This confused my literal autistic brain so much growing up in the 90s. I always wondered why they didn’t include shorts/pants. Beach culture originated these signs. Bottoms aren’t included because women would enter wearing bikini bottoms and they explicitly did not have a problem with that.
I used to think about this a lot too. I think it’s just because it’s a given that people would wear pants. They only need to clarify shirt & shoes because that’s what they expect people are coming in without; they don’t need to define their whole dress code because pants are implied.
Yeah. If you’re Donald Ducking it, you’re likely going to have problems getting to the store.
I once trashed a convenience store because after walking four miles barefoot and shirtless in 104 degree heat picking up change they wouldn’t sell me a bottle of water and got physical when I went to just leave with it
Honestly, if it’s something we do in the USA and I don’t know WHY we do it, I chalk it up to racism anymore.
That said, I can see a legitimate reason for the shoes deal with how easy glass is to break and it was a heavily used container before plastics became popular. Other than that, I don’t see a health reason to no shirt.
Why would you go to the store shirt and shoeless ? Why this specific combo ? Does it have something to do against people in swim trunks at the beach ? Then if somebody is wearing a bikini top, does it count as a shirt ?
I believe that the no shirt no shoes was originally targeted at rural areas where someone might be working on the farm and come in as they were to buy some groceries. Time? Probably 1950s with the larger health and hygiene movements of the time.
I’ve always been aware they exist, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen one in person.
if I am wearing a shirt and shoes but no pants can I still enter?
I remember these signs when I was a kid in south FL in the 70s. It was popular to keep the beachgoers out, I don’t know if it was to keep the company out of hot water should something happen to the shirtless or shoeless customer while they’re in the store or whether it was just a choice in who to serve.
As for your question about pants: Since the “No shirt…” phrase isn’t there to make something legally binding but rather a notice to people that this particular business is exercising their right to not serve you, no, you likely won’t get served without pants.
Down here in Australia we constantly have people walking around with thongs (flip flops) or barefoot and in swimwear, so bikini top for women and bare for men. Honestly I don’t see a problem with it, I walk around with very minimal shoes now and I used to walk around barefoot most of the time when I was a kid. If you aren’t walking on a road with tonnes of broken glass and no footpaths then you are fine. As for people who complain about women having their chest exposed honestly, learn to not stare. It isn’t the job of women to cover up so you don’t have to put in effort.
Our beach culture is great because it is so laid back. If I had a business near the beach I would assume my customers would be barefoot and topless and make appropriate accommodations including somewhere to clean their feet off and taking care to keep the floor from being sticky. When I lived in the UK I found the constant demand to wear shoes stifling and awful and the USA felt really judgemental and gross.
I want to say this came about as a reaction to hippy culture in the '60s, but I’m not really sure. It was definitely around in the '70s, though. America has become more and more relaxed about dressing in public since the '60s so stores and restaurants wouldn’t have needed to post such signs prior to that era.
Nothing is stopping you from going in, just service is up to the staff.
service is up the staff
Freudian slip?
The no shirt part was a result of the hipster movement in the 1970’s, and that’s originally how it was for over a decade. The no shoes part was because of lawyers and liability, hence why sandals are allowed, but barefoot is not.
Yes, but indecent exposure is already illegal
Not wearing a shirt isn’t indecent exposure if you appear masculine.
Not wearing pants is
True, but the sign doesn’t say pants!
Indecent exposure already has that covered. Now it’s just the rest of the clothes.
It has been around long as I can remember, and I’m in my 50s…
The shoes part is because if someone breaks some glass and are in process of cleaning it up when you walk in they are worried they could get sued for you stepping on it. It isn’t clear how realistic this worry is. Anyone can sue for anything though, and even if the law/facts are such that they would clearly win they can still spend millions on lawyers to win that case. No shoes is a bypass - if you drop your case we won’t press criminal trespassing charges against you.
I don’t know what the shirt thing is about. The US culture allows topless men in public, but not topless women in general, but some people are still offended by topless men so I guess. I do recall back when I worked in retail a few people did come in without a shirt and we asked them to put it on (when it was obviously tied around their waist) or told them to take their order to go - it wasn’t a big deal.
I don’t know when it became a norm. I first noticed those signs in beach communities in the 70s and that never made any sense. It is the beach…
To quote Wally Pleasant:
🎵
I walked into a store has a sign said “No shirt no shoes no service”
I was wearing a shirt and shoes, but still I was nervous
Everyone got silent when I walked into the room
They were all staring at my fruit… of the loom
Pants! Who the hell needs 'em?
