Shame is a necessary physiological function, and one of our 10 core emotions. I have a whole video series on it, but here's the shortcut to shame and guilt.
I have a 32-year-old liberal daughter who does this and every time she comes over in her pj bottoms I have just given her a look, and she seems to have stopped doing it. At least when she comes over here any ways. She started doing that when she went away to college.
I remember the day my mom cheered because she was allowed to enter the local store in pants, rather than the traditional dress. The slippery slope era had begun. Just kidding. The pant/dress story is true but that change was needed. I'm with you Phil. We do need a few basic rules for civilized society to function. And shaming is not only beneficial, it's fun!
That's the thing about the slippery slope argument. It starts out with one side dismissing it because "obviously women should be allowed to wear pants" and eventually leads to guys wearing dresses.
Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit here but the underlying problem is, as you said, we need a few basic rules.
Everyone thinks freedom is important but at some point there's such a thing as too much freedom. When we cross that line is the big issue.
Much of this anti-public-pajama attention (with which I am generally in agreement) focuses on females, but there is (I think) an often ignored male equivalent: sweatpants. Somehow these have migrated from athletic gear to semi-formal wear, and it's as unfortunate a trend as public pajamas. (I say this as someone who spent much of his 20s running around in public in his underwear, until shame kicked in.)
I favour an appropriate degree of applied shame in public; not too much, not too little. We have too little at the moment. That said, The Food Professor's posting of photos of actual individual humans seems like a little too much.
Ya, I've worn various types of workout close as well. I rarely wear them much longer than the workout lasts but I have worn them to a coffee shop shortly after a bike ride.
For "shaming" to be effective, the people being shamed have to have a sense of shame; i.e., an understanding that what they are doing is wrong. That, unfortunately, is missing from many people today (of all ages).
Fun article! However, I didn't know that PJs in public was a liberal trend. My very liberal young adult daughter finds the trend lame and stupid (and would probably not be caught wearing PJs in public even if the house WAS on fire). I also find it ridiculous. It's odd that you see it mostly limited to women - I actually see more young men doing it. However, if we are talking about demographic groups, I think it is almost exclusively white people under 45 who do it. Finally, I don't think it's something worth shaming. Yes, most of them are just being slobs. But you may end up taking a picture of a frantic mom who had to urgently drive to a pharmacy to pick up her sick kid's meds and electrolytes. Kinda not worth it. I'd save shaming for truly shameful things - like men entering female spaces or women cheering such men.
Shame is not to be saved for special occasions, but rather it's a "hold the line everywhere" type of thing that's devolved into far more degenerative societal behaviors. See my comment below and video for more!
We used to live in community -- family, neighbors we knew, friends around town. If you did something stupid, you didn't end up as an anonymous idiot on Tiktok, instead your family heard about it, and you were shamed.
I'm afraid that shame may be a thing of the past, like modesty and discretion. (Remember when the Toronto Police were in trouble for what was labeled, "slut-shaming"?)
As I type this, I am sitting in my pajamas. I won't shower until around 11:00. I like to do my house cleaning before I shower.
On a similar note -- because we're talking about shame -- I once asked my 20-something year old stepdaughters in the early 2000s, "How many men does a woman sleep with before she's considered a slut?"
They were completely baffled by the question, so I offered some possible answers, "Three? Ten? One hundred?"
Still, they shook their heads in confusion. Why does it matter? What's a slut? What is promiscuity? Do these concepts even exist?
I finally figured it out. If there is such a thing as a "slut," it's a woman who has had sex with one more man than you have.
I miss the good old days when guilt and shame drove discretion, decency, and self-respect.
Was the young woman responding to your photo, or was this pulled from somewhere else? If it was you, my apologies for the stupidity of the young woman. I was stupid once as well - it is painful to hear their nonsense and I often wonder if I was just as bad with my babbling.
Shame is essential for a culture. It can go very wrong - like stoning a woman to death for binging 'shame' to the family, but a functional society uses it appropriately. I don't want my airline pilot in pajamas and I assume that goofy young women does not either. You intuitively know if someone can't pay attention to their uniform, they may not be paying attention to other more important things. It isn't just pajamas. So many are so fat. If grocery stores had truth in advertising, most of the items would be deemed hazardous. This, of course, would include my wine, which is a vice I am not giving up.
Shame is a necessary physiological function, and one of our 10 core emotions. I have a whole video series on it, but here's the shortcut to shame and guilt.
https://www.zephyrwellness.org/media/2021/2/12/emotional-functioning/#shame
Thanks Jake.
I have a 32-year-old liberal daughter who does this and every time she comes over in her pj bottoms I have just given her a look, and she seems to have stopped doing it. At least when she comes over here any ways. She started doing that when she went away to college.
Ya more moms need to start using the glare.
I can't help think of Jordan Peterson's "make your bed" advice. The same should apply to your appearance.
I remember the day my mom cheered because she was allowed to enter the local store in pants, rather than the traditional dress. The slippery slope era had begun. Just kidding. The pant/dress story is true but that change was needed. I'm with you Phil. We do need a few basic rules for civilized society to function. And shaming is not only beneficial, it's fun!
That's the thing about the slippery slope argument. It starts out with one side dismissing it because "obviously women should be allowed to wear pants" and eventually leads to guys wearing dresses.
Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit here but the underlying problem is, as you said, we need a few basic rules.
Everyone thinks freedom is important but at some point there's such a thing as too much freedom. When we cross that line is the big issue.
Thanks for the comment Ken!
Much of this anti-public-pajama attention (with which I am generally in agreement) focuses on females, but there is (I think) an often ignored male equivalent: sweatpants. Somehow these have migrated from athletic gear to semi-formal wear, and it's as unfortunate a trend as public pajamas. (I say this as someone who spent much of his 20s running around in public in his underwear, until shame kicked in.)
I favour an appropriate degree of applied shame in public; not too much, not too little. We have too little at the moment. That said, The Food Professor's posting of photos of actual individual humans seems like a little too much.
Yes, the "anything will do" mentality does extend to sweatpants. I will say this though, sweatpants are at least intended to be worn outside.
Re: the photos. If you aren't ashamed to wear them, there shouldn't be a problem taking a picture.
I ride my bicycle a lot and wear sweatpants so the pant leg does not get caught in the mechanics. No big deal if I keep them on the rest of the day.
Ya, I've worn various types of workout close as well. I rarely wear them much longer than the workout lasts but I have worn them to a coffee shop shortly after a bike ride.
In my mind that's not the same as pajamas.
For "shaming" to be effective, the people being shamed have to have a sense of shame; i.e., an understanding that what they are doing is wrong. That, unfortunately, is missing from many people today (of all ages).
Most people cannot resist a constant barrage of shame and disdain. If enough people hold the line behaviors will change.
Fun article! However, I didn't know that PJs in public was a liberal trend. My very liberal young adult daughter finds the trend lame and stupid (and would probably not be caught wearing PJs in public even if the house WAS on fire). I also find it ridiculous. It's odd that you see it mostly limited to women - I actually see more young men doing it. However, if we are talking about demographic groups, I think it is almost exclusively white people under 45 who do it. Finally, I don't think it's something worth shaming. Yes, most of them are just being slobs. But you may end up taking a picture of a frantic mom who had to urgently drive to a pharmacy to pick up her sick kid's meds and electrolytes. Kinda not worth it. I'd save shaming for truly shameful things - like men entering female spaces or women cheering such men.
I didn't say it was a liberal trend. I asked “is there any type of bad behavior that the Left won’t defend?”
Re: a frantic mom who had to urgently drive to a pharmacy to pick up her sick kid's meds and electrolytes.
1. That's something new? What did people do in this situation before it became acceptable to wear pjs?
2. Electrolytes?
Pedialyte - what parents give kids with stomach bug for rehydration. It’s not relevant to the essay :)
Shame is not to be saved for special occasions, but rather it's a "hold the line everywhere" type of thing that's devolved into far more degenerative societal behaviors. See my comment below and video for more!
Yes good. We need to bring back shame and stigmatization.
We used to live in community -- family, neighbors we knew, friends around town. If you did something stupid, you didn't end up as an anonymous idiot on Tiktok, instead your family heard about it, and you were shamed.
I'm afraid that shame may be a thing of the past, like modesty and discretion. (Remember when the Toronto Police were in trouble for what was labeled, "slut-shaming"?)
As I type this, I am sitting in my pajamas. I won't shower until around 11:00. I like to do my house cleaning before I shower.
On a similar note -- because we're talking about shame -- I once asked my 20-something year old stepdaughters in the early 2000s, "How many men does a woman sleep with before she's considered a slut?"
They were completely baffled by the question, so I offered some possible answers, "Three? Ten? One hundred?"
Still, they shook their heads in confusion. Why does it matter? What's a slut? What is promiscuity? Do these concepts even exist?
I finally figured it out. If there is such a thing as a "slut," it's a woman who has had sex with one more man than you have.
I miss the good old days when guilt and shame drove discretion, decency, and self-respect.
So kind of like the definition of rich is someone with more money than you.
If Sydney Sweeney wants to wear pajamas in Home Depot, she will look great. Not the clothes that matter but what is inside.
Fashion policing is basically the broken windows of etiquette.
"Connectivity" has turned the inside out. Hunter-gathers (of look at me looking at you) & village life (remember The Village People?) are upon us.
But pendulums swing. Scythes do, too.
Was the young woman responding to your photo, or was this pulled from somewhere else? If it was you, my apologies for the stupidity of the young woman. I was stupid once as well - it is painful to hear their nonsense and I often wonder if I was just as bad with my babbling.
Shame is essential for a culture. It can go very wrong - like stoning a woman to death for binging 'shame' to the family, but a functional society uses it appropriately. I don't want my airline pilot in pajamas and I assume that goofy young women does not either. You intuitively know if someone can't pay attention to their uniform, they may not be paying attention to other more important things. It isn't just pajamas. So many are so fat. If grocery stores had truth in advertising, most of the items would be deemed hazardous. This, of course, would include my wine, which is a vice I am not giving up.
She was responding to the original poster (not me) although we did exchange some comments.
https://x.com/HTBF1968/status/2030310014498259107
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. If you can't be bothered with your appearance, what else can't you be bothered with?
As for wine, "everything in moderation." I'd be healthier if I ate less chocolate but that's not going to happen.