That comment was supposed to fit in this fictional, absurd world Chriziem had created and foisted upon me — a world where I apparently care to regulate the fashion sense of the ill and dying.

          My point was, if you’re going to take my comment that close to heart — thinking my criticism of lazy shoppers means I’m including hospital patients — yes, fine, I might as well sarcastically take on that mantle of cartoonish villainy and take myself sarcastically-seriously as well.

          I was being sarcastic because of the complete lack of logic and decency in responding the manner I felt Chriziem did.

          No, I didn’t and don’t think cancer is funny. Neither do I think cancer patients are funny, though I do also think that adopting a hush-hush-tip-toe attitude because of the realities of cancer while basically denying that same reality is bizarre.

          No, I wouldn’t have brought it up or even thought to state it so baldly if I didn’t think Chriziem had already stepped over that line. No, that kind of behaviour doesn’t make me right.

          That said, I honestly care less about being clear or winning an argument or whatever, so I sincerely apologize. If moderators want to speak to me or give me a warning, I accept that.

          • Xopher says:

            Just to be clear, it was your equating being a cancer patient with dying that tweaked me. Perhaps I’m hypersensitive because a close friend of mine is currently dying of cancer (and yes, he’s actually dying), and Kage Baker will be gone in a matter of weeks.

            They’re “dying.” But I know many, many people who have gotten cancer and recovered. As far as I know, none of them ever wore pajamas to the grocery store, but they all went through stages where they were terribly ill and we were very worried about them (one of them told me “I don’t know why I’m even letting them try to save me…it’s just not worth it”—but he recovered and is now fine, in fact he’s about to become a father for the first time). To lump “being very sick with cancer” in with “dying” strikes me as insensitive.

            But then, as I said, I’m hypersensitive on this issue. Just explaining where I was coming from.

          • Gloria says:

            Xopher: Of course. I apologize. I naturally already knew that not all cancers are terminal. My short-hand was meant (again…) to be a comment on Chriziem’s own “short-hand” but nevertheless unfortunate and I’m sorry for it.

            @arkizzle: You’re probably right. I suppose the thing here is I’ve never thought of “offense” as meaning anything more than “a negative reaction” — anything from “that’s kind of gross, please use your sleeve” to “my word, tut tut, PJs at Tesco!”

            What others might see as a wide, diverse array of sentiments generally fall under that same category for me, so I have no problem labelling all kinds of things as “offensive.” I just fine-tweak where under the umbrella it is.

            You’re right — I am genuine. Thing is, I find it easier to be genuine about these kinds of things than to really work myself in a froth about something much more critical or complex, or something I can never really wrap myself around completely. And with all my energy spent on something inconsequential, bigger things I can approach calmly. I guarantee you I can go home tonight and the toilet can have blown up and I’ll be, “Cool.”

            And at the end of the day, if the thing that gets me the most worked up is (the idea of!) some guy in his PJs, that’s a pretty good day.

    • Architexas says:

      I wore pajama pants to chemotherapy, too, back in the day, but I WAS ON CHEMO and wasn’t going shopping afterwards (straight home, to the toilet, thank you very much. Or, better yet, sometimes just wheeled upstairs to the hospital because of adverse reactions).

      Wearing pajamas to chemo is a totally different scenario from leaving your house specifically to go to the grocery store without feeling the need to put on decent clothes.

      What if you need to go to the grocery store after chemo (it’s happened)? PLAY “THE CANCER CARD.” Pretty much anyone will give you a free pass for cancer that you don’t get if, say, you have a sinus infection. I have a hunch no Tesco manager would deny you entry to the store if you explained that you’d just come from a chemotherapy treatment and wanted to pick up a bottle of Gatorade before you go home to vomit yourself into oblivion.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Try this in most places in Scotland and you will get arrested for being “improperly dressed”.

    Civilised, I’d call it.

    • Anonymous says:

      Really? What I found surprising about the Tesco story is that this has always been a pretty common thing. Maybe not in totally metropolitan supermarkets but people in my part of Scotland have gone out to get their messages in their jammies as long as I can remember. Not everyone but not unusual either.

  47. netsharc says:

    I wonder if anyone’s planning a flashmob of pyjama-wearing shoppers..?

  48. dshan says:

    A sudden influx of negligee-wearing ladies at the local supermarket is about the only thing that could persuade me set foot in one those hell holes again. Thank Jebus for online grocery shopping!

  49. lewis stoole says:

    well, i would prefer two pieces of cloth between the naughties and the food, but if people feel it is ok to only have one, even with a pee flap, that is ok too. so you guys on the american west coast, tesco owns fresh and easy, you know what to do. but if you are wearing jammies between 10am and 10pm (f&e hours), i am kind of curious as to your schedule, the only excuse would be buying more booze.

  50. Xopher says:

    People who wear pajamas out in the world are the same people who talk loudly on cellphones in line at the grocery store, or treat movie theaters as if they were their living rooms. Or don’t clean up after their dogs.

    How do you figure? Talking loudly (on a cellphone or not), using at-home manners in a movie theatre, not cleaning up after one’s dog: all things that legitimately disturb others’ rights. How would that apply to wearing pajamas in the grocery store?

    Maybe we just have different images in mind when we think of ‘pajamas’. Maybe you’re thinking of filmy negligibles, or candy-apple-red satin monstrosities, or those one-piece things with the feet (which I grew up calling by one popular brand name, WearABlanket™).

    I don’t actually wear pajamas, unless I’m sleeping in a room with someone with a nudity phobia, but I saw a young guy in California one time wearing thin flannel trousers with a printed pattern (not like trucks and buses or anything, something abstract). Those looked like pajama bottoms to ME, but since that didn’t bother me, neither did he. Was he inappropriately attired by your rather narrowminded standard? Or would that only apply if he were wearing the matching jacket as well (he wasn’t, unless it was under his hoodie)?

    Come down to it, how do you tell if someone’s wearing pajamas, or just loose-fitting cotton clothes appropriate to a tropical climate? I had a set of such clothes I bought in Key West, and I wore them on the street there, but when I went back to New Jersey they became pajamas (which I actually did wear when I shared a room with a person who was freaked out by nudity). Are you saying I shouldn’t have worn them in KW because they pass for pajamas back home?

  51. Evil Lyle says:

    According to some younger friends in Merseyside, going out in pajamas is the trendy thing to do these days. Evidently young women go out during the day time on a Saturday or Sunday in pajamas (and sometimes rollers or curlers as well!) as a precursor to going home to get dressed up to go out. There may be a similar trend in Wales at the root of this store policy.

  52. niftyknits says:

    rofl! I say let’s rebel, let’s have a mass “going to tesco in our jammies” day.

    • Anonymous says:

      Niftyknits, Can’t believe I had to trawl through so many comments to get to yours! A sponsored pyjama run to Tescos, nationwide. (proceeds to Haiti) NOT tescos, make sure and get your tea bags at the corner shop on the way there.
      Sunday perhaps?

  53. Salesmonkey says:

    Going out in your dressing gown? If it’s good enough for Arthur Dent, it’s good enough for me.

  54. Anonymous says:

    This store is open 24hrs a day… On the rare occasions I have visited in the wee small hours of the morning there is hardly anybody about… During the day when it is full of shoppers then fair enough but 4 am in the morning?!?!?

  55. Teapunk says:

    I do have a very nice collection of pyjamas but I would never ever wear them in public. Hell, I’m shamefaced when I have to open the door to the postman in my pyjamas!
    Our weather is comparable to Wales, which means it’s freezing, and I need to walk about 20 minutes to get to the next supermarket. Do people just get in their car, drive to the next supermarket and then run out barefoot in their jammies?
    I could of course start with going to the bakery, which is far closer and I suppose they have seen me on occasion without make-up.
    But I still don’t get why anyone would do this? Is it too much trouble to get out of the pyjamas and into some shirt and jeans?

  56. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    To be clear, I wasn’t talking to the anti-PJ-in-public people, I could be in that crowd myself, for all either of us know. I was talking to the people who were making kinda-shouty, unfounded character assessments, based only on people’s clothing. And I was questioning the use of the word slobs.

    Beyond that, I’m not sure we need a truce, but I’m happy to shake a metaphorical hand.

  57. politeruin says:

    With some of the things the Welsh chavocracy choose to wear, would anyone even notice? They can only ever dress up by wearing PJs.

  58. John Napsterista says:

    First they came for the Jedi knights, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jedi knight;

    Then they came for the pyjamas wearers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a pyjamas wearer;

    [...] How soon we forget.

  59. Idle Tuesday says:

    This reminds me of university during exams. Some girls were *so* busy studying that they wore their pyjamas everywhere, including to the exams. Yeah, right. You’re too busy to put on jeans and a t-shirt, but wait, not too busy to do your hair and make-up. I’m with Mycroft, this bugs me (like underwear above the waist). And for the the record, I AM a grumpy old fart.

  60. Cuirassier says:

    If they have to make a rule it is probably too late. This slide into hell began when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan joined forces with the oligarchy to destroy the middle class. First the industrial jobs are sent overseas. The lower classes feel the crunch. Then better, unionized jobs are slowly peeled away. Dress becomes cheaper, uglier, and more shapeless as the rich get richer. Now, many people simply can’t afford nice clothing, and wouldn’t know where to get it if they could.

