Flyer, we’re a little uncomfortable discussing what honestly appears to be a sexual fantasy.
Not that I don’t think it’s a totally hot one, but …
In my college days, I spent a lot of time at the beach.
No one can pull on jeans shorts after being covered in water, sunscreen, and sand, so we’d often go home wearing just bathing suits, shirt, and flip-flops.
I don’t recall that anyone at the local fast-food places cared when we came in dressed that way.
I dunno about that. You seem to assigning (no pun intended) your own subtext to the policy. I don’t think the only intent is maintaining some level of prudishness.
Yeah, the “no shoes” part especially makes me think the rule is more about safety or hygiene than about decency or prudishness. From that standpoint, the see-through-ness of a shirt isn’t the issue.
Call it prudishness or whatever you like. But what other reason could there be for requiring a shirt?
Feh. A bathing suit counts as a shirt.
Actually, I was wondering how Flyer didn’t figure out that the “no shirt” part was targeted specifically at men since women don’t typically walk around shirtless in public.
I assume indecent exposure laws cover (so to speak) that, unless you teleported there.
Thisis a reasonable dress code
rolls eyes
It’s the things that are not typically done that are often the most useful for testing a concept.
It’s not “prudishness”. It’s called “not looking like a dirtbag or a hobo.”
I mean seriously. Unless you are like 2 blocks from the beach, what possible reason would you be in any store without a shirt or shoes?
Not to mention that for women, it’s typically illegal (or at the very least highly uncommon) to walk around topless in the US. So it’s not like establishments need to institute a separate policy keeping all the free titties outside.
“roll eyes right back atcha”
But your example doesn’t test the concept.
Men are seen shirtless in public all the time. They also wear shirts of various opacity and styles which reveal more or less of their torsos. The rule is obviously targeted to men whose appearance would be accepted in public but not in the establishment. If you really wanted to test the concept you would have found examples of men wearing fishnet shirts, half shirts, shirts open all the way down the chest, etc. But instead you used three examples of women in various fashion.
It’s like saying, “If men are required to wear a tie what happens if a woman shows up in negligee.”
Did you take the bus or bring your lunch?
Was this female employee Amish? Depending on what kind of business you have I might find him uncouth, but personally “uncomfortable”?
She was a twenty something atheist, he was a twenty something (religion unknown). She said he made her uncomfortable, I wasn’t about to argue.
I go shoeless a lot and no one has ever called me a dirtbag or hobo, but really, why should I care if they do?
I wear flip-flops in food places, and I think the actual purpose of the law is to protect feet from broken glass and such, not protect delicate sensibilities from the sight of a human foot. Why would the foot be dirtier or grosser than a shoe? I wash my feet at least once daily, whereas most people do not wash their shoes at all, so the shoes are dirtier and grosser and probably full of festering bacteria and fungi, if anything.
I don’t think the prohibition for stores in general has anything to do with health or hygene. It is basically a cultural thing: in our society, some people expect a certain amount of formality in certain settings, and wearing shoes and a shirt (not to mention pants) is the amount they expect in a store.
Presumably, the store owners are either one of these people, or expect that the vast majority of their customers are, and so are willing to lose the shoeless, shirtless demographic to cater to them.
Going shoeless or shirtless in a place where the expectation is shoes and shirts simply conveys the wrong social message - like going into a fancy fine dining restaurant wearing an undershirt (or for that matter, shirtless). It isn’t like anyone will catch a disease from a bare torso, or be sexually turned on, or whatever - it is just gauche. Yes, there is a certain amount of arbitrariness to this - standards change over time, and in different settings.
Why specifically mention shoes and shirts? Because in other settings, going shoeless and shirtless is okay, so people have to be specifically informed that it isn’t okay in this one. Most already accept that going without pants (or a skirt) is inappropriate in most public settings.
<Raises lorgnette> Because it simply isn’t done. Or as Malthus pointed out, it’s just another arbitrary social convention. Personally, I see no reason for women having to wear a top at the beach (yes, I am a woman) but if I have to spend my life with ridiculous tan lines, your gonna have to cover those hooves when you go out 
The no shoes thing strikes me as being for safety. If you injure your foot, the store has liability. Limiting injuries from stepping on sharp or obtrusive things that would be mitigated with shoes seems reasonable. It’s the same reason many places require closed toe shoes.
I would tend to agree if it wasn’t always coupled with shirts, which I can’t imagine what safety hazard shirtlessness would cause.