DEAR MISS MANNERS: I realize that I am a dinosaur, but I am very confused by these new references to dress. We were invited to a dinner dance beginning at 6:30 p.m. The invitation said "cocktail attire." My husband was dismayed to be the only man in attendance in a tuxedo.

Back in the day, that would certainly have been the proper attire for the event, but clearly we were mistaken. In fact, there were many men there in casual sport coats. The ladies were in everything from suits to elegant long dresses.

I think I have figured out "business attire" but am uncertain about "business casual," and obviously ignorant of "cocktail attire."

We are invited to a 6 p.m. wedding in a church (formal, black-ink invitation), and my husband says he is taking no chances and wearing a dark suit rather than his tuxedo. What is the proper dress, and how does one go about finding out what is customary? I thought I knew!

GENTLE READER: Back in the day when there was a sensible understanding of clothing is so long ago that this entire party seems to have been in a state of confusion. Miss Manners hopes that is of some consolation to your husband.

What the poor hosts meant was that you should dress up, but not to the extent of wearing what is now considered full evening dress.

Oh, dear. Nobody is clear about that term, either.

Let us go back a bit more than you probably intended, about a hundred years. In what was then called society, another term that has become meaningless (and was rather silly even then), people wore evening clothes in the evening. It didn't take a lot of agonizing to figure that one out -- evening, evening clothes; daytime, day clothes -- so no instructions were necessary.

But problems were arising. Evening clothes had meant white tie and tails for gentlemen, and long dresses with low necklines for ladies. But even before the turn of the century, the so-called tuxedo (a word still spurned by the fastidious, who say "dinner jacket") was invented as a tail-less alternative, and more and more young bucks were adopting it. So hosts had to specify white tie, black tie or informal, which meant dark suits for the gentlemen.

Soon to come were the Little Black Dress and -- the cocktail party! Traditionalists were reeling.

But by the mid-20th century, things had more or less settled down. Tails and dinner jackets, known as white tie and black tie respectively, became different degrees of evening formality, so invitations specified which one.

Ladies wore long dresses with either, but because neither they nor the gentlemen should wear evening dress before night, they needed dressy short dresses for that wild new form of entertaining that began in late afternoon, the cocktail party. Nowadays, cocktail parties are not the dashing events they once were, and what people actually wear is their office clothes during the week and sports clothes on the weekend.

Oops, there's another misleading term. "Sports clothes" in this sense are not what one wears to play sports, but tailored trousers and open shirts or sweaters -- or what may be meant by "business casual."

As to that 6 p.m. wedding, your husband is right about wearing a dark suit. If it doesn't say black tie, it isn't.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I keep having this problem, but my wife says I am overreacting, and I want your opinion to settle this.

With recent high-tech advances, people just have too much "good memory" to force upon other people. Last night it really became too much when, at a gathering for about 20 people, my wife simply asked a friend, "How is your granddaughter?" and he pulled out his phone and proceeded to show all the digital photos he has ever collected on his granddaughter. I walked away after 10 minutes, but others stayed to watch, even though I could tell they really did not want to stay but felt obligated to watch. I think people get together to socialize with other people, not to watch "your" show.

Another friend has a habit of bringing his laptop to all the social gatherings to share his vacation photos with us, and he has a story to tell for every single picture that he shows. It usually lasts about one hour each time, and we are all stuck watching his show because his wife makes sure everybody is watching! I got up and went to the bathroom and did not return to watch his vacation pictures.

What do you think? Should there be a time limit for this kind of memory sharing? Or should I force myself to watch even though I have no interest in seeing any of it? My attention span is about 1 minute max.

GENTLE READER: Although Miss Manners has the patience of an angel, she can't bear this, either. Technology has certainly enhanced the capabilities of world-class bores. And goodness it is hard to stop them once they get going.

She hardly knows for whom she feels more sorry -- you hiding out in the bathroom or your wife stuck watching vacation pictures. Instead of arguing the matter with each other, you need a way to put a polite stop to it. That is to say, "We can't really do this justice now. We'll have to find a time when you can give us the full lecture without all these distractions."

And it is too bad that such a time is too hard to find.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I received a voicemail from someone obviously calling the wrong number. The caller had a flat tire and was wondering whether the intended called was close by. I checked when the message was left and only five minutes had elapsed since then. What would be the polite thing to do in this sort-of-emergency (flat tire) type situation? Call them back and inform them that they left their message with the wrong number? Or ignore it and assume they realized their error and called the right person?

GENTLE READER: As Good Samaritan deeds go, this one is pretty easy.

Someone is stranded and waiting to be rescued by someone who doesn't know of the trouble.

To help him, you don't have to leave your house. You don't have to run any risk. You have the number right in front of you. Can you explain to Miss Manners why you would dismiss this as a problem that need not concern you?

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have always been a firm believer in donating to worthy causes when income permits; however, does this include using one's tax deductible donation as a Christmas gift to the entire family?

Three years ago, my mother was approached by a nonprofit organization that provides animals and training to assist impoverished families in other countries become more self-reliant. On the surface, this sounds great and also seems to be a wonderful way to assist others in need.

The problem is that instead of Christmas, she has decided that her donation should serve as the gift to each adult child, grandchild, sibling, niece and nephew in the family. Each Christmas day, all members of the family receive a card that talks about the organization that she has donated to.

The card states, "in your honor, a gift has been made." Obviously, she gets the tax deduction, and this serves as her Christmas gift to each family member.

There has never been any discussion with the family or notification that she would no longer be participating in gift exchanges with anyone (especially the grandchildren). She does, however, accept any and all gifts given to her. It seems that if she were trying to set an example for the family, she would insist on no gifts for herself.

It also seems that she would get the idea that after three years, she has not inspired the family to donate to the charity that she has chosen.

Just to get you up to speed, my family donates hundreds of hours to local charities and nonprofit organizations. We also serve on the board of several. In addition, my family hosts a fundraiser for a local no-profit with 100 percent of the proceeds going to the organization.

We have never thought to use this as an excuse to not exchange Christmas gifts. This is something we have done for 12-plus years, and we understand that our charity and tax deduction is our business, not a gift to the entire family. This is something that we do because we want to, but we do not expect other family members to feel that same way about these organizations. When times are lean, we tend to spend less, but volunteer more.

Are we wrong in feeling this way about Mom's donation-deduction Christmas gift?

GENTLE READER: You can hardly regard it as something she thought up on the hope that it would delight you and the various children. But it has probably given her a delightful sense of piety. Unlike the rest of you, who are out buying material things -- you hopeless consumers, you -- including things for her, she is observing the true spirit of Christmas by thinking of Others. Not you who are related to her, but Others.

And maybe just a bit of herself, for having escaped Christmas shopping, with all its hassle and expenditures, and having gained a tax credit. Christmas charity is a fine idea, Miss Manners agrees. But charity in lieu of presents works only if 1) those concerned agree to it as a policy, and 2) the particular charities chosen are those that are of interest to those being honored. Families that feel that presents have become superfluous or burdensome sometimes do this.

It is time for you to have such discussions with your mother. If she wants to substitute charitable donations for presents, you could suggest that either the recipients be allowed to choose their own charities or that you use the occasion to forgo an exchange of presents with her -- it needn't affect your exchanges with other relatives -- and add to your own charitable donations.

: