Wearing vintage is considered costumes.

[The Wiser Hatter]

A couple where told to leave park for wearing vintage clothes.

http://boingboing.net/2016/08/18/faux-victorian-couple-ejected.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GJ nord]

I'm surprised they let anyone in tbh.....woe betide those that laugh out loud......

 

[GHT]

And today's common attire is not a costume?

 

[Fading Fast]

It's the "overly lawyered, somehow we can't make common sense distinctions" problem that effects so much of our daily lives.

My guess is the "no costumes" rule is there to prevent some activity that most of us would agree should be prevented (maybe, teenagers dressing up in costume to truly scare kids or "own" the space and push out other park goers, or some similar obnoxious behavior), but because someone will sue if the rule isn't uniformly enforced, the not-hurting-anyone, Victorian-clad couple had to be asked to leave.

Our system, our culture, or memes, our courts don't allow for common sense for intelligent discretion. They don't allow for a police officer to say no to five aggressively costumed teenagers creating a bad vibe for the park and yes to the harmless Victorian couple because someone might sue. So we have these black-and-white rules and standards that don't allow for nuance, understanding, etc.

In the US, every once in awhile, I'll see an article that the police were called because a five year old boy stole a kiss from a girl in his class and this violated the "zero tolerance" sexual harassment policy of the school. Really, the police had to be called? No one in authority had the ability to make a distinction between true sexual harassment and the push and pull of little kids learning boundaries?

Something is broken in all this.

 

[PHIL1959]

one feels the loonie liberal lefies have taken over the asylum

 

[LizzieMaine]

Hey, I'm a "looney liberal leftie," if not a full-blown dirty pinko commie, and I couldn't give a warm bowl of spit if you walk in the door wearing full Victorian dress, a clown suit, or a feed bag. If you want to discuss fine points of the law, fine, but lay off the political name-calling.

These sorts of laws are in no way a modern thing. Anti-disguise ordinances, of which these regulations are an outgrowth, were common in towns and cities thruout the Era, sometimes enacted to get rid of masked terrorist groups like the KKK or the Black Legion, and sometimes as a reaction to the bank-robbery fads of the early 1930s. And there were just as many pin-headed martinets then who saw to it that such laws were just as ridiculously enforced -- in some cities they were interpreted to mean that a female impersonator couldn't appear on stage without wearing a large button or sash reading "I AM A BOY."

 

[Trenchfriend]

And if He had just worn a classic flatcap, instead of the cylinder??

 

[LizzieMaine]

"You in the hat -- down in front!!"

Some might remember that this is the same Victorian-living couple that was at the center of an Internet furor about a year ago. While they do seem to run into more than their fair share of confrontations, and there's no real excuse for some of the dung flung in their direction by the Internet Snark Patrol, at least some of it can be laid to their own confrontational approach when dealing with the Ignorant and the Unwashed -- read her own books for examples. If you're going to be a public atavist, and especially if you're going to try to make a living merchandising your lifestyle, as they do, you have to have a sense of humor about it, rather than flying into outrage over every slight, real or perceived -- or you're going to get pummelled.

 

[DJH]

If I saw anyone in Victorian era clothes, I'd assume they were actors of some kind or going to a fancy dress party.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

These sorts of laws are in no way a modern thing. Anti-disguise ordinances, of which these regulations are an outgrowth, were common in towns and cities thruout the Era, sometimes enacted to get rid of masked terrorist groups like the KKK or the Black Legion, and sometimes as a reaction to the bank-robbery fads of the early 1930s. And there were just as many pin-headed martinets then who saw to it that such laws were just as ridiculously enforced -- in some cities they were interpreted to mean that a female impersonator couldn't appear on stage without wearing a large button or sash reading "I AM A BOY."

 

[Fading Fast]

"You in the hat -- down in front!!"

Some might remember that this is the same Victorian-living couple that was at the center of an Internet furor about a year ago. While they do seem to run into more than their fair share of confrontations, and there's no real excuse for some of the dung flung in their direction by the Internet Snark Patrol, at least some of it can be laid to their own confrontational approach when dealing with the Ignorant and the Unwashed -- read her own books for examples. If you're going to be a public atavist, and especially if you're going to try to make a living merchandising your lifestyle, as they do, you have to have a sense of humor about it, rather than flying into outrage over every slight, real or perceived -- or you're going to get pummelled.

That they use their lifestyle as a revenue stream changes the equation a bit and makes me wonder if they don't mind the occasional dust-up for the free press it provides. I am not accusing them of that, as I don't know that they do it, but it does make me pause and see it as a possibility.

I have very few rose-colored glasses left for the GE - I've learned too much real history for that here at FL and elsewhere, so yes, there were always rigid, pedantic people in authority that bluntly enforced laws and rules in a thoughtless way, but it seems that even in my lifetime (the '60s to present day), we've institutionalized / officially validated a blind enforcement of many rules (zero tolerance) as certain words have such power and such negative connotation - discrimination, sexual harassment, bullying, for example - that we have no ability to bring judgement and common sense to situations that could partially be described by those words.

And once the lawyers get involved and a lawsuit or public denunciation is threatened - all thought goes out the window and it's "let's just settle and make this go away as fast as possible" time which further reduces the willingness of those accused to even argue for understanding and perspective - it reinforces the rigidity.

To Lizzie's point, is this entirely new - absolutely not - but the pendulum, in my lifetime and IMHO, has swung pretty far to the narrow-minded, no-nuance or common-sense side of the legal, moral and social balance sheet (mixed metaphor alert).

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Recently the Disney parks have instituted a ban on costumes worn by persons over 14 out of security concerns. Though it's generally understood that the ban is specifically in regard to the wearing of masks, a legitimate concern, I also think it's a bit difficult to enforce because based on what I've seen people wearing at Disneyland, what exactly constitutes a "costume"?

 

[HudsonHawk]

According to Webster, a "costume" is "an outfit worn to create the appearance characteristic of a particular period, person, place, or thing." So in the strict sense, wearing 19th century Victorian clothing in 2016 is, by definition, wearing a costume. Personally, if someone wants to live their life in a top hat or in a clown nose, that's their business. But they need to expect and accept that they will be viewed a certain way, and that may include violating the dress code of certain establishments.

 

[Frunobulax]

If I saw anyone in Victorian era clothes, I'd assume they were actors of some kind or going to a fancy dress party.

Or time travelers?


Sent directly from my mind to yours

 

[GHT]

If I saw anyone in Victorian era clothes, I'd assume they were actors of some kind or going to a fancy dress party.

It's a reaction that I get when wearing my zoot suit.
"Oi! Al, when are you going to pay your taxes?" Is a comment that I will often hear, followed by a silly cackle, as though they think it's an original remark.

 

[LizzieMaine]

According to Webster, a "costume" is "an outfit worn to create the appearance characteristic of a particular period, person, place, or thing." So in the strict sense, wearing 19th century Victorian clothing in 2016 is, by definition, wearing a costume. Personally, if someone wants to live their life in a top hat or in a clown nose, that's their business. But they need to expect and accept that they will be viewed a certain way, and that may include violating the dress code of certain establishments.

The example that comes to mind is that woman some years ago who reported to jury duty wearing a Starfleet uniform. Now, there's nothing immodest or revealing or provocative about such an outfit -- but is it appropriate to wear in a courtroom by the standards enforced by that court? The woman involved insisted she was wearing it as her idea of formal, dignified clothing, so whose definition applies? Hers or the court's? How is the court any different in having its own standard from the place in this incident?

 

[2jakes]

It's a reaction that I get when wearing my zoot suit.
"Oi! Al, when are you going to pay your taxes?" Is a comment that I will often hear, followed by a silly cackle, as though they think it's an original remark.
View attachment 55297

Fuggitabouddit.
Those are silly and not too bright little people.
That is a sharp looking zoot suit.

 

[DJH]

It's a reaction that I get when wearing my zoot suit.
"Oi! Al, when are you going to pay your taxes?" Is a comment that I will often hear, followed by a silly cackle, as though they think it's an original remark.

But the MG gives you instant credibility.

Or time travelers?


Sent directly from my mind to yours

Yes, maybe that's what they are [emoji3]

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

The example that comes to mind is that woman some years ago who reported to jury duty wearing a Starfleet uniform. Now, there's nothing immodest or revealing or provocative about such an outfit -- but is it appropriate to wear in a courtroom by the standards enforced by that court? The woman involved insisted she was wearing it as her idea of formal, dignified clothing, so whose definition applies? Hers or the court's? How is the court any different in having its own standard from the place in this incident?

Lizzie, do I have to point out to you the difference between a public park and a court room? Whose definition applies? Well, that's easy. Judges, for good or ill, are the sovereigns of their court rooms. Judges ought to practice "judicial restraint". They are there, after all, as servants, not masters. But there are those who are appointed or elected who just don't get it. We have all read stories of judges behaving in ways that dishonor the trust given them. Some can be corrupt, or petty tyrants, or rapists.

So, does a juror sitting in the jury box dressed up like a science fiction TV or movie character distract from what ought to be a somber atmosphere? That is a rhetorical question, by the way. The answer is obvious. If that or any other juror showed up in a clown costume or dressed as The Creature from the Black Lagoon, no reasonable person, prosecutor, plaintiff's attorney, defendant's attorney, or judge would, for a microsecond, seriously entertain that question.

You don't really propose that all judgements are equally valid, do you? No, I have read too many of your posts to think that. So, in order to maintain the dignity of the proceedings, persons in court are expected to comport their behavior with that dignity. Someone has to make those decisions, and that someone is the judge. Therefor "whose definition applies"? That's easy, it's the judge's definition.

Judges ought to be bound by judicial restraint, but what goes on in a courtroom is the responsibility of the judge. Judges who exceed their reasonable authority ought to be removed from the bench, but the demeanor and appearance of jurors is well within the reasonable authority of the judge.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm less interested in legalistic explanations than I am in the philosphical arguments behind them -- sure, there's a difference between a courtroom and a park. But there's only a difference because we, as a society, agree that there's a difference -- there's no organic, essential reason for that difference otherwise. The whole idea that one must dress a certain way in a courtroom is a social construction, just as what goes on in a park is a social construction. The only real difference is the seriousness we give to the particular circumstance -- either way it's simply a matter of some subset of society agreeing that A is appropriate to a given situation and B is not.

It's not just "because the judge says so." The judge only says so because society says so -- and what society says is subject to evolutionary change. There are plenty of hidebound types who weep and gnash their teeth over the gradual disapperance of wigs from British courtrooms, but Americans see the wigs and snicker about how silly they look. There's no reason to think what we think is appropriate today won't be equally snickered at within our own lifetimes.

As for costumes in the courtroom, in my reporter days I knew a lawyer who habitually came to court dressed in such a way as to heighten his natural resemblance to Dick Tracy -- vintage suit, hair slicked back and pomaded in a 1930s style, etc. The Loungevolk here would have loved him, but make no mistake -- everything about his getup was 100 per cent pure affectation for the sake of the jury, and it was every bit as much a *costume* as the Starfleet Juror's outfit or the outfits worn by Lord and Lady Victoriana Riding On A Pony there. And for that matter, what is a judge's robe if not a "costume" designed to overwrite the personal identity of the person sitting on the bench with the identity of Representative Of The Power Of The State?

In the case of the Starfleet Juror, it sort of points up the fine line between "costume" and "outfit."

Remove the insignia from the clothing -- the Starfleet badge on the chest and the rank pips on the collar -- and leave off the equipment belt, and all you would have had was a maroon-and-black jacket and pants combination. It wouldn't have been an especially flattering outfit, but you'd have had a hard time making a legitimate argument that it was inappropriate or disruptive. It would, in fact, likely be far less disruptive than a woman in full Victorian garb. Let's hope Lady Victoriana never gets tapped for jury duty.