Why I Still Dress Goth Despite Harassment

As I have chronicled here before, I, like many Goths get street harassment for my being visibly Goth. This ranges from the mild and annoying (I made a rare foray into the mall today to get a 'new baby' gift for a relative, and in the mall some teenagers decided to make "wooo-oooo" noises at me while waving their hands 'mystically' and then shouting "YER A WIZARD 'ARRY!" at me.) to the terrifying (a gang of thugs threatening to kick my head in and then chasing me down a street), and I've had several close friends violently attacked for being Goth. In the light of the news recently about a young man having his jaw shattered by a gang of thugs in Huthwaite (that is now being treated as an anti-Goth hate crime) as can be read about in this article in the Gainsborough Standard ::here::, several people have asked me this - why do I still dress Goth despite the negative attention I get for it, and despite my dislike of being the centre of attention. You called me 'brave' for doing so, but I don't feel brave; I do what I do because I perceive the alternative as worse, so that to me is not really bravery. It is a trade-off; I deal with the negativity and the attention I unfortunately get because it is less bad than the alternative, and there are far more benefits this way. 

First of all, I think they look beautiful, and that mainstream clothes (and some variations of Goth clothes) are too plain for my tastes. I like details, textures, patterns - hence all the damask pattern jacquards and intricate lace, all the layers of ruffles and frills. Perhaps if I was living 200 or so years ago and had either the skills or the money to wear the more elaborate outfits, I would have worn the mainstream or fashionable clothes of the period, but most mainstream clothes are a lot less fancy - I do sometimes find things I like in mainstream shops (recently, devore velvet tasseled shawls seemed to be a 'thing' so I bought several in the sales at mainstream shops like Blue Inc. and H&M), but for the most part, they're either too plain, or just not my style (or have details, but in poor quality; I saw so many things about 2 years ago that involved black lace that I would have bought if the lace had not been cheap and scratchy). 

Secondly my clothes are sort of a worn extension of my comfort zone; I wear the clothes I do because they make me feel comfortable, make me feel like myself. They remind me of who I really am in the face of everything that has tried to quash that over the years, and also of all the things I love. I dress very much as a stylistic manifestation of my interests and passions, and having those positive reminders worn feels almost talismanic; I do wear a few literal protection charms, but there's something reassuring about wearing my Goth clothes, to have that reminder of all the things that make me happy with me at all times. 

Thirdly, and I feel weird writing this out, as it seems slightly pretentious, but I hope that by being visible, I will give some of the younger and more Goths a little more courage. I'm not the only Goth that walks around where I live, and I'm not the only one that dresses very visibly Gothic - I'm probably the most elaborately Romantic variation of Goth, but I'm not the only one to go out very distinctly Goth and very fully dressed non-mainstream, there are several Goths who do that in my area. I hope that every visible Goth, out in public and proud to be themselves, is an encouragement to other Goths. Also, hopefully by both being Goth and trying to always be polite and friendly to the outside world, I serve as an example of a Goth that isn't all the negative stereotypes. 

Fourthly, there's that dressing Goth immediately filters the people who aren't comfortable with talking to Goths, and wearing a pentacle around my neck filters out people who aren't comfortable talking to Neo-Pagans/witches, and those two things also attract like-minded individuals. Yes, it also means I get hassle from those who wish to add aggression and rudeness to their prejudice, but for the most part, I am quietly left alone by those who presume things. On the other hand, those who have common interests feel a lot more comfortable talking to me because they know I'm another of their kind, and I'm much more comfortable talking to other visibly alternative people for the same reason. I get people who like bats asking me about my bat jewellery, loads of inquiries about how I dye my hair the colours I choose, and plenty of other Goths (quite a few of whom are now my friends) have come up to me because I'm Goth, and I feel more comfortable talking to other Goths I don't know when I'm dressed Goth because I'm less worried that they will think I am a judgemental non-Goth (as I know all too well the sarcastic 'compliments' and inquiries that start polite, but soon turn to mockery). 

Lastly, I am really, really uncomfortable in mainstream clothes. I feel like a fraud, an imposter, a fake - someone pretending to be normal when they're not. I feel like I have to live up to the normal exterior, to the expectations that come with it, plus I feel ugly on top of that. I'm an eccentric by nature, and I couldn't fake normality, even if I wanted to (and believe me, I've tried). If I look strange, a little bit of strangeness is expected. Mainstream people aren't expected to wax lyrical about cemeteries, Goths who look like they're from the graveyard end up giving impromptu cemetery tours to random tourists (this happened a couple of days ago, and then I ran into some history-loving American tourists who got directions to the abbey ruins, plus some free tips for other historical sites in the area...), and I am much happier with the freedom to be myself that comes with looking like myself. Those who judge me for being Goth are usually full of inaccurate assumptions of what Goth is; their judgements don't really touch me because they are not about me; they are founded on errors and presumptions - those who judge me for not being "normal" are judging who I am as a person.

So that is why I make the trade-off, and put up with the stares, the jeers and the aggression, and why I put up with the attention that ends up focused on me. Sure, I would certainly blend in better dressed in the 'costume' of the mainstream, but I would be a lot more miserable, and even more uncomfortable and nervy if I did so. 

It's not brave, it's just taking what seems like the easier option. 

The only thing that really scares me is the increased risk of violence; I keep vigilant for those who might be violent trouble (and have got pretty good at spotting trouble coming; I don't know if it is instinct or perception, but I know when someone gives me a bad feeling, and I vanish, and usually soon after they do something to display that my instinct was right), and I keep to either shops that simply won't attract trouble much, or in open areas of central parts of town - away from the dodgy areas of towns and cities where even a normal person stands a higher risk of violent crime, and where my clothes would mark me out for at least a beating. I do martial arts, and train for self-defence rather than just sport. I know when to run. Several of my friends locally have been violently attacked, and I have been curbing my travels since them. I don't stay in town after dark very often, as that's when the drunks are out and about, and I take the bus to places I would have once walked, and tend to go places in groups or meet up with someone. I can minimise the risks.

Fashion, Self-Expression and Goth

Fashion can be a symbol of resistance and rebellion, of rejecting mainstream values, but sometimes that symbolism is a projection from those around the wearer, not the wearer themselves. Sometimes it is from the wearer - hippies utilised this as a tool by wearing clothes they made themselves or made from costumes to be walking symbols of what they believed in, wearing CND logos (Peace symbols), natural designs, or vivid, almost lurid colours full of vibrancy and conveying an experiential zest for life. Punk, the subculture that is Goth's antecedent, became stylistically manifest in deliberately ripped and tattered clothes, a D.I.Y ethos and unnatural hair colours and fierce styles that made the wearer immediately visible as a Punk and thus making the wearer carry everything that such a style stands for. Punk style started as a visual manifestation of an anarchist attitude, of a D.I.Y ethos that rejected the consumerist materialism of high fashion, of colourful and and sometimes painful self expression, of being oneself at any cost, even if over the decades, like Goth, it has slowly become something that is bought and copied. Goth inherited a lot from that, especially styles like Deathrocker.

Anyone going out in public in the complete regalia of any subculture is marking themselves as visibly outside the mainstream, as visibly part of a different 'tribe'. Goth is no exception, and if anything, less socially acceptable than being a Hippie or Emo, as Hippie has gradually become accepted as an extension of being "a bit Bohemian" and Emo fashion in terms of actual garments, is more a darker turn on mainstream garments such as hoodies and skinny trousers than something wildly different. 

If a Goth walks down the street in leather trousers, knee-high stompy boots, a leather corset with steel bones and steel studs, a short-sleeved shirt and torn fishnets for an under-shirt, with spiked cuffs adorning their neck and wrists, leather fingerless gloves adorned with even more studs, hair dyed black and purple and wildly styled, face pale and painted up with black designs that accentuate their eyes, and with ears and face full of metalwork, that Goth is expressing their inner beliefs and selves externally; one that to a degree, because it is so removed from mainstream fashion, includes a certain amount of defiantly doing your own thing. They become immediately visible by how different they look to the majority of the people around them, and while they are probably not dressed that way to garner attention, they know they will receive it. A lot of the attention they will get will be negative, and sadly a lot of young Goths eventually give up the subculture because they do not want to face the harassment and sometimes violence that will be heaped upon them for their choices. 

While Goth is not something to take up in order to rebel, anyone who is a Goth is innately going to be seen as a rebel because they are, with varying levels of deliberation, taking the alternative path and not choosing the mainstream, popular options. It may not be the active rebellion of Punk, but it as an act of separation. Even if it is merely a rejection of mainstream fashions, aesthetics and music, it is still an act of separation. It's not always a case of drawing a line in the sand to say "I am not like them", but by looking different, it often becomes regarded as such from those outside of the subculture. Goth is a path where those who live it tend to end up walking a very self-determined road, something inherited from its punk ancestors. Personally, my rejection of the mainstream goes further than a rejection of mainstream fashion, aesthetics and music. I am opposed to to quite a few aspects of modern society that have become all-prevalent and which I find insidious, worrying and are not something I wish to be part of, but how much individual Goths reject mainstream values really depends a lot on the individual Goth; a lot of us tend to be quite strong on the idea of people thinking for themselves and not defaulting to what is popular or given media prevalence, but other than that Goth doesn't really come with any ideology beyond an appreciation for the darker things in life. 

Goth is not a political movement, and so it does not carry the same anarchic connotations as punk, or the same pacifist, environmentalist and psychedelic connotations of the Hippies, if anything it is a philosophical or artistic movement that seeks beauty in the darkness, as inspired originally by the songs of certain bands, but with a history that draws on creativity from many periods. Goth is not about railing energetically against mainstream society, the systems of authority, or the many injustices of the world, but it does have that strong individualist ethos within it. Goth is also about looking in dark places, and if you look in the dark corners of the world, you will be moved by what you see there. Each Goth will believe their own creed, politics, spirituality and vision of the world, and generally allow other Goths, and other people in general to also have their own opinions - that said, Goths can turn political, philosophical and religious debate into a flame-war or argument too, as we are after all a collection of strong personalities that will sometimes clash, and no group of people is perfect - but overall, we seem to have too strong a sense of individuality to all come with a similar set of opinions. 

Goths tend to see their clothes as part of their identity, an outward manifestation of their inner selves as much as an identifier of membership of the subculture. The clothes we wear within the broad umbrella of Goth are hugely diverse, especially as, despite the fact there are now goth 'brands', that there is a huge creative element that hand-crafts, hand-sews, modifies and designs things for themselves, and those clothes will often be very carefully thought out before being worn, dressing to match the person's mood, their self image, the the values they hold, the place they are going to. Goths do not tend to wear something to "fit in", nor do they generally wear things because they are popular amongst other Goths (although in the age of the internet there has been an increase in 'trends' within Goth - a couple years ago it was wearing horns, probably inspired be Maleficent, then it was wearing buckled and studded 'harness' inspired straps, currently it's the "witchy" or "occult" trend, which I have strong opinions on, etc.). Goths, while often dressing in sexualised ways, tend to do this to express their own sexuality rather than to pander to someone else's.

Goth fashion can be highly gendered, but at the same time, gender-bending, androgyny and transvestitism are generally accepted within the Goth community. Men can wear skirts and make-up without the assumption amongst other Goths that they are doing so because they are gay, and they can also do so in ways that are not traditionally un-masculine - for example wearing a Rivethead utility kilt/skirt and black eyeliner and black nail-polish, in an outfit clearly inspired by dystopian science fiction rather than by drag queens. The Goth community tends to towards equal standards and expectations of behaviour  amongst gender; women are encouraged to be strong, men are allowed to be emotional. The confidence gained from outwardly flouting gender norms in terms of dress within the Goth community often translates to a confidence to continue doing so in a wider context. 

As Goth encourages visible self expression through fashion, piercings, tattooing and other personal, aesthetic avenues, it fosters an atmosphere where people are proud to be themselves, something at the core of every civil rights movement. It also allows people who are trying to be the change they want to see in the world to be a visual manifestation or representation of that change, in the way of being a walking work of art. Also, once someone is visually different, that often gives them the confidence to be behaviourally different - it is often the start of acting according to one's true self rather than according to the expectations of mainstream society as once someone is visually part of the "other" then they feel freed of the constraints of being part of the norm. This though, is not linear cause and effect, as it takes a certain amount of confidence to so visibly reject the norm, as the mainstream can be particularly cruel over things as seemingly unimportant as clothes, because clothes are a manifestation of the inner self, and are therefore some of those in the mainstream act out against people they think do more than look different (otherwise 'edgy' hipsters misappropriating Goth would  get the same harassment Goths do) especially if there are prejudices and assumptions about the specific kind of "looking different". Being visually different does not necessarily mean being as radically different as taking on a subculture such as Goth, Punk, Hippie or Lolita, or even dressing in a way culturally attributed to another gender, it can be as simple as wearing clothes that belong to the mainstream, but are ones that you like from a few years ago, and not updating your wardrobe every six months because last season's clothes are out of fashion, or simply dressing in less gendered or less sexualised way. 

If you approach clothes, personal aesthetics and style from the standpoint of using it as a form of self expression, as a manifestation of the inner self and ones tastes, rather than from the standpoint of worrying about trends, "being fashionable" or from the standpoint of trying to fit in, look "normal" or caring about what others think of your appearance, then you become freed from the effects of fashion advertising. You cease to think in ways that most advertising targets - adverts generally work by trying to sell the product as being part of a lifestyle, or by targeting insecurities, and once you are no longer interested in those lifestyles and no longer have those insecurities, you begin to see through advertising. If your beauty ideals are based on your own tastes rather than on the appearances of celebrities and models, then the products those celebrities and models endorse no longer seem better by association. This does not necessarily entail being Goth, but it does entail thinking for oneself, which is something Goths tend to be good at - I'm probably going around in circles in saying we tend to be ardently individualist! A lot of people who aren't Goth tend to be good at it too, though, and being Goth is by no means a mark of superiority above "sheeple" masses. 

Once you see clothes, personal aesthetics and style from the standpoint of self expression, and tend towards creativity, then it provides a way of being a walking artwork, from designing clothes to designing tattoos and everything in between. As clothes are an outward manifestation of my inner self, I'd rather make that statement myself instead of mass-produced designs. This does not necessarily mean making clothes from scratch, but includes modifying things and customising them. Having a broad choice - and the main chains and high-street stores do actually sell a good variety - is not the same as getting your own vision fulfilled, and that is where making and customising has its greatest strength: you are in control of the project. Yes, there are still the limitations of findings and materials, although even those can be overcome, albeit sometimes at quite a cost, but there is still so much more scope for fulfilling personal vision. 

I'm probably going to write at length in future about how my clothes express my inner self, and about some of the choices I make - for now, here's ::a post:: from a while back that covers that to some degree (and in general, don't be afraid to read and comment on older posts; I do still get informed about comments, and I do tend to reply!) 

My Reflection On The Oxford University Study Into Depression and Goth

A lot of newspapers yesterday were publishing articles based on ::this:: recent study in the Lancet by Dr Lucy Bowes at the Department of Experimental Psychology of the Oxford University, and her team, that saw correlation between teen depression, self-harm and Goth. The study was statistically modified to account for other upbringing/personal background data on the participants that may contribute to an increased risk of depression. 

First of all, I have a two things that, as a member of the subculture at the time these inquiries were made (and in Bristol in 2005 and 2006) and only a few years older than those being asked (so still a teen at that point, and interacting with other subcultural teens, possibly including a few of the cohort asked, with which I wish to mention about this study itself. Psychology and anthropology are not my areas of expertise, but I feel that I have well over a decade of experience of the Goth subculture and have tried my best to fully educate myself on the subculture I belong to (it is part of my obsessive tendencies to thoroughly read anything I can on whatever subject I fall in love with, whether it is cathedral architecture or the Gothic subculture). 

The big thing I was surprised at was that "Emo" and "Metal" never came up as identity categories/subcultures. Emo was much more of a big thing than it is now; it's a subculture that seems on the wane these days, but it was certainly very popular in the mid-to-late '00s, and there is also no category for "Mosher" or "Metalhead", which means that anyone identifying as those things would probably have chosen the closest category, "Goth", especially for young Emos, as there has often been confusion amongst babybats as to what is Goth, what is Emo, and to a lesser degree in terms of broader subculture, but greater degree in terms of music, what is Metalhead, because those three subcultures have a lot of overlapping features, and figuring out which subculture you identify with the most, or which combination, can be a bit complicated to begin with. Heck, when I was a babybat, I was probably closer to a metalhead/scene-kid, but mostly because I didn't really understand what Goth was, and was ignorant to its subcultural history and the broader range of things it encompasses. The age group - teens - also means that this confusion is far more likely to arise than if they asked adults (who also can be Goth, but that is another paragraph) and as such it is likely that this should be "young members of darker alternative subcultures" because I would imagine there are a quite a few in that group who might have been identifying as Goths for the purpose of the survey because they could not identify as Emo or Metal, in order to express subculture despite not having the correct named subculture. The way that the survey was conducted, in terms of being able to identify from 'strongly identify' to 'not at all' would counter that to some degree, but I do think that it would have been clearer to have these separate categories. As categories were not exclusive, those who felt they were part of more than one subculture could have identified as Goth as well as Emo, for example, so it would not have forced those who are still exploring their identity to chose. 

I have also noted a distinct difference in attitude towards negative emotions between Goth and Emo subcultures. I am no expert on Emo, nor one myself, and do not wish to tarnish them by misinterpreting what I have experienced, but what I personally have seen amongst the Emo/Scene people I have interacted with is that there seemed to be a greater tendency to glorify depression and mental ill-health, including self-harm, and a linked tendency to overly identify with the idea that a troubled soul a poet (or other creative type; I'm not being literal) makes. It is not that personal troubles do not make good fuel for the creative forge sometimes, but that I noticed this taken to extremes within Emo sometimes. Emo, by its definition, focuses on music that is Emotional Hardcore (derivative of Metal and hardcore Punk) and one that focuses on one's personal emotional turbulences, from depression and anorexia and other mental illness at one end, to the turbulences of life such as isolation from ones peers and heartbreak, and Goth is a much broader subculture, and while it does embrace the darkness in these manifestations, it also embraces the darkness in a lot of other manifestations. Emo seems to be more about a creative release for one's personal troubles, and Goth seems to be more about appreciating the darkness in the world around you. As such, the effect that joining the two different subcultures, or a combination of them, may have, when it comes to depression, may well be quite different. 

The second thing that I am surprised at is that they chose to look at specifically teens, and seem to be writing as if Goth is a youth subculture, something only partaken of as a teen and young person. Goth may be a phase for some, but it is a lifelong commitment to a beautiful artistic world of dark beauty for some of us. One thing I would be intrigued to know is the breakdown of how many of those that identified as Goths as teens would do so now, and how many of those who didn't might do now. Perhaps it would be interesting to see if there is any relation to those for whom Goth was a phase and higher or lower rates of depression; Goth and other dark subcultures can seem like a place of asylum in the original sense of the word - a haven - somewhere where they can safely express themselves with less judgement than from their conventional peers, and where the content of the culture can be cathartic, or a means to express painful emotions, and maybe if the connection is based more on having a safe group within which to express and be open about troubling emotions, as they fluctuate, or as other coping mechanisms and support networks form, and as adults can be less openly judgemental than teens and more mature in their understanding of mental health, some of those teens may have moved away from Goth. Some of them, like me, may have fallen in love with dark side, and stayed for good! Anyway, to better understand the relation of Goth and depression, it would probably be interesting to see whether those who identified as Goth as teens still did as adults, and how rates of depression continued, including in relation to whether or not they later left the subculture. 

The third thing is that more detailed inquiry into the personal relationship for those who identified as Goth and were showing high indications of depression, was not further explored. I think this was a large enough statistical study as it was, and it would have been hard to transfer personal experience into statistical data when a lot of those relationships are probably not easily quantifiable. Personal testimony and explanation would need to be examined, and that is not a research task I'd have any clue as a person outside of the field, on how to conduct, but I imagine those who are researchers in psychology and anthropology would probably have suggestions (and I image that there are probably a few amongst my readers). One thing postulated at the end of the article in the lancet was whether Goth music would aggravate depression in Goths, but personally, I don't think that "Listening to repeated music from the goth genre might lower mood and exacerbate symptoms of depression" as the paper suggest rings true for Goths; it might work if that music is played to people who don't have a predisposition to liking it, but for most Goths I have met, listening to our music makes us happy; that's why we listen to it! Some find it a release, some find it a comfort in knowing they are not alone, some find it cathartic, but I have never come across a Goth who finds that it makes them feel worse.

I think it is an interesting study to have been done, and I am very happy with the fact that the researchers were clear to state that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUATE TO CAUSATION. Sadly, some of the newspapers and other media have ignored this fundamental point of logic, and some articles have been less than favourable. I am not going to link to those articles, because every page view is revenue for them. I will, however, link to this ::article:: in the Guardian written by Simon Price, who was Goth back in the '80s in London, and I think has had subcultural leanings ever since by what he said in the article. I would also like to commend the BBC on their coverage. They even interviewed one of my friends - Holly Weeping Willow; a Gothic model and someone who is professionally a Goth in other ways - for the radio, although I haven't got a link to that audio yet. Their articles on the subject have been more balanced and the main one can be read ::here::, with a more detailed personal account ::here::. While personal anecdotes can be the "enemy of good science" as Simon Price said in his article, I think it needs to be noticed that similar themes come up in nearly all of them, including my own, and it would indicate to me that perhaps "good science" ought to come in and explore those connections better with proper research. The Independent seems to have a reasonable and balanced article, but with a clickbait headline and that is ::here::.

My main concern is that people will use these findings to target Goths as potentially mentally ill, that it will fuel stigmas that we are all 'crazy' or depressed. That is not the fault of the researchers, who seem keen to avoid this, but of the way some people will use this data for their own agenda. I can't say that I don't have my own protective bias towards the Goth community, because I certainly do (the community has protected me, and I feel duty bound to reciprocate), but I am at least aware of that, and open about it, which is more than I can say for those with a bias against Goth who report in a sensationalist manner about it. 

The Motive Behind The Frills

It all started with a question common to many Goths: "Why are you dressed like that?"

That question got me thinking. My stock reply is "because I like it" which is true, but doesn't really go into why I like it and why I chose that sort of fashion in the first place. Usually, when I get asked "why are you dressed like that?" it is when I am wearing one of the more ostentatious and flamboyant variations of Goth fashion, and that got me thinking about why it is that I dress that way. Of course, this is only my personal reasoning and I am sure other Goths (and Lolitas and New Romantics, etc.) have their own reasoning - this is something I'd really love to hear about, actually, so if you have blogged/written about this, please link me to it in the comments, or if this post inspires you to write about why you have chosen your fashion, please have a go and send me a link to the results! 

The picture below is about a year old, but it pretty aptly describes how I often dress. I feel it is important to mention this is by no means how I always dress, though, as I alternate between opulence and practicality depending on mood and task, and that it is important to reinforce that however I am dressed, I am the same person as the clothes are just a shell; they cannot change who I am. (This sentiment is further explored in ::this:: post from last year.)

Photograph by Raven of Chance Photography
(see link in side bar for his website)

It is an outfit channeling an anachronistic aristocratic aesthetic, with ruffles, petticoats, flock and tulle - white stockings echoing the silk stockings of 18th C. gentlemen and my loose flowing silver wig that is simultaneously a nod to the far more ornate up-do wigs of that same century and the very modern platinum blonde hair-pieces/wigs of Lady GaGa. I have decorative corset lacing, and petticoats on a short skirt, and a cane that only occasionally gets used to prop me vertical. It's a nod to the past, but it is also very modern, and very much a playful mix-up of anachronistic elements, many of which are from very different time periods. It fits the mainstream of no period or culture, not even the British present, and yet sits quite well within the broad category of "Romantic Goth". 

In terms of anachronism, I think my clothes aptly describe me in visual form; on the one hand many of my hobbies and skills (such as playing the piano, singing, embroidery, drawing and speaking French) would be considered suitable "accomplishments" for one of the female characters of a Jane Austen characters, but I also associate myself with a Romantic attitude to life, and am equally inspired by the works of Keats, Wordsworth and Clare as I am by the much later works of the Rosettis, Holman-Hunt, Millais and Morris, and to add to that mix that I am very much a modern woman; a Feminist, a believer that I am equal to my male counterparts and that my role in life is that which I choose, not one to be arbitrarily assigned to me on the basis of my sex, and certainly not demure, let alone submissive, and when it comes to sex and sexuality, I'm relatively liberal even by modern standards. My political views may have their roots in the workers' movements of times past, but they address contemporary issues. I have roots in many times, but belong to none, not even conforming to my own present. 

Certainly I dress to reflect my personality, but there's more to it than anachronism. Many of the clothes I wear are seen by society as decidedly feminine in a modern context (even when frilly shirts, wigs, make-up and even heeled shoes were often associated with men in past times), but a lot of my interests, and even a lot of how I think, is seen as tomboyish, and my practical wardrobe involves a bit of cross-dressing as I buy my combat trousers and boots from the men's section, and many of my more traditional Goth accessories such as spiked bracelets are pretty un-gendered. Fashion is my only traditionally feminine interest, and often my clothes are seen as a stark contrast to my personality. 

My practical wardrobe seems to suit a lot of my personality; I'm often seen  stomping about in New Rocks and army boots, hair cut short, spikes on my wrists, combats (cargo pants, to Americans) with their pockets stuffed full of useful bits and bobs, wooly fingerless gloves to keep my hands warm, and turtleneck jumper to keep the rest warm - things that are practical rather than feminine, snug rather than sexy, and with enough pockets to keep all my possessions safe. Certainly, clothes like that suit my lifestyle; throughout the winter I wear a men's coat, an endless supply of neat "office" trousers, and some silver New Rocks that look like studded Dr. Martens to work and most of the rest  of the time. 

I guess the frills are a partly an escape; there is so little room in my working life and practical life for things that can easily get caught, torn, damaged or simply get in the way, so wearing frills on the occasions when I have time to myself helps delineate that time as my own and gives me an opportunity to indulge in all the sorts of clothes that most of the time would just be a hinderance, and I guess that part of the reason I am SO fancy is that it is a reaction to just how plainly practical I am the rest of the time; some of it is a feeling of making up for lost time by trying to cram as much ostentatious fashion as possible into the tine where I can wear it.

On an aesthetic level, I love things with ornate patterns, interesting textures and lots of attention to detail - this shows in my love of everything from Gothic architecture to the Arts and Crafts movement and William Morris creations - it is unsurprising that if given the opportunity, I will apply that sort of aesthetic to myself. I choose richly textured fabrics like velvet, flocked fabrics, lace and chiffon, and intricate damascene and baroque patterns; I layer and contrast pieces and accessories to build up what is quite a complex arrangement by the time I am finished, but the monochrome colour-scheme of almost all black allows me to have great complexity without it becoming visually busy. 

I also love things that relate to the macabre and various horror archetypes (one of the many reasons why I'm part of the Goth subculture) so, again, it is unsurprising that I choose to apply that to my fashion choices - I consciously draw inspiration from the aesthetic of the evil witches, vampires, dark queens and spooky women of horror and fantasy - I never directly copy, though, as that would not be a representation of me, but a form of cosplay. I am not dressing up, I am just mining the aesthetic and its symbolism. All of the characters that draw me in are complex, dark and powerful, and I think the Gothic has a rich supply of interesting and powerful women, both in Gothic literature and fantasy and in the subculture itself - it's a subculture that draws in a lot of strong women. The Gothic allows for an aesthetic that is feminine yet powerful within the constraints of modern western society. 

I accept that there's something inherently a bit pretentious in dressing like something from a vampire movie, but it is not a case of pretending to be anyone (or anything) other than who I am. It is very much a reflection of who I am in a more genuine sense than any mundane clothes clothes could ever be because mundane clothes just do not reflect my personality, aesthetic, or connection to the Gothic subculture and my many historical influences. Yes, it sets me apart visually from the mainstream, but as so much of interests and way of viewing the world diverge from the mainstream anyway, at least this way I am visible to those who share at least an aesthetic with me. In some ways, as looking weird means that when people notice that I am eccentric it is accepted as what is expected form someone that looks like me rather than being more jarring and unnerving when it comes from someone that looks relatively normal. 

An interesting question would be "How do you feel when dressed like that?"

When I am clad in my ruffles and lace, I feel confident. My tightly-bound corsets feel like armour in the face of life. I feel powerful, I feel beautiful, I feel like I can take on the world. I feel like I am dressed like a queen or, on the fanciest days, an empress and can carry that feeling of regality with me into the world. It's not a secondary persona, but it is an extra boost when facing a world that can often seem hostile; after all, even the most fearsome warrior maiden does not begrudge good armour.

A lot of newer Goth and newer Lolitas struggle with garnering the confidence to be seen in public in such obviously different clothes, and plenty of bloggers have addressed the issue of gaining that confidence (including myself ::here::). This leads me to believe that the common assumption that Goths (and other visibly alternative folk) dress for attention is in most cases false. We accept that being different means we will get attention, but for many of us this is something we struggle with, not welcome. I personally feel much happier in the company of lots more equally fancy and alternative people than I do standing out from the crowd, even if I feel quite a bit more confident for my attire. If I had to be obviously different in clothes that didn't make me feel like my Romantic Goth attire does, I would be incredibly self-conscious, more than a little embarrassed and probably hide. 

As dressing the way I do is my just my clothes, rather than a costume, I feel pretty natural and comfortable in even very unusual clothes, to the point where I sometimes forget what it must be like coming across me at what seems like random for somebody that is not part of the subculture at all and has very little contact with such eccentric looking people, and so when I get many of the more direct responses I look at it with bemusement - such as when people stare or start asking lots of questions, complimenting me or want my photograph. I keep forgetting to them I look like I just walked out of a play or a convention and I am something of a curiosity. It makes me a bit uncomfortable - I'd often rather be left alone - but I accept that it will happen and try my best to answer questions politely and take compliments gracefully. 

✯♕✯

For those that are interested in what I am wearing in the photograph, this is the outfit rundown:

✯

Mini-hat: offbrand, from a fancy dress shop with cameo glued on by me;

Wig: offbrand from eBay ♛ Ruffled satin blouse: Zanzea ♛ High-waisted skirt: Banned, White stockings: offbrand ♛ Ruffled socks: Claire's ♛ Boots: Rogerson's, Gloves: Claire's ♛ Cane: offbrand, a gift!

✯

I bought the skirt by Banned from Kate's Gothic Clothing. Banned's sizes tend to run small, so their M was more like an S. The cane was a Christmas/Solstice present from Raven. I was wearing ruffled socks because I don't find the boots very comfortable on my calves without thick tights or socks, and those weren't very high denier. 

✯♕✯

Anyone with any comments, or their own discussion of why they wear what they do, I'd really like to hear from you, so please comment below. Thank-you!