Parks dress code?

[sam_gordon]

I disagree with tattling to a CM. Disney has guidelines and their employees should handle the situation according to protocol.

I agree. But you're assuming a CM "sees" the same thing you do. If they don't see it, there's nothing they can do about it. If it's not worth "tattling", then it must not be a big deal. Just my opinion of course.

 

[princesscinderella]

Not that it helps the situation any ...but it was the beans, not the frank.

This reminds me of the abs crunch machine where you lay back and put your legs into the at the gym I went to and some bad choices of the speedo shorts with the slits on the side. There was a security camera aimed that way too, I felt bad for whoever had to review the footage.

 

[cheryl.UK]

Youth. Kids do stupid stuff. Then they outgrow it, die, or end up in a low paying job. Such is life.

Actually in the UK the FCUK brand was and is very popular with all ages and quite expensive. The shirt in question was over $100 over 20 years ago. I know that we often see fake shirts and they can be quite garish but the originals are usually very smart and excellent quality. My husband is a major in the army

 

[TLSnell1981]

I agree. But you're assuming a CM "sees" the same thing you do. If they don't see it, there's nothing they can do about it. If it's not worth "tattling", then it must not be a big deal. Just my opinion of course.

Guidelines should suffice. It's not my job to train CMs or how to do it. Although too many are unwilling to stand up…too afraid of ending up on social media in a negative light. Have we really come to this? Is there zero common ground for decency in family venues? Anything that a string bikini or speedo doesn’t cover should be unacceptable for children…unless a breastfeeding mother. Just my opinion…

 

[The Mayor]

Oops

 

[TippyThomas]

United’s crew should have cleaned it up. With all the BS airlines are putting customers through these days with delays, cancelations, etc. they can clean up a few popcorn pieces.

Wrong thread.

 

[NotUrsula]

Actually in the UK the FCUK brand was and is very popular with all ages and quite expensive. The shirt in question was over $100 over 20 years ago. I know that we often see fake shirts and they can be quite garish but the originals are usually very smart and excellent quality. My husband is a major in the army

And the name is nonetheless a marketing gimmick; a way to make the brand seem clever, daring and edgy. If they didn't want the visual double-take shock value of those very visible initials plastered on the outside of the garment they would spell the whole name out every time or just drop the "UK" part, as British companies have traditionally held that British brands never really needed to be qualified as such.

Americans generally don't like their curse words written out in public places; we associate that with things like gang graffiti, so the gimmick really wouldn't work here in an expensive brand. Middle-class folks who could afford them wouldn't wear them in public, and the sort of people who have no issues with displaying profanities in the street would have no patience with the cutesieness of almost, but not quite, wearing that word across your chest. In a fashion-conscious context, the visible branding with that forced-looking acronym comes across as kind of juvenile here.

 

[nw6675]

What we are all seem to be forgetting is THIS is what Disney thinks people coming to the parks are wearing....

 

[AurumPunzel]

And the name is nonetheless a marketing gimmick; a way to make the brand seem clever, daring and edgy. If they didn't want the visual double-take shock value of those very visible initials plastered on the outside of the garment they would spell the whole name out every time or just drop the "UK" part, as British companies have traditionally held that British brands never really needed to be qualified as such.

Americans generally don't like their curse words written out in public places; we associate that with things like gang graffiti, so the gimmick really wouldn't work here in an expensive brand. Middle-class folks who could afford them wouldn't wear them in public, and the sort of people who have no issues with displaying profanities in the street would have no patience with the cutesieness of almost, but not quite, wearing that word across your chest. In a fashion-conscious context, the visible branding with that forced-looking acronym comes across as kind of juvenile here.

The acronym had origins in a correspondence between French Connection's Hong Kong division (FCHK) and French Connection UK (FCUK), back during the heyday of fax machines. A marketing executive who saw the correspondences decided to exploit the abbreviation, in a concerted effort to one-up Benetton and their infamous advertising campaigns that often featured hard-hitting imagery with the United Colors of Benetton logo on them.

The shock value really caught on, though in recent years, it has become toned down. Still, it has me wondering how they managed to get away with such an acronym, though understandably, places like Disney cracked down on those wearing FCUK with the acronym prominent.

 

[JLTraveling]

And the name is nonetheless a marketing gimmick; a way to make the brand seem clever, daring and edgy. If they didn't want the visual double-take shock value of those very visible initials plastered on the outside of the garment they would spell the whole name out every time or just drop the "UK" part, as British companies have traditionally held that British brands never really needed to be qualified as such.

Americans generally don't like their curse words written out in public places; we associate that with things like gang graffiti, so the gimmick really wouldn't work here in an expensive brand. Middle-class folks who could afford them wouldn't wear them in public, and the sort of people who have no issues with displaying profanities in the street would have no patience with the cutesieness of almost, but not quite, wearing that word across your chest. In a fashion-conscious context, the visible branding with that forced-looking acronym comes across as kind of juvenile here.

Not entirely true. In the early 2000s I did some remodeling work on the FCUK store in New Orleans. Not my cup of tea, as I never cared for the styles, but they were PACKED with shoppers every day I was in there. And around that same time period I saw lots and lots of their shirts on American tourists every day.

 

[Kestryl]

I can’t post it due to the content, but I have a photo from Disneyland Paris where a guy is wearing a shirt that says, “This is Boston, I don’t give a [F Word].” Except, obviously the actual word is there.

This was mid-day, too. And it wasn’t like the font was some creative thing that made it difficult to read.

Ah, DLP. The Wild West of Disney parks.

 

[gmi3804]

I can’t post it due to the content, but I have a photo from Disneyland Paris where a guy is wearing a shirt that says, “This is Boston, I don’t give a [F Word].” Except, obviously the actual word is there.

This was mid-day, too. And it wasn’t like the font was some creative thing that made it difficult to read.

Ah, DLP. The Wild West of Disney parks.

If you wore a shirt that had the word "merde" at WDW, only few would notice.

 

[MillauFr]

I can’t post it due to the content, but I have a photo from Disneyland Paris where a guy is wearing a shirt that says, “This is Boston, I don’t give a [F Word].” Except, obviously the actual word is there.

This was mid-day, too. And it wasn’t like the font was some creative thing that made it difficult to read.

Ah, DLP. The Wild West of Disney parks.

The French would never crack down when Americans are making fools of themselves.

 

[lockets]

I wish this thread had a simple survey on whether Disney should better enforce its dress code vs whether people are “offended” or “affected” by what others wear. Or whether someone’s individuality or religion are threatened by others’ choices.

I view that as three completely different topics.

Unless I’m misunderstanding and the topic is whether Disney should modify its dress code or do away with it altogether?

 

[GreatLakes]

I'm pretty sure the current dress code is "Cover the important bits and no offensive (swear words, leud pictures, etc) clothing along with no face covering costumes". Outside of that I just don't care. Wear what you want, it's your body. If I don't like it I'll look away and move on with my day.

 

[pindecisive]

Inclusivity means everyone can wear what they feel is appropriate to the park (within Disney's rules). What is not inclusive is a prudish guest telling others guests what they can and can't wear. Inclusivity does not mean everyone has to conform to what the more conservative guests want. You've got everything backwards.

100% agree.

We recently switched to wearing yoga fabric leggings and pants in the park (April/May 2023 DL), and they are amazing. They're breathable, they dry easily, and are so much more comfortable than my jeans and jean shorts ever were.

I had a thin yoga jacket I wore most of each day so unlike previous trips with shorts and a tee I was totally covered from neck to ankle. Beyond my face I didn't even have to wear sunscreen. I also made sure we had Features running socks and between the two of us, we had not a single blister.

Hands down it was the most comfortable DL trip we've ever had and these types of wicking/thin coverage fabrics didn't exist/weren't readily available 20 years ago.