Seldom does Miss Manners have the thrill of producing a shock by means of revealing clothing. All right, never. Alas, the world has grown too jaded to notice if she flashes a bit of ankle while lifting her skirt an inch or 2 above ground level under the coy pretext of avoiding tripping on it.

Failure to produce such an exhilarating reaction must be even harder on young ladies who grew up in the era of sheer blouses and underwear-as-outerwear. The young have such a need to shock, and what have they got to show for it?

Miss Manners is afraid they are going to have to work it out for themselves. A serious issue was raised in regard to shocking clothing -- more serious, even, than the desire to upset one's parents and teachers -- and Miss Manners has to make sure that etiquette was not slandered in the process.

Implications to the contrary, her position in this matter is firmly on the side of violating custom and condoning clothing deemed shocking. The issue at stake was an American military policy requiring all female personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya -- the long black covering and head scarf that is the local equivalent of the burqa, which was mandated in Afghanistan by the Taliban -- when they left their air base. This was in addition to banning them from driving, confining them to the back seats of cars and insisting that males accompany them.

The dress code was rescinded after an officer challenged the policy as unconstitutional, charging not only that it discriminates against women but that it forces her to practice the custom of a religion that is not her own. Miss Manners graciously concedes constitutional decisions to nine other people, but she doesn't want to hear that etiquette requires people to mimic religious practices that they do not share.

She especially doesn't want to hear "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" recited as if it were etiquette's inviolable rule on behavior in a foreign land. Rome is a wonderful city, but there is an awful lot going on there, including activities Miss Manners is not prepared to recommend that tourists indulge in as a matter of courtesy. Aside from the matter of safety, what was used to defend the policy was the desire not to offend the local population. Yet etiquette has other equally important concerns against which that laudable goal must be weighed when there is a conflict. One of them is the dignity of the individual, and another is national dignity.

Etiquette also routinely deals in the language of symbolism, which it considers to be of high importance. Miss Manners always assumed that the military, which also makes strict use of symbolism, including uniforms, salutes and posture, felt just as strongly.

We all know that the symbolic meaning of clothing is subject to change according to time, place, occasion and other factors. But the symbolism of rendering people invisible is neither ambiguous nor subtle. Nobody has any trouble reading what this means.

In going along with the custom, the American military was acquiescing to the notion that the mere sight of some of its own personnel, no matter how decently dressed by American standards, caused offense. This is an insult to our nation, as well as to the individuals. Even if it were politically expedient in one place, it is politically damaging everywhere to demonstrate a willingness to compromise our principles and our citizens to that extent. Besides, etiquette has never required travelers to take up native dress wherever they go. If visitors to the United States want to wear saris or Savile Row suits instead of blue jeans, it's fine with us.

Respect is shown sartorially by gearing one's dress to the level of formality of the host. An American officer's wardrobe includes uniforms of different degrees of formality for exactly this reason, and regulations specify when comparable civilian clothing may be worn.

Female rulers, including queens and prime ministers, and female diplomats, follow that standard. Their hosts have been clever enough to deal with the shock by declaring them, at least in their own minds, to be honorary men.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: As a 3-year-old (almost), I am just learning about manners -- and sneezing. Mommy says "Bless you!" and Daddy says "Gesundheit!" I like them both.

When I sneeze, Mommy says to cover my mouth with my hand (and a tissue, but I never have one). Daddy says I should sneeze into my elbow, so I won't spread germs with my hands (but sometimes that makes my shirt gross). What's a toddler to do?

GENTLE READER: Oh-oh. Trouble. Miss Manners hates to undermine parental authority, especially when the parents are obviously in control of her Gentle Reader's mail. Yet you have asked her to choose between them and, worse, she finds that both of them are wrong.

The only acceptable target for a sneeze is a handkerchief, or it's pathetic substitute, the tissue. Those who are too young to have one always on hand should store one with a parent and make sure to keep a parent always on hand.

Caught by surprise, the polite person protects others as best he can by turning away, rather than using something they will have to touch or see. So please don't sneeze in your applesauce, either.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the etiquette for a family member (a mother-in-law) who gets married out of the blue, and tells everyone two and a half months later? Do we send a card, or a gift?

We have never heard of the man that is now her husband. They will not even reside in the same state. I personally do not consider this a marriage, and neither does my husband. However, I would like to know what is the correct etiquette, and I don't think there is a modern-enough book that covers such a situation as this.

GENTLE READER: That is because all the traditional books already cover how the immediate family should react, after the fact, to a marriage, especially an elopement, it considers wrong on the part of one of its members. The only modern twist is that now it is more likely to be the children of the bride or bridegroom, rather than the parents, who think they should have a say in the choice.

From whichever direction, the correct attitude to be taken by the aggrieved relative is the same -- unless the bride is not of legal age to take a husband, which does not seem to be the case with your mother-in-law. It is to say, "I wish you great happiness," unclenching the teeth by force, if that is necessary in order to say this in a reasonably pleasant tone.

Generations of parents have discovered that this saves a great deal of wear and tear on all concerned. At the same time, many who do not take this advice have discovered that if the marriage fails, their having vehemently opposed it does nothing to ingratiate them with the relative whose foolishness they so accurately predicted.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We are eloping in May, and are sending out announcements after the fact. We live in a studio and cannot possibly fit any more "stuff" into it.

Does anybody have a good way to request gifts of money? We are thinking about putting up a personal Web site about the wedding (with the Web address on our "we're hitched" announcement) and maybe having a link to Paypal. Is this really offensive? Any ideas?

GENTLE READER: You may be surprised to hear that Miss Manners is not in the extortion business, so she cannot advise you how to do this. But if she were, she might ask herself not only whether soliciting such funds is offensive (yes) but whether it is likely to be persuasive (doubtful).

Not that your plea of having too much stuff doesn't touch her heart, mind you. But neither that nor the fact that someone has gotten married without requesting her presence moves her to charitable largesse.

The inoffensive thing is to ignore the issue of possible gain. You may even do better in the end by leaving this to the voluntary generosity of your family and friends, and discreetly using the Internet to auction off the take.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Now that half of medical school classes consist of the kinder gender, I think it would be nice for Miss Manners to go over the issue of how to address the female physician, socially and professionally.

My pet peeve is to be addressed as Mrs. Curall, especially since I never changed my name, EVER, even when I was married, which I am not, thankfully, now.

There seems to be a segment of Americans who are quite uncomfortable with addressing any female with any other title than Mrs. I encounter this most often at churches. Being quite religious, I hate to give up churchgoing because of this.

It seems as if a lot of these folks would choke on the words Dr. Curall, and I fear that if I insisted on my ONLY title, that my medical skills would be needed in that setting. But I seethe every time I hear myself called Mrs. Curall, which is technically incorrect anyway. My mother is Mrs. Curall.

Being a hyphenated American, I feel that this is a way for a nonhyphenated American, the usual offender, to put one down. How do you think I should handle this?

I appreciate Miss Manners helping the medical profession out this way. I am sure one of us will be of great service to Miss Manners in the future. But not too soon, I hope, for Miss Manners' sake.

GENTLE READER: She thanks you for the kind offer and thought, and assures you that it would not be necessary in this case for you to be introduced to her socially as a doctor. If she managed to stay on her feet, she would not dream of pumping you for medical information at a party; and if she were sinking into a state of emergency, she would hope that a doctor would volunteer herself, rather than watch this coldly from the distance as revenge against not receiving her proper due.

The rest of your letter sounds less like what you call the kinder gender than a subdivision we might call the prickly gender. It is true that a medical doctor uses her title socially, although Mrs. is also a respectable title, and some choose to use that socially while being Dr. professionally.

But it is even truer that few people use titles at all in addressing one another, and even those who do have little regard for the nicety of getting it right. One may say gently, once or even twice, "actually Curall is my maiden name, not my former husband's, and I'm a doctor," but it is as uncharitable to assume an intentional insult -- and an ethnic or racial insult, no less -- as it is to express public thanks at having rid oneself of one's husband.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When entertaining people in one's home, for dinner and an evening visit, is it appropriate for the host or hostess to bring the visit to an end when he or she feels that a reasonable time has been spent and the conversation is still viable?

Is the intent of having pleasant memories and good conversation to be continued at a later date sufficient, or should the guests be allowed to determine when it is time to leave? Should the guests be offended if the visit was concluded before they decided it was time to leave?

GENTLE READER: The answer is no, it is not appropriate to dismiss a guest in one's home. The real question is how the host can get away with doing it before bursting into tears of exhaustion.

Miss Manners has heard all the standard ploys, from cutting off the drinks to changing into pajamas, but prefers the simple but gracious alternative. That is for the host to jump to his feet and say, "It's been wonderful having you here," for all the world as if he had heard the guest say, "I'm afraid I'd better be going now."

: