Friday, October 27, 2006

An Episode in a Programme I shall never watch

Frequent reference is made in internet discussions of the shoes-off rule to an episode in the sitcom, Sex in the City. I understand that this is a rather immoral programme and I have no intention of ever watching it. According to recent surveys, most young women do not at all approve of the lifestyles of the main characters in Sex in the City.

From internet discussions I have managed to discern a brief synopsis of the sub-plot in this episode. One of the main charcters is invited to a baby shower, at which the hostess requires her to remove her expensive shoes for hygeine reasons. The shoes are stolen during the party and the hostess refuses to pay for the loss, despite receiving some expensive presents from the guest.

This seems a typical attempt to portray those with a shoes-off rule as mean and selfish.

I suppose it does raise the question of whether a host or hostess should be responsible for such a loss in the unlikely event of it happening. It might be a little awkward if the shoes that are stolen, as in that episode, are shoes that cost considerably more than the host would pay for shoes.

Any thoughts?

2 comments:

Redeemed said...

I would not want to face that dilemma, though I have a feeling I would pay for the stolen shoes. I would feel it is my duty to do so as a good hostess.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I dare say you would, but I am sure you would have second thoughts about it if you disapproved of how much the shoes cost.

I think a guest who had spent a huge amount of money on a pair of shoes would be very unreasonable to expect a host to pay for them in the unlikely event of their being stolen at a party.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew