You wouldn't think that people would get so emotional about shoes. Fetishists excepted, naturally.

And those foolhardy people who keep trying to get Miss Manners to rescind the rule against wearing white shoes between Labor Day and Memorial Day.

Oh, yes, and the ones who install flooring or rugs that they don't want anyone to walk on. Miss Manners is not impressed when they try to out-etiquette her by citing the Japanese custom of removing the shoes before entering a house. Those who claim this are not apt to be Japanese, nor in Japan, nor aware that Japanese etiquette is directed toward making the guest feel that he has honored the house by entering it, rather than that he had better not mess anything up.

Summer brings out a whole new foot crowd, and even more toes. There are also more wrinkled noses on people who don't want to look at those toeses. Toes, Miss Manners meant to say. Apparently it's true that things get slipshod in the summer.

As always when clothing is at issue, the sartorial freedom cry is sounded: Comfort! It's hot out, and feet need all the air they can get. Is that too much to ask?

Sometimes it is too much to ask. Other people's sensibilities may be involved.

Miss Manners is skeptical about all those complaints involving smells and funguses. No doubt such problems do arrive in connection with barefooted-ness and open-air shoes, but she has an idea that these accusations are also made when that is not what is truly troubling people.

In clothing disputes, it is the symbolism that arouses the greatest emotions, especially among people who vehemently deny that there is any such aspect to the matter. Those who defy dress conventions claim to do so only for comfort and self-expression, while those whom they upset condemn them only on the basis of sanitation and aesthetics.

This hardly explains why fashions go in and out of conventional acceptability, and why what is considered attractive and healthy on a beach repulses onlookers elsewhere. Nor does it explain the illogic by which shoes are regarded in terms of formality.

Shoes that are held onto the visible foot only by straps are at both ends of the formality scale. If they have flat soles and leather or plastic straps, they are sandals, only fit to wear with bathing suits, shorts and jeans. If they have stiletto heels (speaking of comfort) and satin straps, they are only fit to wear with ball gowns.

Laced shoes that fully cover the foot are businesslike, unless they are made of cloth, in which case they should be changed when arriving at one's business.

Backless shoes are hardly considered shoes at all if they are called flip-flops. If they are called slides they are fit to go out socially, and if they are called mules they are fit to entertain guests at home.

While Miss Manners accepts all this without expecting it to make sense, she is not heartless. Yes, shoes can make the feet uncomfortably warm in summer. So wear the correct ones and kick them off under the table. Just so you can find them afterward by feel, without having to crawl around on the floor.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was reprimanded by a friend while at a movie theater when I took a couple of pieces of her candy without asking. Who was in the wrong? Should I have asked, or should she have been more forthcoming with the candy?

GENTLE READER: Where were you when your friend stopped by the candy counter? Nice as it is to share, Miss Manners imagines that your friend assumed that since you didn't buy any candy, you didn't want any.

Grabbing what is not offered is culinary larceny. Your only hope is to say, "That looks good; maybe I should go get some." However, if the movie had started, you would have been committing a different etiquette transgression against everyone within hearing range. Then your only recourse is to slip out, if you can do so unobtrusively, or to control yourself.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At a baseball game last evening, two men sat behind me with their young daughters who appeared to be about 7 and 5 years old. One of the gentlemen told the other that he was going to the concession stand, to which the second replied, "I'll help you." He then tapped me on the shoulder and said, "You'll watch the girls, won't you?"

I replied, "Sir, I know nothing of children, and will not be responsible for yours."

He then turned to the children, pointed to a women with three children several rows distant, and said, "OK, see that mommy? She'll help you if you need anything," and left with his companion.

Miss Manners, what should a maiden lady have done? My only contact with children is with my college-age nieces and nephews who write polite thank-you notes from distant states. Was it at all appropriate for this man to leave his children in the care of complete strangers? Should I have acquiesced to what seemed to me to be callous abandonment of children? I have never run into this situation before.

GENTLE READER: Little as Miss Manners wants to assist irresponsible fathers, she would be even more reluctant to ignore the children they deserted.

Your response was certainly justified, and should have shamed the fathers into realizing that it was an improper request, impolitely put. As it did not, and as they then deserted their charges without so much as securing an agreement from the other stranger, you should have notified a stadium authority about abandoned small children. The resulting fuss would at least teach the fathers that there are consequences, and perhaps alert the children's mothers.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I know how you love a good flatware question, so here's mine: I am planning to buy -- finally! -- a set of flatware that actually matches, probably good quality stainless. However, nobody who makes stainless seems to make round-bowled soupspoons, also known as bouillon spoons. These are the sort of soupspoons with which I grew up (though in sterling -- I'll inherit these someday, but being very fond of my dear mother, I'm in no hurry) and I much prefer them.

I have a couple of very beaten-up, used-to-be-silver-plated round-bowled spoons from my grandfather's estate, and have been using them for all sorts of soups, and even for things like chili and stew, all along. However, they look terrible, and, anyway, I only have two of them.

So my question is twofold: One, just how wrong have I been, lo these many years, eating all sorts of soups with a round-bowled spoon? I really do vastly prefer these to the big oval spoons. And two, if I can find some round-bowled soupspoons in an online auction, how tacky would it be for them to not match my new stainless flatware? I am aware that it's quite all right to mix silver patterns, since one might well inherit more than one style, but everyday stainless is hardly so exalted.

GENTLE READER: The good news is that, yes, you may mix patterns. The bad news confirms what you already know: that soup eaten from a bowl requires round spoons (although these should not be confused with the smaller round bouillon spoons used to eat bouillon from a two-handled soup cup).

Taking your word for it that round-bowled stainless steel spoons do not exist, Miss Manners recommends exhausting yourself by trying to track down soup plates, rather than bowls, that go with your china or pottery.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Now that same-sex marriages are upon us, how does one address an invitation to a same-sex couple? Is it "Mr. and Mrs."? "Mr. and Mr."? "Ms. and Ms."? "Mrs. and Mrs."?

If one female partner prefers the "Ms." title while the other is more traditional, would it then be "Ms." and "Mrs."? How is one to know who which partner is "Mr." and which is "Mrs." (or "Ms."), etc., etc.?

I can see that tracking these preferences will test the limits of my personal address-book software. And how should one inquire as to the same-sex couple's appellation preferences without seeming overly pedantic or perhaps even a bit satiric? I'm not sure the conventions to determine the answers to the above questions have been developed as yet; if not, surely they must be underway now.

So who is involved in this process? Is there an unofficial standards board responsible for couple titling? Are gays represented on this council? Are you?

GENTLE READER: At the Etiquette Mavens' High Council we do not discuss one another's personal lives. Other people's of course, since they so often call upon us to arbitrate, but not our own.

Speaking of which, Miss Manners is afraid that you need basic instruction on matters related to gender, as well as some new software.

The act of marriage does not change people's genders, and it may or may not change their names. Two gentlemen who marry would therefore each be addressed by his full name with the appropriate honorific (Mr., Dr., Colonel) unless they take the same surname, in which case they would be addressed jointly as, for example, "The Messrs. William and Harry Fitzgibbon."

Similarly, two ladies would be addressed as "Mesdames Emily and Lucia March," but if they had different surnames they would be addressed individually with the title each holds or prefers, if you know it, and "Ms." if you don't. Miss Manners may not be in the technical support department, but she knows that the simplest programs are equipped to register any title you type in.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: It's coming time to send out invitations for our daughter's bat mitzvah, and we're wishing for a way to make clear that these are not solicitations for checks. Our daughter agrees with this sentiment wholeheartedly, and even intends to donate what monetary gifts do arrive to charity.

Our concern centers on friends for whom we know money is tight. I wish invitations of this sort did not come with the implied obligation of a gift. But they seem to have evolved into that. Am I being overly concerned?

GENTLE READER: Not overly, but unnecessarily. That is to say, yes, people take it as such -- cynical as it is to imagine that the only reason people would want their friends at their ceremonial occasions is the hope of profiting from them -- but it is unnecessary because there is nothing you can do about it. You are sending the invitations with good faith, and can only hope that they are received in that spirit.

: