"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to scents, cosmetics, and means of beautification such as these — rubbing powders into the body, massaging with oils, bathing in perfumed water, kneading the limbs, using mirrors, ointments, garlands, scents, creams, face-powders, mascara, bracelets, head-bands, decorated walking sticks, ornamented water-bottles, swords, fancy sunshades, decorated sandals, turbans, gems, yak-tail whisks, long-fringed white robes — he abstains from using scents, cosmetics, and means of beautification such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
I believe intention is the main thing to consider here. If you are wearing them, not as a means to beautify yourself, but to help with practice, then it seems to me that it is ok... If your intent is to wear just as costume, then that would be breaking the precept.
may all be well
Where do you get intention being a factor which makes it a moot issue?
as you are quoting the monastic practice you should be aware that intention does not always cancel out an action, and sometimes it isn't even a factor.
if you look at the actual rule from the vinaya
Cv.V.2.1 - my rendering wrote:For one who wears an ear ornaments, chains, necklaces, ornaments for the waist, ornamental girdles, armlets, bracelets, & finger rings should not be worn, An offence of wrongdoing
the wearing itself is the fault, and intention does not negate the matter.
and another rendering of the passage
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe20/sbe20017.htm wrote:1. Now at that time the Khabbaggiya Bhikkhus
used to wear ear-rings 1, and ear-drops 2, and strings of beads for the throat, and girdles of beads 3, and bangles 4, and necklaces 5, and bracelets, and rings.
The people murmured, &c. . . . . The Bhikkhus heard, &c. . . . . They told the, Blessed One (&c., as in II, 1, 1, down to) he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said:
'You are not, O Bhikkhus, to wear any of these things. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata.'
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill