In today’s *Wall Street Journal *online:
This is the one that kills me: a no-no for men is “using tie knots that don’t match your face shape and/or body shape.”
Tie knots that match your body shape?
Not many people can pull off a full Windsor perhaps. I guess you should go for a smaller knot if you’re a scrawny guy. Similar claims are made about glasses frames and whether they fit oval, triangle, round, or square faces.
What about Prince Charles?
In any case, I’m glad to see that the Swiss Banks are keeping up their respectable image. Last time I was in one in Switzerland the clerk had unbuttoned the top button of his shirt and his tie knot was slightly loosened. I don’t care if this was an old building with no air conditioning on a hot summer day! I did not feel safe entrusting him with my financial matters.
You should go for contrast. If you are a big guy, wearing a big knot like a windsor will make your face wider. And if you are wearing a windsor you should be wearing a spread collar, which makes you look even wider. Likewise a scrawny guy could look less scrawny with a bigger knot.
Wow… I didn’t think the knot v. body size thing was a real consideration… Interesting…
That’s why I prefer goblins. You expect them to look ugly.
Heck I don’t even know what to call the way I do my tie. It’s just the one where the rabbit goes around the tree, into the hole, around the hole, back out, through a log, into another hole, (or is that around the tree again and *then * into another hole?) and then something about over and under again and it’s done. Simple! I haven’t had anyone say it clashes with my body shape yet, so I must be doing it right.
It sounds like the “four in hand” knot.
Isn’t it just self-pillaging at that point? It’s like saying they make pretty good Buffalo wings in Buffalo.
You may be right. When I am thinking about the bad contrast though, I am thinking of Mackenzie Crook (Gareth from the Office UK or the skinny glass-eyed comic relief pirate from POTC) with a huge spread collar and full Windsor.
You missed the sentence that explains the proper functions of nose hair. Not kidding. You can’t make this stuff up. Also the section that explains that women should wear skin-colored underwear under the mandatory white blouse.
To be fair, some of the funniness is because the English translation is into British English, not American English. The section that suggests women may wear a camisole instead of a shirt springs to mind. From the context, it appears that they are talking about what we’d call a “sleeveless shell” in the US–not a lacy undergarment intended for seduction.
But seriously, issuing a corporate document that discusses the functions of nose hair is like pasting a giant sign saying “KICK ME” on your corporate behind.
Did they offer an opinion on how it should be parted?
I wonder if you’re supposed to touch up your nose hair when you get your roots touched up?
In my high school’s handbook, it specified “For girls, white or beige bras are to be worn. No undershirts are permitted for either sex.”
Permitted, our older style uniform was a light yellow blouse that was amazingly see through. They are phasing in a new uniform that is more opaque at the moment, so whether it’ll change once the old uniform is phased out, I don’t know.
Your nose hair should match your face and body shape.
Ha. This reminds me of a saying I heard once: In Switzerland, everything is either prohibited or required. Which is sorta true! Country does run smoothly, though.