DEAR MISS MANNERS: Dieting in public is a serious etiquette problem in a society that has made saints of women who wear a size 2. It is rude and offensive for a person to attend a joyous food-related outing and have one person, the chronic dieter, spoil the trip by ordering "a small salad."

Public dieting casts a pall of misery over any such occasion. The argument that the outing is about the fellowship is only partially true -- the fellowship is enjoying a good meal together. The occasion IS about the food, and no matter how one tries, it is as impossible not to notice how little that emaciated person is eating any more than one could not help but notice an oozing sore on her hand.

Holiday dinners and meals out with friends are a time, if not to eat heartily, to at least to eat well -- even if one chooses grilled instead of fried chicken or replaces the dressing with vegetables at Thanksgiving. If one must diet in public, it should be done with absolute discretion and must involve a variety of tasty foods chosen from what has been provided. If the dieter wants a diet soda, she should ask for it quietly, as though requesting something with which to take medication and have it poured into a glass to ensure that the nature of the drink is not obvious.

If a person is on a super-restricted diet that requires she eat abnormally, she needs to stay home instead of making everyone miserable. Perhaps she can join the group later for a concert or movie if she is not too weak to stay out past 8 p.m.

GENTLE READER: That part about how you try not to notice what other people are eating -- Miss Manners suggests that you try harder. A lot harder.

Monitoring what other people eat is a good way to ruin a holiday or gathering of friends, whether it is dieters voicing disapproval of hearty eaters or the more rare reaction that you have.

But after you stated your desire to ostracize everyone with medical or religious food restrictions, Miss Manners banned you from any discussion about what constitutes fellowship.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Two of my close friends, my roommate and my ex-boyfriend, quiz me about things I feel should remain private, such as my sex life and intimate details of my family's finances. I try to be discreet or vague, or flatly tell them that it's not their business, but they protest that we know each other well enough that I can -- and should -- tell them everything.

They know I'm not being entirely forthcoming, and my ex often asserts that I'm a liar. They will not be deterred and I'm tired of fending off inappropriate questions.

GENTLE READER: Then don't. By now, you need only say, "You know I'm not going to discuss that," not adding that you would have to be an idiot to confide your sex life to your ex.

Miss Manners is well aware that the reply is likely to be one of those accusations you cite, but then you can say gently, "and you know perfectly well that I'm not going to discuss that, either."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When I was nine months pregnant, a co-worker stood in front of my desk in a crowded office and loudly verbally assaulted me for being the only person in the office who did not pledge money for her "thon."

At the time, I was suffering from both raging hormones and an aching back, and I told her (none too pleasantly) that I chose to spend my charitable dollars elsewhere.

Could you please voice your opinion of charitable organizations that expect their members to extort funds from friends, relatives, acquaintances and co-workers?

GENTLE READER: That the charity business does not mix well with the blackmail business. It has always puzzled Miss Manners that people who are in the very act of being charitable toward people they don't know, which is admirable, feel entitled to be rude to those they do.

Philanthropy is no more an excuse for rudeness than are, by the way, raging hormones. It was fine to say you were committed to other causes, but you might have said so civilly.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Recently, my relative was married in a lavish affair with copious amounts of food and drink. After the wedding, the bridal couple compared what all the relatives had given for wedding gifts.

All had given money, and the amounts were disclosed, along with complaints about those who had not given enough. Some relatives gave hundreds of dollars while others gave thousands of dollars.

What do you think of this? I don't know what was spent on the wedding reception, but are the guests required to "reimburse" their hosts for the cost of their meal by the largess in terms of the wedding gift? It seemed to me the wedding reception was a bit overdone.

GENTLE READER: Well, doesn't that sound like a good time was had by all?

Or, considering the countless and shameless money-shaking schemes that bridal couples have disclosed to Miss Manners (in the idiotic hope that she could whitewash this with bogus etiquette), maybe it was just franker about what seems to be the chief purpose of such weddings.

No, of course guests shouldn't calculate their dinners when selecting presents. The very notion that wedding guests, or any guests, owe their hosts for what they ate and drank is a disgusting perversion of the notion of hospitality. People who want to charge admission to their weddings, rather than simply share the occasion with those about whom they care, should sell tickets.

P.S. What was the guests' reaction to this attempt at public shaming? Did they rush to pour more money into those grasping hands?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When my dog died, my new neighbor very sweetly sent me a condolence card. But now she has sent me a card asking for a donation to a disease association.

I don't want to give to that group, but the way the fundraising works, I would have to send my donation to her and then she forwards it to the association. So she'll know if I contribute or not, which is the strategy of the association -- to use peer pressure to get one to contribute. Which makes me want to contribute to it even less.

What do you think? And how should I reply to her, if at all?

GENTLE READER: Your neighbor did not send you a letter saying, "I'm sorry your dog died, and I'm collecting for the Bunion Fund." So Miss Manners sees no need for you to reply, "Thank you for your kind wishes, check enclosed."

The two separate mailings should be treated separately. A solicitation does not require a reply if you do not intend to contribute. A letter of condolence requires a handwritten letter of thanks. And while a condolence card with only a signature and no message does not strictly require a response, you might want to be more generous and send a note of thanks.

: