Shopping in pyjamas

[radiateforme]

I know, this has been done to death, but just went to the supermarket and saw a full family out shopping in their pyjamas. It's the first time I've actually seen a fully grown adult out in a full set of pj's (dressing gown, pyjama top, pyjama bottoms, fluffy socks and sliders). More curious to know exactly why people find this so unacceptable, because essentially they are just clothes. For me it is just slovenly and lazy. But maybe I'm being too judgemental. Opinions?

[quote Knitterbabe]@ilovesooty
Seriously mainly travellers, or seriously not served in shop?
Either way, yes seriously![/quote]
Yep, same here too.
There's a traveller site up there road from me. Local coop regularly has traveller women in pjs, fluffy slippers and dressing gowns.
They still get served.
Often a full face of make up and hair curlers in too.
Each to their own. It doesn't bother me as at least then I can pop to the shop in my "at home" joggers and slobby hoodie and I know that I won't get judged too harshly.

@Branleuse thank you for a nice dance. Made me want to go out and buy some jammies, then I realised I have some! lockdown fashion

It was during the day, I left at 3.30 pm.

Also probably just purposeful misidentification. I've been accused of wearing pyjamas at the school gate by a teacher. I pointed out that I was wearing clothes she took to be but were not. It's just yet another way of expressing your uptight ishoos with people who don't look the same as you.

Restaurants for years have required certain standards of dress if you want to be catered for by them. They will often ask patrons not to turn up in beachwear. No one questions this; it's well-accepted that they're within their rights to impose these standards within reason and that if people don't like this, they can choose to dine elsewhere.

If shops say they refuse to serve people in nightwear then that's their call. To me it shows the same degree of contempt for those surrounding you as carrying on a mobile phone conversation at check-outs. Aside from concerns about hygiene it's just a simple question of basic courtesy.

Until very recently this would have been seen as more aberrant than a bit eccentric and it would likely have been assumed that the wearer had mental health problems (and at least some still might).

The fact that PPs have mainly observed women doing this is interesting. But I'd sooner see people in PJs than those men who whip their tops off and walk around with their moobs on full display the minute the sun peeks out from behind a cloud. Plenty of them also have questionable hygiene if you're unfortunate enough to get too close.

Wear what you want but minimum standards should require at least partial covering of your top half. And FFS, get a wash.

There’s a world of difference between loungewear or sportswear and actual dressing gowns and pj’s.
Teacher sounds a tad judgmental.

@inmyslippers

I think you've given up on yourself when you leave your home in your pjs.

I agree

I definitely see leggings the same as pjs. I wouldn't wear them in public but I'm not going to leap to conclusions about someone who does.

I'm sorry but if you saw someone in pj's around here, most would think of that person as lazy, slovenly and a bit grubby. It's an assumption that they've rolled out of bed and just come out of thr house unwashed. Which may or may not be the case. What makes me laugh is that the pj's are usually scruffy, half mast fleecy material with a disney print or something. If they were wearing attractive slips or something you could say it was attention seeking but why go out in your old wincyette pyjamas except if you're just lazy?

@Bbq1

I'm sorry but if you saw someone in pj's around here, most would think of that person as lazy, slovenly and a bit grubby. It's an assumption that they've rolled out of bed and just come out of thr house unwashed. Which may or may not be the case. What makes me laugh is that the pj's are usually scruffy, half mast fleecy material with a disney print or something. If they were wearing attractive slips or something you could say it was attention seeking but why go out in your old wincyette pyjamas except if you're just lazy?

I occasionally see families out in their scruffy pjs and it doesn’t bother me, there’s any number of reasons beyond laziness. I saw a pj family late at night in Tesco and presumed a child might be unwell and they’d were getting medicine. It’s not something I’d do, but It doesn’t really effect me. I find the ones that have obviously made and effort in their dressing gowns, fluffy mules, head rollers, full face of make up more baffling. Beyond basic attention seeking and it’s not the kind of attention I’d want, why bother, is anyone impressed by it. It’s so unoriginal.

I still don’t quite get it. One of these is PJs, one isn’t. What is it that makes one morally objectionable to be worn outside, while the other is fine?

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Restaurants for years have required certain standards of dress if you want to be catered for by them. They will often ask patrons not to turn up in beachwear. No one questions this; it's well-accepted that they're within their rights to impose these standards within reason and that if people don't like this, they can choose to dine elsewhere.

If shops say they refuse to serve people in nightwear then that's their call. To me it shows the same degree of contempt for those surrounding you as carrying on a mobile phone conversation at check-outs. Aside from concerns about hygiene it's just a simple question of basic courtesy.

Until very recently this would have been seen as more aberrant than a bit eccentric and it would likely have been assumed that the wearer had mental health problems (and at least some still might).

The fact that PPs have mainly observed women doing this is interesting. But I'd sooner see people in PJs than those men who whip their tops off and walk around with their moobs on full display the minute the sun peeks out from behind a cloud. Plenty of them also have questionable hygiene if you're unfortunate enough to get too close.

Wear what you want but minimum standards should require at least partial covering of your top half. And FFS, get a wash.

Hmmm, I have been challenged more than once over the restaurant dress code thing, interesting that it was mainly by groups of men on warm days who felt that having to wear a shirt (t-shirt not formal shirt) in order to get served in a restaurant /bar near the beach was somehow in violation of their human rights..........

These wide leg trousers are why a teacher once took affront to my choice of clothes. I guess if I was wearing something more revealling I'd somehow magically be "better turned out".

There's a world of difference between harem/yoga pants/ Loungewear and full on dressing gown and slippers. If you wanted to think outside the box, any fabric that covers you is clothing but society has rules and most people stick to them. I just wouldn't go out in pj's, even at my lowest ebb I throw jeans on.

We all have different standards and mores of behaviour. Like I have to be really covered and freak out at having anything more than the bare minimum flesh on show. Am I really any better or worse than a woman who dares to expose her legs and chest? No, I am different. The pjs thing is just the same.

@Stratfordplace

There’s a world of difference between loungewear or sportswear and actual dressing gowns and pj’s. Teacher sounds a tad judgmental.

I find the clue to appropriate dress is in the name. Loungewear-lounging. Sportswear-playing sport. Sleepwear-sleeping. Actual adult clothes-leaving the house.

It’s another sign of adults infantilising themselves. They look ridiculous.

@Amorousfrog

We all have different standards and mores of behaviour. Like I have to be really covered and freak out at having anything more than the bare minimum flesh on show. Am I really any better or worse than a woman who dares to expose her legs and chest? No, I am different. The pjs thing is just the same.

It’s really not. PJs in public say, “I’m incapable of dressing myself according to the situation. I’m like a child in a Batman costume. Please don’t engage me in adult conversation, I wouldn’t be able to cope.”

No. That just goes to show that YOU talk down to adults and children because you're judging their mental acuity by what is covering their body and that choice being different to your own.

I'd like to live in my pyjamas but I'm far too british and uptight ever to have the balls to go out like that, even into the garden.
I get changed as soon as I get home from work though.

@user143677433

I still don’t quite get it. One of these is PJs, one isn’t. What is it that makes one morally objectionable to be worn outside, while the other is fine?

That’s like saying you can’t distinguish between jogging bottoms and tuxedo trousers. Technically both of those images show a woman in trousers. Clearly, to anyone with any sense of appropriate attire, one woman is ready for bed, the other can leave the house.

@B33Fr33

No. That just goes to show that YOU talk down to adults and children because you're judging their mental acuity by what is covering their body and that choice being different to your own.

Yes. I judge people by what they wear. It’s a sign of basic understanding of societal unwritten rules. Taking your argument to its logical extension, would you do business with a solicitor wearing pjs?

This used to be a thing when I lived in Cornwall. Done so frequently that the supermarkets had to announce a ban on people wearing pajamas.

It just looks incredibly lazy to me, and slovenly. Getting dressed before you leave the house really is the bare minimum!

I hate it. Luckily don't see it very often. Don't understand why would people deliberately want to look like trumps.

@bunny85

I hate it. Luckily don't see it very often. Don't understand why would people deliberately want to look like trumps.

Does he go out in his pjs?

I meant tramps