No more shopping in your pyjamas - what do you think?

Tesco, one of the UK’s leading supermarket chains, has recently banned customers from shopping in one of their stores if they are wearing pyjamas (link to story)

I think this is pretty dumb and unnecessary - I mean, who really cares? I can understand the concern if said nightwear consists of the erotic lingerie, but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here - the clothing they’re talking about is typically long cotton trousers and something a bit like a t-shirt or jersey - probably only distinguishable from ordinary non-nightwear versions of the same clothing by the colour schemes and/or patterning.

So what if Arthur Dent wants to pop out for a pint of milk in the middle of the night (these are stores that open 24 hours), without getting changed? I don’t even understand the cause for concern.

It makes a store look cheap and low-class. Most normal average folks will put some normal pants on to leave the house and go shopping - when you have a lot of people going to a store in their pyjamas, you get websites like “People of WalMart” and that store is seen as being fairly low-end and is a target for jokes.

I’d still shop there (if I lived there). I never wear pajamas in public.

Those plaid pajama pants DO look like pajamas, and only pajamas. I don’t generally care if people wear them in public, but I’m alwasy confused when people say they just look like pants, because they don’t.

Maybe (although I’m pretty sure I could find some counterexamples), but the point is, they’re not qualitatively any different from ordinary pants (i.e. they’re not transparent, they don’t have gaping holes in them, they’re not skin-tight and revealing, etc.) They are just another variety of trouser.

I don’t see why sleeping trousers in a non-bedroom context are any more or less offensive than, say, golfing trousers in a non-golfing context, or jogging pants on someone who is not actually jogging. (noted that you don’t either)

Hmmm… maybe, although Tesco commercials are typically fairly self-effacing anyway. (Ironically, there was one a while back that features comedy actor Martin Clunes shopping in his pyjamas)

And shopping in pyjamas is exactly the sort of quirky oddness that, IMO, the British public find quite endearing - I think Tesco dropped the ball here on a great opportunity for free positive publicity.

Good luck to them on defining pyjamas.

“These are lounging bottoms, not pyjamas! I demand to see a manager!”

Some pajama pants are not exactly, how shall I say, ah, secure.

With one small button or just some tension on two edges of fabric standing between decency and Willie coming out for a peek, some garments really should stay at home.

Q-list celebrity Danielle Lloyd ran into this very problem recently; she was barred from Tesco for wearing pyjamas when in fact she was wearing a tracksuit. A designer tracksuit. A £120 (roughly $200) designer tracksuit.

I don’t care whether Tesco let her in or not, but anyone paying that much money for a cheap tracksuit with “Juicy” written across the ass deserves public mockery.

I’d like to cross-reference this thread with “Things you shouldn’t have to tell people” - pajamas aren’t outside clothes. After we recently did a thread on wearing pajamas out, I understand that you DO have to tell people that, though.

As far as I know, this habit is not widespread in Canada yet. Thankfully.

If this was in the US, I’d suspect it was an anti-teen-loitering ordinance. No pajama bottoms would keep a lot of teen girls out, which would in turn drive off the teen boys.

true, but that’s not a pyjama problem, it’s a case of indecent exposure, and:
[li]it can happen with ordinary trousers, if the fly is accidentally left open.[/li][li]it’s not true for all, or probably even most pyjama trousers.[/li][/ul]

Like I said, I can understand people objecting to accidental indecent exposure (although It doesn’t bother me a lot personally), but that doesn’t seem to be a major factor in this decision.

OK, but why? What is objectively wrong about wearing (decent) night clothes in public?

It’s on the same level as why you can appear in swimming suits in certain public areas but not underwear.

Plus you look like a slacker. (I’m not fond of tracksuits as anything but exercise wear, either, for the record.)

None of that really stands up to objective reason though, does it?

Well no, but one doesn’t have to be reasonable about this, really; it’s fashion and “decency” opinion. They’ve got a policy, arrived at by whatever means, and people will shop there or not.

So what? I can go into any shop with ripped jeans and no belt and messy hair and a T-shirt with holes in it.

Same as any other excess of informality. It lowers the tone, suggesting (to some) a depth of utter unconcern for any sort of standards of decorum and possibly basic hygene (folks who can’t be bothered putting on pants to go out in public? What else can’t they be bothered to do?) which will I suspect drive away shoppers made uncomfortable by that.

If an atmosphere where folks commonly are seen shopping in pajamas drives away more folks than will be deterred from shopping if they can’t go in their pajamas, then it makes sense to institute such a policy.

They’re open 24 hours a day. What sort of people do you think are buying groceries at 3am?

Evidently, they are hoping for ones who put on pants for the occasion.