    Sorry Tesco, you can’t trick me, you’re part of the problem. It’s time we stopped chasing LOW LOW PRICES like starving stray dogs after a hamsteak attached to a kite. Create worker owned industry. Wholly boycottt and refuse to work for anything which has any part in disassembling your local economy. They’re killing your family, town, and community for a tiny slice of profit, to send straight up their corporate hierarchy. And the only thing you get in return is a bit of former farmland with a shoddy tin leanto and 5 square miles of rotting pavement.

    Rob tesco, have a nice suit made by a tailor, or a dress made by a dressmaker and they’ll never go out of style. Or continue buying oreo cookies and wearing pajamas to the store. Your choice

  61. Xopher says:

    Neon Tooth 69: Garish pajama bottoms with shit like tweety bird on them is a big thing with the Latina ladies in my hood.

    Aha, see, that’s not where my brain automatically goes when I think “pajamas.” But I abhor garish clothing in general. Even the Key West things I told you about were a soft off-white color, with a very understated sun-and-moon on them (once, not a pattern, and over the pocket, not on my ass). The ones you describe here would make me curl my lip a little too, but I wouldn’t say anything.

    I also have a co-worker that sometimes wears *pink* sweatpants that are way to revealing, and have PINK emblazoned across the (very big) ass. It’s disturbing, and really I think clients are disturbed a bit as well.

    OK: eww.

    I guess you could say I’m a kind of scruffy/bummy bohemian type, but even I can’t do the sweats outside the house.

    Waitwaitwait. Are you saying you consider sweat pants inappropriate for the street?!!?!?! Wow, you’d better not come to my town. You’ll see a WHOLE lot of that. Also on any college campus, and of course in the gym. I really can’t wrap my mind around not thinking sweat pants are for in the house only. If that’s not what you meant, please clarify; you’re freaking me out here.

    I wear sweat pants over my workout clothes to walk to the gym in the winter. After my workout, I shower, put on business clothes, and go to the office. In warm weather, I do the same thing…minus the sweat pants. I don’t think this is at all inappropriate, and as far as I can discern, neither does anyone on the street.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      Xopher, I second Mr_Voodoo’s disdain for sweat pants. I’ve had an absolute hate of them since junior high school when they were required attire for PE (I think that was the first time in my life I had ever put a pair on). The only clothing I abhor more is corduroy (it’s a long story). I’m neutral on the subject of track pants. The lined ones are much better suited to cross-country skiing and backyard shinny than your ill-conceived sweat pants.

    • Architexas says:

      I think part of what is/is not appropriate probably has a lot to do with local culture, as you’ve pointed out. In Dallas, you’ll get funny looks thrown your way if you go to the “nicer” malls or a non-fast-food restaurant in sweats, because it’s part of Southern US culture to always be “done.” People from other parts of the country are often flabbergasted at how much people here dress up (it’s a conversation I’ve had with multiple lost tourists as I guided them to where JFK was shot). Granted, not everyone “dresses up”, but I rarely see people in sweats on the street, unless they are obviously en route to a gym or are jogging.

      s a result, the people I see in public wearing their PJs tend to be those that are straight out of the pages of PeopleofWalmart, aka visibly unwashed and/or unaware of the fact that their enormously large breasts really should have a bra to reign them in, lest some gets hurt…

      @ TEAPUNK: I am baffled by the fact that people in Wales go about shoeless in winter, too. I think most municipalities in the US have laws/ordinances requiring shoes in grocery stores and food-service establishments. Granted, that was kind of a hippie backlash, but still…

      • Xopher says:

        I suspect that the set of things called ‘pajamas’ in Dallas is quite different as well. Am I right in thinking heavy cotton flannel (full legs, long sleeves) probably isn’t usual there? I grew up in Michigan, and we wore that sort of thing all the time. If you just say “pajamas” without going into detail, that’s what I think of.

        I also suspect that in Dallas in, say, July, I would wear SPF 45 sunblock and as little else as was legally allowed. Last time I was in Texas it was October, and I just couldn’t believe how unspeakably hot it was. But then I was born in a metallized bag with “refrigerate after opening” on it!

      • Gloria says:

        @Xopher, Arkizzle: That actually ended much better than I was expecting, especially considering how I was starting out. Thanks for being understanding :)

        @Architexas: In Toronto, at least, many stores seem to require shoes *and* a shirt.

        • Architexas says:

          @Gloria: And now we can all join hands and sing Kumbaya! (And drink beer. Can we please somehow drink a beer? Sorry, Happy Hour is looming large in my mind, right now.)

          @Xopher: Yeah, in summer there are the thin cotton pajamas, typically in light colors for ladies so you can see whatever they are/are not wearing underneath. Men wearing pajamas in public hasn’t been a trend I’ve noticed, though.

          @Antinous: I am, decidedly, a public partial-nudity amateur. I went to Florida for vacation, encountered a 60+ year old woman in a string bikini in a sandwich shop (none too close to the beach, either), and just about died. The 75 year old couple in line behind me (fully clothed) thought I was quite amusing, until they asked me where I was from. Their response was, “Ooooooh.” Apparently, their daughter-in-law had lived in Dallas for a time and hated the pressure to always be “dressed up.”

  62. DavidNewbigging says:

    Maybe this new policy is to stop things like this happening:

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2829849/OAP-pair-Peter-Echlin-and-Fay-Byrne-in-Tesco-romp.html

    Yeesh, that’s the isle where I buy my bread!

  63. Tedsville says:

    Fucking Fascists, man. Now what is a dude to do when he runs out of creamer for his white russians?

  64. Gary says:

    Next stop for Cory is a green hunting cap with ear flaps.

  65. Felix Mitchell says:

    Obviously wearing pajamas to the supermarket is the behaviour of a slob, but it’s not Tescos’ job to police slobbishness. I’m kind of surprised this needs saying.

    This has the usual problems of dress codes: fashion doesn’t have any clear lines between one type of garment and another. What’s the difference between pajama bottoms and tracksuit bottoms? I have some loose linen trousers that look similar to pajamas, but they’re not.

    Tescos should have the sense not to get into arguments with shoppers about stuff that doesn’t matter and has no clear rules.

    • Stooge says:

      Like any good corporate juggernaut, Tesco only care about the bottom line. Evidently they feel that welcoming customers who wear pajamas makes other people less inclined to be their customers, which doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable assumption.

  66. Teapunk says:

    So much talk and yet still no explanation or theory why people in Wales like to go shopping in their pyjamas. And barefoot. In winter.
    @Xopher: Nudity phobia? What?! Strange things between heaven and earth indeed.

  67. ab3a says:

    Well, if you want some notion of what they’re complaining about you can check out peopleofwalmart.com ;-)

    That said, if people decide to be slobs in public, who are we to regulate them? At least they’re wearing something.

    What shall we regulate next? It’s not as if this were some fancy restaurant…

  68. Ugly Canuck says:

    I was going to write a long angry letter to tesco about this…but I’m out of pen & ink…and I am wearing my pajamas…

  69. adamnvillani says:

    I remember it was just March 2007 when Cory expressed bewilderment that anyone would sleep any way besides naked:
    http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/04/sleep-naked.html

  70. Anonymous says:

    I guess that this is a reaction to http://www.peopleofwalmart.com ;-)

  71. Oceanesque says:

    How sick do you really have to be to forego dressing properly? Surely you’d have to be dying to be so weak as to be unable to pull on clothes? If you can get up, lock up your apartment, drive/take transit to the pharmacy, you can pull on a dress/leggings or pants/t-shirt.

    Gloria, here are some non-dying reaons that make people need to forego dressing properly while going to the pharmacy or supermarket:

    Severe RSI pain in the wrists, neck and shoulders that causes difficulty putting ones arms through sleeves, and pulling a top over one’s head. (I had severe RSI once when I was at university, and putting a tshirt on was so excruciatingly painful that it made me sob.)

    Severe arthritis.

    Parkinsons.

    limited mobility after a stroke

    severe eczema, chickenpox, bad sunburn – it may be that PJs are the only clothes that you own soft enough to tolerate on very painful skin

    severe abdominal pain that makes it impossible to tolerate a garment with a close-fitting waist (a friend of mine had this after getting a water-borne pathogen while volunteering with a charity in South America.)

    and I’m sure that there are more…

    Your abilist priviliege is showing.

  72. Clay says:

    Somehow this made me think of the movie Cashback.

  73. IronEdithKidd says:

    PJs are awesome for hanging about the house in ultimate comfort (winter, anyway), but are an abomination when seen in public. I don’t count the hospital or care clinics in my calculation of “public”.

    Without fail, when I’ve encountered PJ-clad patrons at the grocery, they have been exceedingly slow, and if there’s more than one, spread to the width of the whole aisle as to prevent passage for faster moving, more focused shoppers. For context, I treat the grocery store as a commando mission: get in, grab what I need, get the hell out.

  74. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    There are some raging, self-rightous judgebots, roaming this thread, like their personal feelings on someone else’s choice of dress matters.

