Fashion Victims #5 - The Super Saturday Ascot Races Special

As I have oft discovered, as being competent or responsible is not a prerequisite for breeding, having taste is not a prerequisite for purchasing attire, and neither is selecting an appropriate occasion or venue to don such items. I can think of some occasions where dressing in skimpy, short, garish and overly tight dresses or generally portraying yourself as a complete trash bag is appropriate: Metropolis nightclub in Northbridge, Perth; The Bourbon Bar in Kings Cross, Sydney; Mooseheads in Canberra are a few that spring to mind. What's more you will blend in with the majority of the clientele in such venues, so as not to look out of place.

I have always found the races to be a special time for fashion: there's the Fashions on the Field competitions, the big hats, suits and dresses...and then there's the truly special. By "special", I mean similar to that boy who licks the windows on the school bus. There is a certain subset of the population who have interesting interpretations of what is "appropriate". I suspect that if you were to draw a venn diagram of those who attend the aforementioned venues with those who dress like complete trashbags, the latter set would be almost entirely subsumed within the former, but I digress.

Perhaps it was the mining boom which has been hitting Perth for the last 10-15 years, but the first group are those who chose to channel this cultural state by wearing high visibility items, which could probably also pass during an underground drill. 


There were those who portrayed this more subtley, by accessorising their outfit with high-vis statement pieces:

 Those who would give it an '80s revival twist 

(NB- nice touch of the arse to the left... oops I mean touch of class?). 

The night clubbers who stumbled into the daylight to blind us all with their lack of awareness of what is figure flattering. Attractive girl, yes, but channelling one cultural phenomenon- the mining boom- does not need to be paired with another- the MAMIL. An extra 2cm of fabric in all directions would have been kinder to yourself, and all the onlookers. 


(Mind you- it's worth noting that I was actually attempting to capture her friend who was in a pleather jump suit, but someone walked in front of the camera, obscuring her in all her glory).

My point is, it's about flattering the figure, such as... 




... oh I give up.















There were those who almost appeared to get it right (clearly I'm not referring to the mullet-skirt on the right, but her friend in the sunset number on the left)... 

.
.
until on closer inspection... the classlessness was evident in the general areola, oops I mean area. (fear the day I get a DSLR folks and get better at running in front of them so you too could appreciate the full picture!) 




On a warm sunny day, it's important to remain hydrated, and if possible seek shade. Shouldn't be able to miss our high vis tent we left around here somewhere...


Oh hang on... that's not it...







Then there were those who just had no idea.  

At least she coordinated her orange fake tan with the outfit, though her friend was clearly so embarrassed to be seen with her that she strategically wore a frock so as to camouflage herself amongst the gambling advertising.

Let's all take a moment to appreciate the full glory of a high vis singlet and wedges, paired with white lace shorts. 

A magnificent specimen.

This young lass struck me as somewhat of a paradigm, however, as when someone says to me "What should you wear to the races?" I generally think that if you were to respond with "..a dress", that you would be met with the retort "Aww duuuh". 

Silly me- it would seem that "dress standard" can be extrapolated to mean shorts; but why stop there, when you could go all the way to a onesie with loud print AND short shorts!

Evidently our lass on the left did receive the memo to accessorise by associating with a friend in high-vis: 5 bonus points; albeit trumped by Mlle Adroit whose shortie bits flapped in the breeze as she walked, exposing her entire butt cheek. A gold trash-medal for you.

There are so many ways and opportunities to show class and glamour at the races.

There's posture that shows you are truly a lady, whether you are walking, sitting or standing. 

If in doubt, why not fall back on a classic? 

No no no... a mullet is retro, not a classic, and plain wrong on the head OR in dress form.

Accessorise with one statement piece.

Umm... let me rephrase... one appropriate statement piece, not one look-I-own-something-expensive-so-I'll-take-it-everywhere-even-if-it's-grossly-out-of-place piece. 

The ultimate single accessory for the races, is generally your headwear.

Or you can coordinate with your friends.

Taste: you're doing it wrong.

***addendum- I committed a travisty and forgot the Piece de resistance (translation- I cannot resist taking the piss)! Voila!:

An Open Response to Oliver Burkeman's "Why are ethicists so unethical?"

I enjoy Oliver Burkeman's writing, but in the latest column "Why are ethicists so unethical?" I find some interesting points, but much to debate. Knowing Burkeman's writing is often well researched and that concepts are often difficult to distil in a 1000 word-limited column, I found myself scratching my head a bit with this one, with the line from moral assumption to being "smug and unethical" being a chasm which was difficult to leap over with the single bound of argument he presents.

Ethics books being stolen from libraries, for example, may be due to the fact they often discuss taboo topics such as sexualities, termination of pregnancy and euthanasia- which for some people may be a bit like intellectual porn- you want to view it, but may feel judged by some groups in doing so. Stealing the book conceals your name in the borrowing history, and gives a plausible deniability. I would argue that an ethicist would be a less likely person to steal an ethics book, as they would openly admit to reading the material, so that argument is somewhat weak.

Having worked in human research ethics for several years, my thoughts are peppered with anecdotes in favour of each side of this argument: from the doctor who extolled the virtues of the ethics system and its importance in the welfare of research participants, the development of students, and as an open system to enable quality research who never actually read the applications (perhaps the publicly perceived magnanimity of being involved in ethics on his resume was the goal of the day?), to those who lived and breathed ethics- going in to defend research subjects when their rights to health care were threatened in the most unforeseen and shocking circumstances.

Burkeman's analogy could and should be applied to religious practice though: the bastions of astounding hypocrisy that afflict our societies. Priests who rape children, churches who take from the poor and adorn themselves with gold and jewels, faiths which preach love and acceptance... unless you're from another religion in which case we should slaughter the lot of you. Do as I say, not as I do.

Such is the public/ private dichotomy of so many lives, one of the most gobsmacking examples of which came from my father, who told me "we do not tolerate physical violence in this family"; as any who have read this blog before will know- he is the first and most likely to be engaged in any such activities. In this case the motivation for hypocrisy is narcissistic, as I would posit so many of them are. Behaviour is so often driven by how we want to be perceived by others, and for many altruism or being ethical is part of the concept of self they want to portray. Perhaps where the motivation comes from is key- do you to be ethical because you believe it is the "right" thing to do, or want people to think you're ethical to impress them or have them revere you? The former would be the genuinely ethical, and the latter would be the "smug", but the public portrayal of each would only differ in subtle ways.

As with religion: you make a set of rules, and say "follow them to go to heaven/ avoid being smitten by *insert deity(ies) here*". People will follow them to a certain extent for a number of reasons, for example 1-they genuinely believe the reward/ threat and thus follow; 2- they want you to believe they believe the reward/threat and thus will give you the impression that they are compliant, whether or not they actually are. 

So I think that Burkeman's argument may very well hold true on the surface- ethicists or people who portray themselves as being highly knowledgeable of ethics, may in some instances act less ethically than other people; what's missing is a few more reasons why. It may not merely be smugness, and the ticking of the morality box (NB- morality is not the same as ethics- this in itself is a flaw in the argument), and warrants deeper investigation as to the motivation for such behaviours.