DEAR MISS MANNERS: The warm months bring acres of exposed epidermis, including the inevitable display of body art. What is a polite person to do?

I figure that no one pays serious money to put himself or herself through all that pain (not to mention the risk of hepatitis B) without expecting to be noticed and, probably, receive comments. Yet I've noticed that some tattoo flaunters, especially women, take offense at such remarks.

Given these conditions, dare we approach these walking art galleries to offer opinions? Or should we keep silent or, perhaps, confine our observations, sotto voce, to trusted friends?

GENTLE READER: People also pay serious money to get their teeth straightened, but Miss Manners doubts that this means they want you to poke into their mouths and give your opinion.

Comments about bodies should be limited to compliments directed at those whom you know very well socially. Snickers, which are what Miss Manners gathers you are aching to deliver, must be made totally out of the hearing of the person concerned (somehow she doesn't trust your sotto voce) and to those whom you know are neither acquainted with the targets nor tattooed.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have cats, but am not a "crazy cat lady." I do not have photographs of my cats, do not wear cat jewelry, do not discuss my cats. However, my having cats has, over the years, resulted in cat-themed gifts. Telling people I'm running out of room for coffee mugs has only led them to cat scarves and cat jewelry. How to respond politely when given one more cat-illustrated gift without encouraging the gift giver to continue in that vein?

GENTLE READER: By thanking the giver for the final item that finally completes your collection, and mentioning in passing that you are now considering collecting antique automobiles instead.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Not very long ago, I was in a very intense 7-year relationship. It ended very badly, with blood let, so to speak, and there are still intense feelings from many of the parties involved. My daughter thought of him as a father, and his family adopted her.

When it ended, there was to be no contact with anyone, not even her. Yes, needless to say, what was love turned to hate.

I'm getting married in a year to someone I've known for a very long time, who my ex hates and blames for our ending. My question is do I need to let him and his family know in person that I am getting married? I've heard many theories on this, and would like to do the right thing.

GENTLE READER: What you do mean by "need"? Are you wondering whether there is an etiquette rule requiring brides to inform former suitors whom they hate that they are now getting married?

No, not even if they can find a politer way to phrase it than "Ha, ha, I'm marrying the guy you couldn't stand."

Miss Manners therefore presumes that you are talking about an emotional need to let this person know that you are living happily ever after, not only without him but with his enemy. She suggests being magnanimous -- and wise -- enough to squelch this.

:

For those who follow the etiquette angle of the news -- that would be Miss Manners herself, alone out of the entire population -- the election has been running along pretty much as expected. More's the pity.

As an opening salvo, all candidates everywhere always attack Washington. This unprovoked aggression against Miss Manners' dear little hometown distresses her. She has been told that it is because everyone in Washington behaves so badly.

Surely not everyone, she pleads. Surely not the native population, of which she humbly offers herself as a paragon of politeness. Others, perhaps -- but then where did they come from?

We see the answer as the election season progresses. The traditional next step is that all candidates declare that they will not run negative campaigns. They are above that sort of thing, and besides, they have been told that the voters dislike it.

To highlight their civility, they point out how much restraint it takes to refrain from attacking their opponents, since these individuals happen to be liars, cheats and masters of incompetence.

At that point, the floodgates open and out pour all sorts of invectives, insults and insinuations. And Miss Manners waits for the political consequences of violating the public's declared standard to eliminate, if not discourage, rude candidates.

But no. Having declared on the side of civility, the public begins ridiculing anyone who continues to practice it. A candidate who observes the rules of courteous debate is said to be acting as if attending a -- chortle, chortle -- tea party. (Tea is thought to be the opiate of the terminally polite, rendering them unfit for any real-life activity.)

Worse, polite behavior is diagnosed as a sign of moral indifference. A person who really felt passionately about his or her ideals would not be capable of maintaining an amiable, respectful manner toward someone who did not share them, it is thought. Thus rudeness becomes the hallmark of virtue.

And many of the rude get elected. By this time, Miss Manners notes, there are few others among whom to choose.

In the flush of victory, winners often promise a new era of civility. They are going to elevate the tone in Washington. But the success of their rude campaign techniques serves as a reminder that no matter what the voters say, they appreciate being represented by someone who packs a forceful snarl and has a blunt way of challenging opposition.

Yet when things get nasty, those fickle voters start complaining again about the rudeness in Washington. So in keeping with prevailing notions of spreading love, an attempt is made to instill civility according to the peculiar but prevailing belief that people who know one another well are bound to be kind to one another. Off the offenders go on a pleasant boondoggle, getting to be friends.

If this actually worked, and political opponents suppressed their differences in the interest of pleasing one another, the result would be cronyism, which exists at the expense of their constituencies. That is not an acceptable solution.

The only way a government works is when its officials learn to remain civil while airing their disagreements so that they can reach workable compromises. Campaigns serve as demonstrations of how well the candidates can do that.

So if the folks in Washington are rude, whose fault is that?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I think that in the world of mega-philanthropy, the donation of large amounts of money by the rich and famous to endow edifices dedicated to themselves, is offensive. These are usually opera houses, museums or similar institutions frequented only by others in their own social stratum.

GENTLE READER: But it is so hard to persuade the poor to endow public institutions.

So while it is true that the fastidious should adhere to the policy of memorializing the dead, rather than their lively selves, we take what we can get.

Fortunately, it is not hard to get the poor to take advantage of this largesse. Miss Manners assures you that if you were to visit museums and opera houses, you would find them filled with people who are distinguished by their interests, not their incomes.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A year ago, I was invited to my boyfriend's family member's bridal shower on an invitation sent to his mom at his house (I do not live there with them). I was never made aware of the invitation (my boyfriend forgot to tell me), and therefore did not attend.

I found out at the wedding that I was invited to the shower and had missed it. Now I have been invited to another member's shower in the same manner, but this time my boyfriend informed me of the occasion.

I'm glad I actually found out about the event this time around, but was a little upset by the way they have gone about inviting me. Is this appropriate? I feel like they must not care much to have me there if they can't even take the time to get my address and send me my own invitation.

GENTLE READER: This is a version of what Miss Manners thinks of as the Appendage Invitation. That horrid designation "and guest," which is stuck on otherwise formal invitations, is in the same category. It means "bring someone along if you feel like it, and we don't much care who it is."

If you want to make a point of this, Miss Manners suggests taking it up with the gentleman in question. Leaving aside whether he actually delivers such invitations to you, you could ask him to request the family to invite you directly. Or you could just not attend these events, taking the gamble that he or they will miss you enough to figure out that they never quite invited you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My mother and I were wondering what a woman's role is in this day and age (feminine liberation) during the playing of the national anthem.

I am an active-duty soldier, so my role is clear. I salute. But as a civilian, my mother is confused. When she was growing up, it was proper for men to remove their hats and place them over their hearts. Women kept their hats on, and covered their hearts with their hand.

After attending several of my military functions, my mother has been berated by many people for not removing her headgear during the national anthem. She has been involved in many heated arguments about this topic, and we thought it would be best to write to you, because she isn't so sure that she is right anymore.

GENTLE READER: In rushing to defend your mother against those who are rude enough to berate her, Miss Manners was picturing a dear lady wearing a pretty afternoon dress with a flowered hat. Then it occurred to her that your mother, however dear, might have happened to be wearing a workout suit and a baseball cap.

It makes a difference. There is no change in the rule that a lady does not remove her ladylike hat. But the rule does not apply to unisex hats, as you know in regard to your uniform. Such hats must be removed during the national anthem and not worn indoors.

However, the rule against berating others applies to everyone and it is not subject to change.

: