Posted by feitheachd on Wed 18 Feb 09, 7:04 PM to feitheachd's blog.
That almost regular controversy, the fetishising of the Nazi uniform has flared up again, and to make things really interesting there is also a smouldering debate about the appeal of real fur.
It's always good fun to see the time honoured clichés being rolled out in defence of each of the opposing views, but I've also found that the polarising effect of these two contentious items of clothing on the “community” has helped me to form some conclusions about where I stand more generally on personally held clothing obsessions.
I've been trying to work out if I should even care at all about what people wear, and it seems to me that there could only two reasons why I should:
Wearing the item causes significant and significantly widespread emotional distress amongst the population which witnesses it.
And/or,
As a direct consequence of wearing the item, significantly widespread and relatively unacceptable non consensual suffering is caused.
In the interests of full disclosure I have to admit to a deep fetish for women swathed in furs – so that second issue causes me some additionally difficulties that I'll need to think about a bit more.
However, I think I can be logical and objective about the first.
It seems to me to be stupendously arrogant to claim to take offence on another person's behalf, and so, as far as the first reason is concerned, my initial question has to be: am I personally significantly offended by the item of clothing? Now, I've thought long and hard about this and can honestly say that there is no event in my personal, family or clan history of such distressing contemporary significance that I could be offended by an inanimate symbol reminding me of its occurrence.
Not even a Redcoat uniform or a Celtic strip.
So, there is no item of clothing that I personally consider to be objectively beyond the pale – (and yes, I get the irony).
If I can't be personally significantly offended, can there be any circumstances when wearing a particular item of clothing is wrong because of the significant distress felt by other witnesses? This is not a question of taking offence on behalf of another, but being aware of context. Wearing a Nazi uniform to an Armistice Day service would, I think, be wrong, as would wearing a British Parachute Regiment uniform to a “Bloody Sunday” memorial. Not because either item of clothing is intrinsically immoral, but because it would be clear to anyone that the inevitable consequence of its appearance would be the widespread and significant distress to the witnessing population.
Those are extreme examples, but the more extreme the example, the less it becomes a question of determining if the perpetuator is wrong and more a question of the survival of the perpetuator.
Anything less clear cut however and I have to support the right of the individual to wear what he or she wishes, and I'll leave the question of context as an evaluation of personal responsibility.
So, in summary, 99.9% of the time I am going to be unconcerned by what people choose to wear.
| 18 Feb 09, 9:16 PM Snowpard UK, 3 yrs    |
Beautifully written, and the content has really given me some food for thought. Threads are like skirts. They should be long enough to cover the interesting details, but short enough to keep things interesting. |
| 19 Feb 09, 8:19 PM frogman UK(SE), 4 yrs  |
Well said |
