Should it refer to a bit of haberdashery? Certainly. It may well to you or myself. Will it ever refer to a bit of haberdashery? Absolutely not. People, in general, have a need to understand their surroundings. The tendency seems to generally be towards organizing and categorizing stimuli to maintain a sense of "reality" that is acceptable to the individual. The "unknown" or "other" will thus evoke a sense of fear and confusion in many. This may well invoke a fight or flight reaction.
These days, to rebel from "normality" (tenuous as you correctly state it to be) seems to take pushing the envelope just a bit further. My sense is you are in a better position to judge the degree of derivation ie those seeking a reaction (contrived as it were).
You almost hit on a substance v. style question. Like any other person, symbolism will evoke intrigue in me. I will only sense whether there is actual meaning behind the symbols. I won't know. Unlike many, it doesn't frighten me.
Sinatra wore no bodily adornments. Sinatra evoked the same adoration and fear those covered in same may evoke in some today. The principle remains the same. It always will imo.
Danger, for me, cannot be contrived. I know it instantly. I have usually found the actually dangerous to be understated. They need not show it. You will feel it viscerally.
OEC (Understated but generally not dangerous ironically) BRMC = also irony. I think it is deliberate given how blatant the name is.
The Outlaw Haberdashery of Danger and The Wild One
