No Shirt, No Shoes, No DICE!

[SCSimmons]

@Booker57

Shoes and shirts required.

Bras and pantys optional.

My uncle used to have a poster up on his wall of two folks sitting at a bar underneath a ‘No Shirt No Shoes No Service’ sign. The guy on the left was staring wide-eyed down towards the lap of the lady sitting on the stool next to him; she was wearing a shirt and shoes, as per the posted requirements.

[qazwart]

I remember a Far Side cartoon where the sign said “No Shirt, No Brains, No Service”.

[gigi]

@Booker57

Shoes and shirts required.

Bras and pantys optional.

It’s probably my least favorite word, but it still needs to be spelled “panties”.

[groman]

What baffles me is not “no shirt, no shoes”, but rather that the sign never mentions pants. The most likely reason is that it’s hard to phrase in a “no <blank>” way that doesn’t exclude skirts, shorts, etc. Every time I see that sign I picture myself entering the establishment wearing just shoes and a t-shirt.

[TWDuke]

@Saint_Cad

I was at a hotel in Las Vegas and was made to go back to my room to put shoes on for the 20" walk through the lobby to get to the pool.

But you should have been able to step over the 20" casino without even touching the floor.

[barefootpanda]

Bear nenno wrote:

If 6 people walk in with nasty disgusting shoes, no disease will be transmitted to the guys walking in with clean shoes. But if 6 people walk in with nasty, fungus-covered feet, guess what happens to the people walking in with clean, bare feet?

Actually, not much, especially if they are regular barefooters. Fungal infections are encouraged by shoe-wearing. Walking in a pool or shower area, even in flips and then putting yr feet in shoes is a recipe for athlete’s foot. Walking away barefoot, allowing the feet to dry is a good way not to get it.

And while we are myth-busting. There are no US state regs forbidding customers from going barefoot on health and safety grounds. All such regs pertain only to employees.

Opposition to barefooting is more about social taboo and learned responses than hygiene realities.

[Tibby]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

I assume the “no dice” is equivalent to “no service.”

Correct

“No dice” is simply an early 20th century American phrase—probably Jazz era slang—meaning essentially “no way”. Back in the hipster ‘70’s we’d often disinter archaic colloquialisms and put them on signs in the vain attempt to demonstrate that our place of business, while wanting compliance with regard to necessary rules and regulations, was also hip, humorous and non-threatening. Thus “No Shirt, No Shoes, No DICE!” roughly translates to, “If you aren’t wearing a shirt or shoes, you are not particularly welcome in our facility and we may exercise our right to deny you service, daddy-o.”

[Wendell_Wagner]

Notice that there is a disagreement between the etymologies given in the link in my post and the first one in Tibbytoes’s post. Mine says that it comes from the fact that dice that bounce outside the proper area in craps mean that there has to be a do-over for that throw. Tibbytoes’s says that if the dice can’t be found, no arrest can be made.

[fandango]

@Saint_Cad

I was at a hotel in Las Vegas and was made to go back to my room to put shoes on for the 20" walk through the lobby to get to the pool. Seems that in Clark County, it is illegal to be inside a casino with no shoes.

Anyone else reminded of Stonehenge?

[Nametag]

That’s what they get for designing a casino on a napkin.

[elfkin477]

@groman

What baffles me is not “no shirt, no shoes”, but rather that the sign never mentions pants. The most likely reason is that it’s hard to phrase in a “no <blank>” way that doesn’t exclude skirts, shorts, etc. Every time I see that sign I picture myself entering the establishment wearing just shoes and a t-shirt.

A DJ for a station I used to listen to told a story about his experience golfing with some celebrity. Apparently it was really hot, so the guys in their party took of their shirts and immediately caused an uproar because there was a club rule against that. So they put their shirts back on…and took off their pants, which there wasn’t a rule against, instead. The club was not amused.

As for the No Shoes part, isn’t it a liability issue as C K Dexter Haven says? For the most part businesses don’t seem to be very active in discouraging disease transference (they don’t have people stationed in bathrooms forcing you to wash your hands, for example) but avoiding lawsuits seems like a bigger deal, which is why you’re not allowed to climb shelves and so on.

[NajaNivea]

@barefootpanda

Bear nenno wrote:

If 6 people walk in with nasty disgusting shoes, no disease will be transmitted to the guys walking in with clean shoes. But if 6 people walk in with nasty, fungus-covered feet, guess what happens to the people walking in with clean, bare feet?

Actually, not much, especially if they are regular barefooters. Fungal infections are encouraged by shoe-wearing. Walking in a pool or shower area, even in flips and then putting yr feet in shoes is a recipe for athlete’s foot. Walking away barefoot, allowing the feet to dry is a good way not to get it.

And while we are myth-busting. There are no US state regs forbidding customers from going barefoot on health and safety grounds. All such regs pertain only to employees.

Opposition to barefooting is more about social taboo and learned responses than hygiene realities.

Thank Og for a voice of reason ;).

Research, dudes. I haz it. Bare feet are healthy feet

elfkin477, from the other thread:

@me

@norinew

I think part of some businesses’ reluctance to cater to barefoot clients may have something to do with how lawsuit-happy America has gotten in recent years. No matter how many signs they put up that say you do business there at your own risk, you and I both know there are assholes that will try to sue the shirt off their backs as soon as they go on barefoot, and through their own clumsiness, step on something sharp. The lawsuit loonies have had far too much impact on the way a lot of businesses feel the need to conduct themselves now, imho.

I agree wholeheartedly except on the point that being barefoot makes anyone more likely to injure themselves or sue. I understand that’s generally perceived to be true, but not factually so. Foot injuries are one of the single most common sources of “general liability” for retailers. There’s no graceful way to point out that very nearly all of these injuries occur on people wearing shoes. Demanding patrons wear shoes makes the retailer feel safer but doesn’t actually reduce their general liability or the frequency of accidents and injuries… unless by chance they’re demanding OSHA standard safety gear, which isn’t usually the case in a retail store. If anything, customarily barefoot people are far more aware of potential hazards, and far more likely to notice and avoid them. But what’ay’gonnado? It’s their right to decide who shops in their store and who doesn’t. I’ll happily spend my money elsewhere, if they prefer it.

[Satchmo]

@NajaNivea

Thank Og for a voice of reason ;).

I’ll happily spend my money elsewhere, if they prefer it.:

Not trying to be contentious, but curious here, Naja.

Where do you shop that lets you do so barefoot?

[NajaNivea]

I’m totally happy to answer, but I’m not sure I understand the question. As detailed in the other thread, I pretty much live sans shoes. Presumably I shop in the same types of stores that you do (grocery, hardware, department stores…). For example, I just got back from visits to the grocery store, Target, my hide supplier, the lumber yard/hardware store, my dentist’s office, and the post office. It’s probably easier to list the places that don’t allow me in–which, fortunately, I have yet to discover in my local area

[Daerlyn]

@groman

What baffles me is not “no shirt, no shoes”, but rather that the sign never mentions pants. The most likely reason is that it’s hard to phrase in a “no <blank>” way that doesn’t exclude skirts, shorts, etc. Every time I see that sign I picture myself entering the establishment wearing just shoes and a t-shirt.

My WAG on this is that in most areas a lack of pants would be covered by public decency laws, whereas the shirt/shoes are a matter of personal preference.