    Should we tell the ugly people not to show their faces, too? What about overweight people, should they be excluded from wearing certain types of clothes because they offend your sensibilities?

    And calling people wearing pyjamas “slobs“, soley for the fact they are in pyjamas seems a little off base. Maybe you’re more used to seeing people in food/sweat/?-stained PJs, than me, but to me PJs are just a set of clothes that you wear to be comfy and sleep in. Hygiene (physical or mental) doesn’t come into it.

    Are the offended people so locked into their quaint, traditional-social-order that merely taking clothes from one setting, and transposing them to another, genuinely offends them? Or genuinely gives them the right to project a whole personality and moral-brearing onto the pyjama-wearer, to somehow explain how they thought it was ok to transgress the Sacred Social Dress Code?

    Maybe dresses offend me. Maybe button-down shirts do. But who the fuck am I to tell you you look like a dick?

    Look dear, he’s wearing a dinner cravat to the opera! Tut! Tut!

    • Stooge says:

      arkizzle, do you not see just a hint of irony in a moderator decrying “raging, self-rightous judgebots, roaming this thread”?

      • Architexas says:

        I did! Unfortunately, Gloria and I both thought that comments pages are where you can voice your opinion. Apparently, we were both woefully mistaken.

        • Xopher says:

          Oh, stop whining. Nobody stopped you from voicing your opinion. We have our opinions too, that’s all, and some of them are opinions of YOUR opinion (or of the way you phrased it). Get. Over. Yourself. You’re not the only one here, and Arkie is entitled to his opinion too.

        • arkizzle / Moderator says:

          I was about to say exactly as Xopher just did, I was only voicing my opinion. I didn’t Moderate anyone, I joined in the discussion.

          • Architexas says:

            And I understand that you didn’t moderate, you joined in the conversation; I did not make my comment based on who you were in regards to the site, and my comment would have remained the same if you had been a user, such as myself, instead of a moderator. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, and will consider my phrasing more carefully in future. I thought it was funny, as Stooge seemed to agree, that you accused the anti-PJs-in-public people of being self-righteous and judgmental, which to me seemed a self-righteousness and judgmental comment. I never meant to imply that you weren’t entitled to your own opinion, as Xopher seemed to think, just that for a former-professional-editor I found the phrasing of your opinion to be somewhat ironic.

            Shall we call it a truce? I extend my hand to you in friendship and mutual respect.

          • Xopher says:

            I know you’re offering the truce to Arkizzle, not me, but I’ll abide by its terms as well.

          • Architexas says:

            It was also offered to you, Xopher, albeit unspoken. (smiles, shakes hands, claps on back, and offers to buy a beer).

            @Arkizzle: Ah! Well, yes, I do agree that calling all people who wear PJs in public slobs or making broad pronouncements about their morality is incorrect. But my goodness, I do wish some of those guys/gals would wear undies with their PJs…

            So today’s comments thread has, in a large way, been formed of broad misunderstandings about tone, audience, etc… The joys of written communication!

          • Xopher says:

            But my goodness, I do wish some of those guys/gals would wear undies with their PJs…

            OK, I’d definitely buy that public-wear pajamas should be completely opaque and not otherwise revealing. I see that point. See, to me ‘pajamas’ brings to mind something quite thoroughly opaque, as well as baggy and shapeless. So all this disgust kind of mystified me.

          • Sekino says:

            See, to me ‘pajamas’ brings to mind something quite thoroughly opaque, as well as baggy and shapeless. So all this disgust kind of mystified me.

            Oh, good. Reading some comments, I was thinking I was a total judgemental b* for finding public pyjama wearing less than savory.

            Most ‘public PJ’s’ I see are on the baggy side, but they are usually thin flannel or well-worn so they have patches of translucent areas. Perhaps the people wearing them think they have great coverage because they are inside when they look in the mirror. But in sunlight or heavy fluorescent lights that glare through the material, it can be pretty scary.

            And I also most often see heavily patterned PJ’s. If they were discreet, tastefully coloured articles, I wouldn’t be able to readily identify them as pyjamas. If your PJ’s are tasteful and most importantly truly opaque, I don’t see a problem.

          • Xopher says:

            It’s becoming apparent that, while the participants in this thread do have some differences of opinion on appropriateness of various kinds of clothing, what we mostly have are very different images of what “wearing pajamas in public” means.

            Thin/worn pajamas with translucent bits in bright light: *shudder* Right with you there.

      • arkizzle / Moderator says:

        Stooge,

        Only if you think I’m a “raging, self-rightous judgebot” [sic, ouch!]. Maybe you do.

Leave a Reply