DEAR MISS MANNERS: I broke up with my serious, long-distance boyfriend of two years about 1-1/2 years ago. Our relationship was a good one, no cheating or massive fights, but it just fizzled out in the end.

He was a bit mad about the breakup, but I figured that we could still be cordial. We made all the noises about staying friends, but contact has been sporadic at best, although I mail postcards to his parents when I vacation, and on birthdays, Christmas, etc.

I recently had a bad dream that his father died, and erring on the side of caution, I wrote my ex a text message inquiring as to his dad's health. He responded that his father is (thankfully) fine. The point of his response was, however, that he is now dating an acquaintance of mine, and I should therefore cease and desist all contact with him.

Having been asked so directly, I will (happily) oblige and stop all contact in the future, but that is not my question. My etiquette question is whether or not my response was up to your standards. I didn't go with my first impulse, which was to write an insulting message back. I felt that you would not approve.

What I wrote was this: "OH! Congratulations to both of you! I hope that you will always be happy. Please say hello to her for me!"

Was my response appropriate, or does my unladylike disdain for his callousness show through? Should I have not written anything at all? I am sorry to say that I could not resist a (hopefully small) jab at him.

GENTLE READER: Jab? What jab? All you did was to congratulate them, wish them happiness and greet an old friend.

Well, Miss Manners knows that is not all you did. You know that's not all you did. And they know that's not all you did.

But that is the beauty of behaving well on the surface; you cannot be charged with rudeness. This loophole enabled you to send the message that however bitter, jealous or frightened they are about your effect on the gentleman, you have nothing but the blandest feelings of goodwill toward them.

Now -- aren't you glad you didn't send that insulting message?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the proper procedure of a couple entering a movie? Should the man go first and the woman follow, or visa-versa? What about if they are entering a church?

GENTLE READER: Chivalry, with its ladies-first system, nevertheless kindly assigns the gentleman the role of canary in the coalmine. He is required to go first if there is a possibility of danger ahead.

Thus if the movie theater is dark, it is he who should risk slipping on drinks spilled in the aisle and bear the consequences of attempting to sit in a seat that was not as empty as he had supposed. If the lights are on, however, the lady goes first.

Although churches are presumed not to be dangerous, Miss Manners must point out a notable exception: A gentleman who is going to church to be married is in danger if he does not enter well ahead of the arrival of his bride.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We were at dinner last evening and one in our party asked if they had any glasses for red wine. The waitress said they only had one style of wine glasses. Is it bad manners to use the same type of glass for both white and red wines?

GENTLE READER: You will be shocked to hear that etiquette does not mandate the use of highly specialized implements at table.

"What?" (Miss Manners hears you reacting). "Aren't you the people who invented the terrapin fork and the claret glass? Aren't you the folks who make others feel stupid for not knowing which to use?"

Well, yes and no. We did invent all that stuff, in a late Victorian frenzy of consumerism. At the same time we maintain, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, that we value simplicity more than a pompous insistence on over-specialization. So while we not only distinguish between glasses for red and white wine, but also recognize that red Burgundy, white Burgundy and claret also have their special glasses, we do not consider it bad manners to use an all-purpose wine glass. On the contrary, we consider it bad manners to make others feel stupid for not possessing this equipment or knowledge.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: As the mother of the bride, what are my responsibilities? And how should I dress? I don't like any "mother of the bride" dresses that I have seen, but I want to look young and beautiful, too.

GENTLE READER: There is not much Miss Manners can do to make you young and beautiful, unless you would settle for the beauty that comes from within as a result of knowing that you are perfectly behaved. Somehow she doesn't think that is what you have in mind.

She can, however, relieve your anxiety by assuring you that there is no such thing as a "mother of the bride" uniform.

Mind you, she does not pretend not to know what you mean: lace in some nursery color, sprinkled with tiny sparkles and worked into a formidable shape unknown in nature. For reasons best known to themselves, many ladies do wear such outfits at their daughters' weddings.

Etiquette does not bear the responsibility, however. Contrary to popular opinion, it does not even mandate that there be matching mommies, or insist that the mothers be coordinated with the flower arrangements. It presumes that people who are old enough to have marriageable children know how to dress themselves not only with taste, but in keeping with the occasion, the degree of formality and the time of day. In regard to a wedding, this means no black or white and nothing so outrageous as to undercut the solemnity of the ceremony.

If, after a treasure hunt with these instructions in mind, you have any energy left, you could tend to such responsibilities as charming the bridegroom's relatives, making sure the arrangements take into account the comfort and pleasure of the wedding guests, and -- oh, yes -- explaining the meaning of marriage to your daughter.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My mother taught me that one has shoulders covered for dinner when the occasion is formal (or even "festive," in the new locution). Shoulders may be bared after dinner, if there's dancing. Still the case?

GENTLE READER: Lest anyone suspect your mother's sound counsel of being based on prudery, Miss Manners points out that no mention was made of bosoms. As long as the shoulders are covered, much of the bosom need not be, a situation of which Victorian ladies took startling advantage.

The distinction is between a dinner dress and a ball dress. A strapless dress worn at dinner gives the effect, to the opposite side of the table, of a naked lady sitting in a bathtub. More importantly, a dinner dress does not have a billowing skirt likely to encroach on the gravy-spilling area allotted to the gentlemen on either side. Ball dresses may lack sleeves and add the extra material to the skirt.

While it is true that dinners sometimes include dancing, and balls sometimes feature midnight suppers, Miss Manners expects ladies to follow the rules for the primary events they attend. If they solve the problem by stripping half way through the evening, she promises to look the other way.

: