DEAR MISS MANNERS: When a man is a woman's escort, no matter the occasion, isn't he responsible for her safety for the entire evening?

I have insisted that when a gentleman wishes to dance with the lady I am with, he should first request permission from me. A simple "Excuse me, may I ask your lady to dance?" would be sufficient.

It seems that today many men think every woman is fair game and many do get angry when a lady refuses to dance with them. On the other hand, I have had a few women tell me it isn't a big thing for a man to go directly to her and ask her to dance.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners fears that you may have missed the half-century during which ladies examined the gallant custom of gentlemanly protection. As you profess to know what gentlemen of today think, allow her to bring you up to date on what ladies of today think.

They think it is up to them to decide when their safety is in peril.

This is because they noticed that gentlemen, in their zealousness to protect ladies -- especially from the gentlemen's own venomous kind -- routinely overlooked a few niceties. One was that they neglected to consult the ladies, and another was that their protection did not so often curtail the freedom of villains, as it did that of the ladies.

But even in the most constricted times, it was considered the privilege of the lady to entertain offers to dance directly. Only when one gentleman cut in on another in mid-dance was he supposed to murmur, "May I cut in?" without waiting for an answer before spiriting the lady away.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have a 13-year-old daughter who I believe is well mannered and well behaved. Many people have complimented me for this.

When I go to family affairs, it seems to me that the children -- especially the boys of my brother, sister and cousins -- are a little wild. I believe that my siblings think that it is OK or even cute.

I feel it is semi-important for extended families to get together and get to know one another, but is it acceptable for me to comment to my sister, brother and cousins (and their spouses) that the behavior of their children is other than what I really want my daughter to be associated with? It wouldn't be that big of a deal, except that they routinely ask me if my daughter can spend a week with them during summer vacation.

GENTLE READER: Criticizing other people's child-rearing methods, or the absence of them, is rude. If you do this, your brother, sister and cousins might consider you the sort of person with whom they don't want their children to be associated.

Unless by "a little wild" you mean physically or morally dangerous, Miss Manners would advise you to send your daughter off on that visit. She might learn some important manners lessons you have failed to teach her: that some people have higher standards than others, that she should practice good behavior whether others do or not, and that relatives should be cherished in spite of their shortcomings.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Several doors up the street from my house is one of those street-side shrines -- the memorials set up by friends and family at the site where someone has been killed.

It was set up over six months ago by high school students where one of their friends crashed his car and was killed. The offending telephone pole was decorated with a large Irish flag inscribed yearbook-style, votive candles, flowers and many small mementos.

Never beautiful to my eyes, the display has been neglected and is now little more than a pile of trash. I walk past it several times a day and I'm tired of looking at it. I'd like to remove it, but ...

Is there a standard period of tolerance for such displays? Though it's not in front of my house, do I have any right to remove it, or must I persuade my neighbor to do so? Should I just forget it until the seniors have gone to college in the fall and won't be around to refresh it if it's removed?

GENTLE READER: You do see the pathos, and not just the unsightliness, in these shrines, don't you? However miserable a heap of wrinkled balloons and rain-soaked teddy bears may appear, it symbolizes the anguish of the bereaved in wanting to assure the dead that they are not forgotten.

The problem, sad to say, is that the symbols, if not the people, are forgotten. Even the most assiduous mourners are not likely to attend to gravesites daily, which is why these should be located in dedicated places with custodial care. While Miss Manners will not allow you to refer to the display you mention as trash, she agrees that makeshift memorials abandoned in public space do take on that appearance and character.

To clean this up without violating the spirit in which it was built, she suggests notifying the high school that it is time for the students to collect what they want to preserve, and to think about a more lasting tribute to their friend.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the correct response when one's grown-up child has not received an invitation of his own (or even had his name added to the invitation of his parents) and upon going through the receiving line the bride or groom ask, "Where is Bob?"

I hesitate to answer with the truth, "Home because he was not invited," and end up with a lame excuse, usually saying, "He was sorry he could not attend." But I hate to have them think my son or daughter would not have written a note accepting or regretting when the invitations were delivered.

GENTLE READER: That is presuming that they expected replies from people they didn't invite in the first place -- but Miss Manners suspects that you are right in not putting this past them. You can salvage your child's reputation without directly chastising your hosts by saying, "Oh! He didn't know he was invited! But I know he wishes you all the best."

:

Whatever happened to the Wedding Police?

Few besides Miss Manners remember them, but they were a social force in their time. Their job, as they saw it, was to maintain the integrity of wedding customs. Or perhaps it was to entertain wedding guests by mixing some acerbic commentary in with the usual treacle.

Their specialty was to declare whether each bride was "entitled" to wear a white wedding dress. And it didn't take much to be disqualified. The couple having been spotted in a parked car would be enough to put the question on the docket. Having been alone under a private roof for more than a few minutes was sufficient for a conviction.

The verdict had little effect, not only because the evidence was denied -- although the basic premise was rarely disputed -- but also because it was generally rendered at the wedding itself. Even if there had existed a cowed bride who wished to submit at that point, the logistics would have been overwhelming.

Society's change of morals did in the Wedding Police. What fun is it to question the bride's purity, as it was so quaintly called, when her toddler son is serving as best man?

Miss Manners confesses to having cheered on their demise. Her oft-stated position was that killjoys have no place at a wedding, and that the real vulgarity here was the notion that the color of the dress should advertise the history of the body it contained. (Besides, she had long since discovered how much mental and emotional effort one can save oneself by not much caring who is doing what with whom.)

But now she misses the Wedding Police. Not in regard to the original white dress issue, which remains as unseemly as it is hopeless, but to enunciate standards on the real taste issues of weddings.

They have been replaced by those reciting, "It's the bride's day, and she can do whatever she wants." In the absence of a sense of propriety, it has become commonplace for brides to discount parental wishes, demand specific presents and donations of their guests, issue orders to bridesmaids, and repeat the entire pageant at will, with the original or subsequent bridegrooms.

The white dress is still prized -- so much so that pregnant brides often postpone their weddings until after the birth so that they will look slim in the dress, an effect that apparently takes precedence over the legal standing of the child. However, the look has changed. Wedding dresses have become strapless, no longer demure but (redundantly enough) sexy, and topped with tiaras.

And how do we read that symbolically?

The Wedding Police might read it as a combination of Miss America and Queen for a Day -- complete with ladies in waiting and the right to expect obedience and collect taxes. Miss Manners is far too sentimental to think any such thing.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Our beloved dog of 11 years died three weeks ago from cancer. His passing left a great emptiness in our hearts.

Our vet thought he was a special dog as well, and he made a generous donation to his veterinary college in memory of our dog. We were very touched by this.

My first reaction is to send a thank-you note, but I am unsure of the proper etiquette. What are your thoughts about this?

GENTLE READER: You go first, please. Miss Manners would like to know what possible reason you could imagine that it would violate either the spirit or the practice of etiquette to express gratitude for kindness and generosity.

: