Annual Dress Like A Slut Day
When did Halloween become an excuse for women to dress like sluts?
I’m confused. Halloween used to be a time for dressing up in silly costumes and eating fun size Snickers bars until you barfed, but I’ve noticed over the past few years that acceptable Halloween costumes for women have changed from silly to slutty. Apparently, one may not dress up like a regular vampire with a long black cape and scary fake fangs bought at your local drugstore (or Target - which has an excellent selection of fake fangs) - you must dress up like a vampire with a tight bustier and fishnet stockings. Count Dracula would be pleased, I’m sure.
One of my female colleagues is chaperoning the annual students’ Halloween party this year and cannot decide on a costume. I suggested she dress up as a ghost or a pumpkin (which are easy costumes to put together), and I got laughed out of the office. As one of my male colleagues said - looking like a pumpkin is not attractive.
Since when did attractiveness become the deciding factor in choosing a costume? Is it a latent desire of every woman to look like Paris Hilton in a French maid outfit? What’s going on here? (spoken in my very best crotchety Andy Rooney voice).
I’m guessing you haven’t even seen the Anna Rexia costumes yet.
Comment by Joanne — October 16, 2007 @ 9:07 am
We move from the excesses of stuffing ourselves with sweets to eye candy.
Tell the guys that you’ll dress like Barbarella when they dress like a realistic Conan (not the wimpy talk show host).
I’ll be putting on my puppy ears and tail again this year. It may not be clever or provocative, but I’ll be able to show my face on Thursday morning.
Comment by Floyd the Wonderdog — October 16, 2007 @ 9:24 am
When I was in college, I got together with a bunch of friends and we all dressed up as dalmations in the 101 Dalmatians. Times have changed…
Those Anna Rexia costumes are lame.
Comment by ECS — October 16, 2007 @ 9:31 am
The NY Times (IIRC) had an article about this last year, decrying the same sluttification of Halloween, and for younger and younger girls. My (2-year-old) daughter will, of course, be the cutest cowgirl in borrowed red boots you’ve ever seen, without a trace at all of sexualization. And my small, white, fluffy dog will be her horse.
Comment by Sam B. — October 16, 2007 @ 9:33 am
I totally agree with you, yuck, but am I the only woman who both appreciates modesty and really really hates the word “slut”?
It is a pejorative and prostitutes are people, too, just sad, entrapped people. I think it is like calling women “bitches.”
Comment by Vg — October 16, 2007 @ 9:36 am
My Daughter is going as Supergirl. (It’s appropriate for a 4 year old, and not slutty). I think the fact is that people who dress up on Holloween are either
1. Children going trick or treating (this market is not slutty)
2. Adults going to parties (this market is slut laden)
The fact is that the majority of people who buy adult halloween costumes want something risque. So the producers of costumes produce more of what sells, hoping to sell more.
What’s interesting is on the men’s side, the most popular costumes are all pirate based.
So all the girls try to look like centerfolds and all the guys try to look like Johnny Depp.
Comment by Matt W. — October 16, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Did you miss the last couple of decades? Goth kids have been wearing tight bustiers and fishnet stockings for fun since, like, forever, or maybe the 80s.
OK, maybe goth fashion is just now going mainstream, in which case I blame television.
Comment by Peter LLC — October 16, 2007 @ 9:46 am
ECS,
I agree. What ever happened to like the cute bunny?
Comment by Guy Murray — October 16, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Well, I hate the cheaply-made, overpriced, plastic-ish costumes anyway. Plus, as you say, most of the women’s costumes are bascially the same style, just differently themed. (And have you seen the “couple” costumes? plug&socket? lock&key? literally??) So I troll the thrift stores to come up with inspiration. I also have little use for police costumes or angels–this is Halloween–so I go for witches, scarecrows, pumpkins (won an award for that one, btw), gypsies, and the like. My sister found an old wedding dress and used that for a Dead Bride costume. If you’re feeling, ah, homemakey, you could go to the fabric store and get inspiration or the makings of a costume there–they’ve got a lot more modest ideas. Or try some alternative outlets online. My dead bride sister recently found a “dark fairy” costume that needs an extra skirt, but otherwise will be great.
Another place you can look is local costume closets. Most of their stuff is rental only, but they usually have a pretty good selection of non-slutty stuff. They often buy costumes of local theatre productions, so really great period or character pieces.
A little googling found me this,
this (which has its fair share of sexy costumes, but has some great adult stuff, including the Evil Queen from Snow White (all covered up!), and this (costume ideas).
Comment by Artemis — October 16, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Unfortunately, it was a slightly immodest halloween costume that caught my (future) husbands’ eye at USU’s halloween howl. My sister and my mom thought I looked cute as a genie with flowing harem pants, a bare midriff and bejeweled flip-flops.
I don’t know if my recent rm husband would have ever singled me out as an interest without that costume. He didn’t talk to me that night, but continued to refer to me as “genie” to his friends until he finally got brave enough to talk to me. The sad irony is that I would probably throw a fit if my thirteen-yr-old wanted to wear that… then again, I was in college…
Comment by sofia — October 16, 2007 @ 10:02 am
sofia - I think you articulated the reason why women dress up like that. No one paid any attention to me at the Halloween Howl when I was dressed up like a dog
So, I guess Halloween is fair game for normally modest women to strut their stuff.
Artemis - thanks for the great suggestions for costumes!
Comment by ECS — October 16, 2007 @ 10:05 am
You are giving me Mean Girls flashbacks.
Comment by Sue — October 16, 2007 @ 10:08 am
ECS– this may be a disgusting trend, but it’s far from new. I remember that at my 7th grade school halloween party (held in the evening) every girl except me and my sis was dressed like a prostitute. I asked one of the girls why they all dressed like that and she told me it was so the boys could see how hot they were becoming and that they didn’t, in fact, look like boys anymore.
I think I was Raggedy Ann. And I didn’t know what prostitutes did for living. But hey, if you’re going to dress up as the personification of your worst fear, dressing as a low-class corner walker would do the trick for any girl who actually knows what cultural bunch of baggage she’s tapped into. (Dressing as a call girl might make one indistinguishable from a business woman, after all).
Comment by Janet — October 16, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Twenty years ago, I dressed up as a witch in diaphanous black material, fishnet stockings, and bright red lipstick. I was eleven, and I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Women dress like that because it gets male attention, and on Halloween you can do it and pretend it’s not really you dressing like that to get attention.
For puberty and up, I don’t really mind, because it is Halloween. Is dressing a little flashy actually worse than emulating a blood-sucking monster? That it is saved for Halloween acknowledges that it isn’t normal, and it makes Halloween an outlet for fun and safe adventure.
Comment by Katie P. — October 16, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Yeah - “The Apprentice” pretty much bears that theory out. I can’t believe girls were dressing that way in 7th grade, though. That’s so young! I think I dressed up as Michael Jackson that year.
Comment by ECS — October 16, 2007 @ 10:29 am
At this point, the slutty costumes are such a cliche that I’d be way more likely to hit on a girl dressed as, say, a killer robot than another nurse or vampiress.
Oh, who am I kidding? I’d be way more likely to hit on a girl dressed as a killer robot any time.
DISCLAIMER: Sorry killer robot ladies! I’m taken.
Comment by Miles — October 16, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Halloween has essentially be reclaimed by adults as a holiday for them, rather than for children. It was only inevitable that the social mores of American adults and full-scale commercialization would be imposed on the holiday. Most of those costumes are pretty tasteless, but so is a lot of what people wear the rest of the year. I think it just comes out in full force on Halloween.
Comment by Peter — October 16, 2007 @ 10:32 am
It really is amazing to peruse the adult costumes at a party store. The women’s costumes all look like they belong in a strip club.
The only one I could find last year that wasn’t slutty was a nun costume. So my husband dressed as a priest, and I was a nun—a pregnant nun.
And I won best adult costume! haha
Comment by Susan M — October 16, 2007 @ 10:38 am
I’ve gotten really into the historical or theatrical costume patterns. I’ve made my daughter into “Eowyn” from LOTR and a egyptian princess (actually turned out looking more Roman). I don’t dress up anymore, but I have to say there’s a little part of me that wants to slave over the sewing machine for days and make a green velvet Scarlet O’Hara costume…
Comment by sofia — October 16, 2007 @ 10:55 am
I first noticed this trend last year while driving around the college town I live in. It looked like one of those Axe bodywash commercials with sexy pirates, barmaids, and witches descending out of their dorms. It was so surreal.
What happened to fun and interesting Halloween costumes? When I was little, my mother decided that each year I would be an interesting woman from history. One year I was Helen of Troy, the next I was Emmeline Pankhurst, chains and all.
Comment by mraynes — October 16, 2007 @ 10:55 am
So did anyone get the Emmeline Pankhurst costume? ‘Cause I don’t know who that is.
I am trying to figure out a costume I can wear to the stake EQ social on the 27th, the stake youth Halloween party on the 30th and trunk-or-treat with my kids on the 31st. Killer robot is winning so far. My 6 and 8 year old boys would think I was the coolest mom ever, which is way more important than looking sexy at this point.
My best cute but not immodest costume was sort of a beatnik cat - black turtleneck and jeans, little black ears and tail, eyeliner-drawn whiskers.
I still think though that Halloween is the most pointless holiday ever. At least when you do all that work on Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter and Independence Day, you get to teach your kids something important while you have their attention.
Gripe, gripe, gripe.
Comment by Ana — October 16, 2007 @ 11:01 am
i don’t care what you guys say, I’m going as this…one
my DH will love it!
Comment by mfranti — October 16, 2007 @ 11:01 am
OK, stupid newbie question-
What is the meaning of DH (I understand it to be your husband)
Here are some possible translations I came up with…
designated hitter
dear hubby
doodoo head
dunder head
Comment by sofia — October 16, 2007 @ 11:07 am
For Halloween last year, I taped smarties candies on my pants–I was SMARTY PANTS ! Bwah ha ha ha ha!!!
Comment by janescott — October 16, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Exactly, mfranti - women dress that way because it works and getting attention is fun.
My favorite Halloween costume was the year I went as an art painting. I got old black jeans and a black t-shirt and painted them with acrylics, and then sewed a picture frame onto a big floppy hat. It was great.
Comment by Katie P. — October 16, 2007 @ 11:10 am
doodoo head–pretty funny. but dear hubby works.
Comment by mfranti — October 16, 2007 @ 11:10 am
I this the provocative dressing for Halloween has been around for a long time and it has always annoyed me and made me kinda sad.
I aways try to go for funny and unique. Last year I made PacMan Ghost costumes out of cardboard boxes for me and my hubby. Hmm…I’ve always wanted to be a killer robot, maybe we’ll be robots next year…
Comment by tesseract — October 16, 2007 @ 11:18 am
oops, heres the link: PacMan Ghost costumes
Comment by tesseract — October 16, 2007 @ 11:20 am
i started out thinking that the “lolita” costume was a little over the top (hence the link) but now I’m thinking that my husband would love love LOVE it if i wore something sexy like that. everything most of us wear is defined by our garments so a halloween gives us a reason to dress in a way that we couldn’t otherwise, In a way that might let our spouses see us in a way they on fantasize about (mine told me this)
i dunno. I’m just jotting ideas down here. you guys can take me to task and set me straight with some GA quotes and scriptures if you want
ECS,
don’t get me wrong I see your point and I am inclined to agree but I am also seeing why women want to dress up as the sexy princesses too.
_sigh_ I’m torn
Comment by mfranti — October 16, 2007 @ 11:22 am
shoot me now. last time. PacMan Ghost Costumes
Comment by tesseract — October 16, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Interesting post, E. I guess everyone is really just dressing as a Disney character. Some are lady, and some are the tramp.
But seriously. I liked your post a lot. It highlights a real area of concern. However, I think there is a flip side, too.
On the one hand, there are many potential concerns if women’s Halloween costumes are all provocative runs into all sorts of problems. Women are reducing themselves to mere bodies on display, encouraging men to notice them for their body alone, and so on. (And why are the provocative costumes overwhelmingly female, anyway?)
On the other hand, there are potential problems with too-harsh condemnation of that trend, too. Language like slut and prostitute has been used (usually by men) to control womens’ sexuality, for millenia — to repress female sexuality, to limit its expression to particular (male-dominated) spheres, and to ostracize and exclude women who dare attempt to act differently. I appreciate the concerns, but I also wouldn’t want the pendulum to swing too far the other way. When do reasonable concerns morph into the burka police? (Cf. Melanie and Katie’s comments about reasons women would want to dress sexily).
How to navigate that particular Scylla and Charybdis? Hmm. Is a compromise possible?
Women should not feel pressure either way. A woman shouldn’t feel like she _has_ to dress like a Barbie Doll or else she’ll be the laughingstock of the party. She should feel free to express herself as a pumpkin or a ghost, not necessarily as Elvira the Sexy Vampire.
On the other hand, if she _wants_ to dress as Elvira, she should be able to do so, in appropriate settings (probably not the workplace or church dance, true), and without being told that she’s a slut for her particular choice.
How’s that for a compromise?
Comment by Kaimi — October 16, 2007 @ 11:34 am
I think most women would agree they are dressing like sluts - that’s the whole point!!
But you’re right, there’s a difference between dressing “sexy” and “slutty”. You know it when you see it
No kidding.
Comment by ECS — October 16, 2007 @ 11:40 am
we just celebrated our anniversary and as part of my husband’s gift, i spent hours in lingerie stores, looking for something specific. (this year’s traditional gift was silverwear, so i was looking for something silver to wear, difficult since it’s fall and silver comes out in winter.) aaanyway, i was shocked at the groups of young girls who were in the lingerie stores, looking for costumes for parties. it was really sad. mfranti, along the lines of your comment, i have no problem wearing that stuff within the privacy of my marriage, but neither myself nor my husband would be comfortable with me wearing it out in public.
Comment by makakona — October 16, 2007 @ 11:43 am
I was a “stepford wife” at a ward party once. It’s easy to pull together. A pastel a-line skirt, twin sweater set, pearls, perfect hair and make-up, high-heels and a broom or duster. The funny thing is they have a hard time getting me to wear a skirt to the RS broadcast, or other RS functions, but Halloween hits and I’m all girlie.
Comment by sofia — October 16, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Thanks for articulating that Kaimi. I was worried about the same thing.
Of course, on the one hand, women have supposedly won the right to not be exploited, on the other hand we’ve earned the right to exploit ourselves. Maybe I’m a little cynical today.
Comment by Lessie — October 16, 2007 @ 11:43 am
By the way, one fun costume that I did last year: I was a music pirate. Pirate costume, with a bunch of compact disks strung on a sash. It worked pretty well, I think. (I’ve got a few pictures around here somewhere). Lots of folks looked at it, puzzled at first, saying, “pirate . . . music . . .” and then “oh, I get it.”
I wore it to class, and the students seemed to like it.
My costume this year is a secret (and isn’t at all provocative, by the way). Hopefully, it will get some of the same reactions.
Comment by Kaimi — October 16, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Well, I think most of it has been said. To answer Elisabeth’s question, I think Halloween has been an excuse to dress immodestly for decades. I remember it from when I was a teenager, years and years ago. I probably would have succumbed to the temptation myself, wanting to attract someone to notice me, but I felt I didn’t have a hot enough bod. So I pushed the envelope in other ways, e.g., going as a 1950’s drunk wife at a cocktail party holding my cigarette and martini glass all night. It was certainly living out the fantasy of being someone you’re not, but I didn’t feel embarrassed or trampy about it.
And that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Women use Halloween to live out their own fantasies, or (dare I say it), the real or imagined fantasies of someone they want to a) attract, or b) hang on to.
This year I’m planning on going as a (sigh), pilgrim.
Comment by meems — October 16, 2007 @ 11:53 am
My favorite costume is the opposite of the slut persona. My pig costume was a pair of long-johns with the button-drop back, which I dyed pink. I hot-glued 2 rows of rubber baby bottle nipples down the front and attached a curled pink pipe cleaner for the tail. I made some felt pig ears and attached them to hair combs and had a pig snout. I added some padding. It always got a big laugh and has the bonus of being much more comfortable than a slut costume. Plus — you’re in character chowing down at the party.
Comment by CAW — October 16, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Lol, meems. That’s awesome that you put write those two sentences, back to back.
So, um, I guess your guy has a thing for those prim-and-proper Mayflower girls?
Comment by Kaimi — October 16, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Haha! Oh yeah, Kaimi! I originally was thinking of being a 1940’s style nurse (very demure), and just at the words “nurse” my husband had a mild heart attack. I don’t think he wants me fuelling anyone’s naughty fantasies… as IF!
Uh, I also am a teacher and will be walking around the yard in the parade with my class. That could have something to do with my choice of costume.
Comment by meems — October 16, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
My last year being single I dressed as a sexy ladybug (short red sleeveless dress with polka dots, wings and fishnets). I used to be heavier and that was the first year I had the body to wear one of the risque costumes. It wasn’t necessarily for a man’s attention, but because I was proud of all my hard work.
BUT speaking of the men…they take the holiday to show off their bodies too. Batman costumes with washboard abs, BamBam without his shirt on along with Tarzan, etc. Some of them are just as flashy as ours.
Comment by EKD — October 16, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
“Dressing as a call girl might make one indistinguishable from a business woman, after all.”
I can’t figure out what this comment means. I’m pretty sure it isn’t meant to imply business women dress like call girls but I can’t tease the meaning out of it. Can you clarify?
Comment by Mathew — October 16, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
and re: 21 (did i miss the answer?), parkhurst was a famous (the most famous?) suffragette. she’s the one they sing about in “mary poppins.” “take heart for mrs. parkhurst has been clapped in irons again!”
Comment by makakona — October 16, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
I would love a huge list of alternatives. I am completely stumped this year, and since I’ll be 4 months pregnant when Halloween arrives, I don’t fit into any of my old costumes. I’m loving the ideas already listed. More Please!
Comment by reese — October 16, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
I wanted to add a couple of thoughts:
1. Halloween is a holiday where one explores/confronts badness in oneself and in society. Stereotypically speaking, bad girls are sexual and sexually provocative. (Plus they get attention.) So, Halloween costumes for women = “bad” (slutty) girl outfits.
2. #1 is just a reinforcement of the idea that men’s sexuality/prowess is admirable and women’s sexuality/prowess is malignable. Somebody mentioned the trend of trying to control women’s sexuality. Not only can women act out their “bad” side by wearing sexual costumes, they can either exploit/objectify themselves or they can allow others to do it for them.
3. Being sexually exploitable/objectifiable is ultimately the passive, less-powerful side of the equation, mirrored by men’s powerful, active “badness” and/or popular costumes (action heroes, sword-wielding, power/control oriented, etc.). Even the Cassanova costume I saw was not sexually exploitive of men, but reflected the value of being a womanizer.
4. Despite the above, I think women should feel empowered to be sexual (w/o being exploited) and of course everyone wants to be attractive. So….
5. Halloween is a good, useful holiday!! One of my favorites! I even did a post on it.
6. I’m not sure that adults have stolen Halloween from the kids. (And I know the word was “reclaimed”, which I agree with, but the context seemed to suggest “stolen”. My take, anyway.) I mean, much of the history of the holiday was much more adult-oriented than kid-oriented, and while there are some unfortunate aspects to the modern adult interpretation of it, including the sexual suggestiveness that manifests itself in itty-bitty-kiddy costumes, it’s really one of the few times we adults dress up anymore. They used to have costume parties and masquerades, and these are just not common anymore, outside of the Halloween season. At least, not in my experience. And I think it’s healthy to have a time to take on another persona, “act out your fantasies”, or whatever.
Comment by Artemis — October 16, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
I didn’t get to read everyone’s comments for lack of time, but I had to add something here.
I was at the Halloween superstore place the other day, and saw the typical skankfest of costumes on the adult women’s wall. I was not surprised in the slightest.
HOWEVER, when I looked at the young girl’s wall, and saw a wall of costumes called “Wicked Innocence”, where the package-front pictures showed young girls dressed in corset tops, bustiers, short skirts, fishnet stalkings, and seriously platform stripper heels, I became seriously pissed off and left.
They’re little girls!!!! I used to dress up as things like Rainbow Bright, a ninja, or a little mermaid costume my mom made. And every year, I looked like a little girl, just like I was supposed to.
Halloween is now more than ever the pedophile’s holiday.
Comment by Jessica — October 16, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
If you need fun but easy Halloween costume ideas, Sarah’s compiled a bunch of creative ones here:
http://hollywoodflakes.blogspot.com/2007/09/creative-halloween-costume-ideas.html
Comment by Susan M — October 16, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
re: 42 The comment is meant to reflect that there is a difference between a ’street walker’ and a ‘call girl’. While they both are prostitutes, they engage a different clientèle, have different price structures, and dress very, very different. The comment is making the argument (which I can neither confirm nor refute) that the average person could not distinguish a normal attractive business woman going about her day from a call girl on her way to an appointment
I think…
Comment by Lon — October 16, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
I think this is a very interesting point; Halloween has become a holiday for us to exhibit the very worst that either gender has to offer. My brother-in-law told me that the red m&m costume I made for my son wasn’t gender appropriate; my son is 8 months old! When should I start teaching him that it is appropriate to become lecherous and abusive one day of the year?
Comment by mraynes — October 16, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
“Language like slut and prostitute has been used (usually by men) to control womens’ sexuality, for millenia — to repress female sexuality, to limit its expression to particular (male-dominated) spheres, and to ostracize and exclude women who dare attempt to act differently.”
I would change that to usually by women. It seems that women enforce said norms more than men do - after all, men may not respect prostitutes but those men that patronize them aren’t going to try and shame them into seeking another profession.
Comment by anon86 — October 16, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
A month or so ago, my son and his friends were asking me what I was going to be for Halloween. I teasingly said, “Bellatrix Lestrange.” (From Harry Potter) As I thought about it, I decided maybe it would be fun to dress up like her. So the other day I went online to get a clearer idea of what she looked like. Well, just like some of you have already mentioned—black bustier, ripped black clothing, etc. She kind of has the sexy, vampire, crazy look going on. It actually looked like fun, but then I started imagining myself at the ward Trunk or Treat and figured I probably shouldn’t dress that sexy/slutty/evil (whatever the correct adjective is) for a Church party. I wonder if that totally makes me a hypocrite because I might be tempted to wear that to a different Halloween function, just not Church or the elementary school, for that matter.
I have to admit that I’ve been one of those women who likes to dress in a suggestive costume sometimes. I think for me it’s more because Halloween is a time to be the opposite of what you are the other 364 days a year. It’s an excuse to do something a little bad when you feel an overwhelming pressure to be good all the rest of the time. Maybe a little like those people who party of Fat Tuesday, right before Lent hits.
However, when it comes to little girls and teenagers then I feel quite the opposite–they should never be dressing naughty or suggestively.
Wow–am I full of discrepancies or what??!?!
Comment by ErinG — October 16, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
My wife Sandra still talks about an LDS family attending a ward Hallowe’en party some 22+ years ago (before she and I were married). The numerous kids all came in piglet [baby pig, not Winnie-ther-Pooh] costumes; the mom came as the mother pig, complete with two rows of nipples going all the way down the costume.
Sandra thought it was hilarious and quite gutsy. ..bruce..
Comment by bfwebster — October 16, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
I’ve enjoyed reading the comments. It seems to me that Halloween approaches Brazil’s Carnival or New Orlean’s MardiGra. Why do we persist is perpetuating this tradition?
Comment by MaBell — October 16, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
“Why do we persist in perpetuating this tradition?”
I think it and those other festivals you mentioned clearly fill a need or desire we have to be someone else, just for a day.
I think that’s okay.
Comment by Katie P. — October 16, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
If any one is interested, I actually did a Squidoo lens on Halloween costumes that are fun but don’t let it all hang out:
http://www.squidoo.com/femalecostumes/
Comment by Lizthefair — October 16, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
ok, I lied.
I’m going as this one
Comment by mfranti — October 16, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
really…
Comment by mfranti — October 16, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Women can’t dress like sluts. Whatever a woman (or girl) chooses to wear has nothing to do with their sexual preferences. Any kind of immoral thoughts or behaviors that a woman’s dress inspires in a man is totally his fault.
The fact that you would label a woman a a slut simply by what she is wearing is the most sexist thing I have ever heard.
Thats what I learned on this blog a few months ago at least.
Comment by Anon — October 16, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Anon, I’m glad you’ve been paying attention!
I don’t dress up for Halloween but if I did, I think I’d dress up like Paris Hilton - paint a box to look like a Hilton hotel and put an Eiffel Tower hat on top . . .
Comment by Quimby — October 16, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
You must have gotten the junk mail, too. My wife just last night handed me the advertissements for Halloween to show me the slutty costumes that were now offered for women. Apparently we weren’t the only ones noticing the trend.
Comment by LDS Anarchist — October 16, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
I tried to find a costume last year. A nun? Nope, just “hot nun”. Red Riding Hood? No, just “sexy red riding hood”. If some women want to dress like sluts, go for it. But can’t there be options for those os us that want to cover more than just our nipples?
Comment by Nina — October 16, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
When did it become okay for us to give power to the concept of “slut” by tossing the term around so loosely? Are we still caught up in some kinda madonna/whore dichotomy? Really? Here’s how I explain it to 6th grade girls: women ought to be able to make different choices about how to dress, about how many boyfriends they have, and about how to be happy, without other women calling them names and deciding that they’re bad people. We can make different choices and still all be “good” women. Geez.
Comment by Amy — October 16, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
“Any kind of immoral thoughts or behaviors that a woman’s dress inspires in a man is totally his fault.”
This is true but would be much easier if women didn’t flaunt it.
I like this one here
Comment by Peter — October 16, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
I agree that the problem is what we’re modeling for the younger girls. If they’re seeing mom or older sis go out as hot vampire chick/hooker nurse/French maid, then yeah, that will likely seem acceptable and desirable.
Also, what’s up with the marketing of super violent/freaky costumes to males?
I’m all for having fun but still can’t fathom what is entertaining about dressing immodestly in public. Being cool with your sexuality doesn’t mean you have to dress like a prostitute.
Wow, guess I need to look for a prude costume. Should be cheap!
Comment by Lupita — October 16, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Still there’s got to be a balance between this and this. I’m hoping to find time in the next week to build my own costume.
( PS. No running off with my idea!
)
Comment by Janell the Great — October 16, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Also, for me at least, there’s a huge difference between showing skin cause your comfortable with your body and being dressed like a prostitute. The cut of the clothes and the way it accents/doesn’t accent can make a difference–or at least it can to me. For example, I watched a movie the other night where the female characters both frequently wore sleeveless blouses. One woman’s blouses I didn’t even notice as being sleeveless until about half way through. The other woman’s clothes were obviously provocative, however, and were somewhat disturbing (although comical as well considering the context of the character).
Comment by Lessie — October 16, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Amen Janell!
Comment by Lessie — October 16, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
Sorry that I only skimmed earlier comments; this has probably been mentioned already. I’m disturbed by the whole “Halloween=opportunity to bare all” trend too. I went shopping with a high school friend a couple of weeks ago for costume accessories. I was recycling a bridesmaid dress (two weddings this summer=lots of money spent on expensive clothes=wanting to get mileage out of them) and dressing as a “bridesmaid Barbie” (my dress was hot pink) and she was going for a mime costume. We were really surprised at what we saw: so many costumes that hardly deserved to be called costumes before they looked more like The Emperor’s New Clothes than any sort of outfit.
This thread also made me think of a singles ward Halloween party I went to my sophomore year of college. Apparently a lot of YSA around here embrace the “Halloween=free pass for immodesty” trend. I saw both men and women in domanatrix/S&M getups…lots of cleavage…shorts barely past the butt…and there I was sweating to death in my high school marching band uniform (I went as a band geek) thinking, “did I miss something?” Granted, this was a party at a ward member’s house and not the official ward-sponsored dance, but still. It was weird.
Comment by Phoenix — October 16, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Matt (re #42): sorry, I’ve been gone all day and couldn’t get back to the blog! Lon got it right: I was presenting a sartorial difference between corner prostitutes and high-price call girls. The latter do not, necessarily, dress any more provocatively than does a woman in a tailored suit. Call girls are supposed to be able to accompany men of stature to events of stature. Thus, a high-priced escort wouldn’t necessarily “look the part.” [Although I’ve certainly seen a good share of women’s “business apparel” that looks more fitting for the red light district, which I fear is a nasty side of ‘lipstick feminism’ by which women manipulate the male sexual response to get their way at work. Bleargh.]
I’m not a guy and can’t speak to the male sexual response, but I’d think leaving something up to the imagination would indeed be a turn on. Those 1940s style business suits women used to wear with the wasp waists and the peplums, with high heels and back-seamed pantyhose? I wore a vintage outfit like that to an academic conference once–not thinking that it was “sexy” but rather a fun-but-professional deviation from the ubiquitous slacks and colored cotton blouse–and have never had so many men hit on me in my life. Huh.
Anyhow, I didn’t mean any offense to business women.
Comment by Janet — October 16, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
So….I really don’t have a problem with women dressing in a slightly provocative way at an adults-only party (though “Lady Godiva” should keep it in the bedroom). Like the rest of you, it’s the sexualization of small girls and adolescents which frightens and appalls me…..as do the costumes for women which are meant to look like little girls (see Janell’s example). Sure, sure, i know the Catholic school girl thing is supposed to be sexy, and I know the baby doll look is as well, but those just aren’t fetishes I want any child having the least chance at getting a look at, and I’d rather not cater to the surreptitious pedophiles out there, either. Unless adult women dressing like oversexed children would cause said pedophiles to pursue the women instead, which it wouldn’t.
Sigh. Like Ering I like the idea of having one day a year when I can indulge in a little wildness without judgment…but I’m more likely to dress up as the “sexy librarian” than an oversexed raggedy ann doll.
DH and I will be at a formal job interview dinner in Washington state that night, so I will indeed be wearing a costume: “the physician’s wife.” I will forgo all hippie duds and wear wool slacks and a blouse. I will not wear side ponytails or braids pinned in a loop around my head. I will wear shoes, and not the chinese cloth things to which I’m accustomed. In other words, I’m going to dress like a normal person for Halloween. Snort. (And I’m really mad about the dinner, ‘cuz Muffin has an awesome costume and now I have to leave him with my mother for the night. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.)
Comment by Janet — October 16, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
I envy those who live in cities where “dressing like a slut” is something that folks only do on Halloween. That suggests that the prostitot look is on the way out where you live. Here in Vegas, folks would say, “where’s your costume?”
———
And for decades, some women have refused to express disagreement with another woman without resorting to accusing the other woman of thinking or talking like an oppressive male. AFAIK, women perpetuated foot binding, clitorectomies are largely performed by women on other women, and women, far more than men, induce other women to anorexia and bulemia. Could you find another devil to beat, at least for halloween? Can’t you disagree with what another woman says or with how she says it without dragging an imaginary stuffed straw phallus to knock down?
Comment by Christian — October 16, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
My daughter is going to be Supergirl and my son is going to be Robin (if we can find him some green tights). My husband is wearing a Batman shirt, so I’ve been joking that I’ll find a Catwoman suit for the ward Trunk or Treat
I’m with Janet on being more bothered by the sexualization of little girls and adolescents than by adults dressing sexy. I remember dressing as things like a bat, a fried egg, a clown, a killer whale, etc.. Now all of my daughter’s friends are going to be princesses from Disney movies. Whatever happened to creativity?
Comment by FoxyJ — October 16, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
My two favorite costumes from other people:
- The guy who wore a white garbage bag, had a small white garbage can hat, and had crumpled paper stuck to the bag. He was “White Trash.”
- The girl who wore a lampshade and had a box with a hole in the top pulled up to her waist (she was standing in the box). She had drawn doors on the front of the box. She was a “One Night Stand”.
Funny. And creative.
Comment by queuno — October 17, 2007 @ 12:02 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pankhurst_emmeline.shtml
would be a good link for anyone interested in Emmeline, Christabel or Sylvia Pankhurst. Emmeline was the leader of the sufragette moverment in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United Kingdom. Her statue is in the gardens by the side of the Houses of Parliament.
Comment by supermum — October 17, 2007 @ 5:48 am
Wouldn’t a french maid costume combine both the elements of education (Hinckley) and homemaking (Beck)? Wouldn’t that be a positive role model for the YW?
Comment by queuno — October 17, 2007 @ 7:19 am
Thanks for the clarification Janet.
Comment by Mathew — October 17, 2007 @ 8:39 am
Queno, you have officially made me get peanut butter on the keyboard because your comment made me laugh so hard I dropped my sandwich. Awards for wit! Snicker snicker.
Comment by Janet — October 17, 2007 @ 9:05 am
corporations.
Comment by mfranti — October 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
I remember when kids dressed up in costume and went out trick or treating and the parents stayed home and passed out candy.
Comment by John — October 17, 2007 @ 10:59 am
I’ve yet to to even hear of any Halloweener as daring as Godiva. I’m less bothered by the Godiva idea than by this whole “pimp & ho” business. Dancing is hands down my favorite pass-time, and danging in disguise is particularly fun; my wife and I have won $$$ in two different Halloween costume contests over the years. So I was bitterly dissapointed to find out that a party that I was looking forward to was going “pimp & ho.” We didn’t go of course. Some of our friends were saying, you don’t have to dress immodestly. That’s not the problem. It’s the message, not the window dressing.
Comment by Christian — October 17, 2007 @ 11:16 am
For Halloween 1999, my wife and I dressed in white lab coats and carried big butterfly nets, and we brought our 18 month old son, dressed up in dragonfly wings and antennae. We presented him as the “Y2K bug” and said that we had caught him, and that no one needed to worry anymore.
Comment by Christian — October 17, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
If you have a freak flag, Halloween is one of the last acceptable times to fly it. Loosen up people, it’s supposed to be fun.
For kids, including teens, we should encourage creativity but not allow immodesty. Adults can make their own choices.
Comment by MCQ — October 17, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
mfranti, you would make a super awesome Wonder Woman. I’d love to get a Wonder Woman costume someday. I loved pretending I was WW as a kid in my WW underoos.
Comment by mindy — October 17, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
My step mom was Lady Godiva one year. She made herself a fleshtoned sleeveless minidress (sounds worse than it was- she is short and stocky) and a pair of plastic buttocks and a really long wig that she wrapped around herself creatively. I thought it was fabulous. And no, she’s not LDS if anyone was wondering….
I guess I’m pretty out of it, Christian, since I don’t know what you’re talking about- care to elaborate?
Comment by claire — October 18, 2007 @ 7:00 am
I guess I’m pretty out of it, Christian, since I don’t know what you’re talking about- care to elaborate?
Sarcasm, right? Surely you haven’t forgotten about the biggest threat to humanity, the one that gave birth to an entire emergency preparedness industry?
(I’m going as Al Gore this year.)
Comment by queuno — October 18, 2007 @ 7:19 am
i am blushing recalling the year my own parents attended a pimp & hooker costume party on halloween…and won.
personally, i find the prevalence of children’s costumes that are based on characters in movies, tv shows and video games a far more disturbing trend. whatever happened to creativity?
Comment by chandelle — October 18, 2007 @ 8:43 am
whatever happened to creativity?
oops, i hadn’t read most of the thread and didn’t realize that this point (and line) had been used many times already. my apologies, though i’m happy to see the consideration elsewhere.
Comment by chandelle — October 18, 2007 @ 8:44 am
That’s absolutely brilliant!
I don’t see why that would matter with the costume that you describe, unless she wore it to a church social.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Constantly parrotted statements like the following make short work of the proposition that Feminism is premised on the idea that women are people:
If that old canard were true, then any feelings of discomfort that an employee has while being sexually harassed would be “totally” the fault of that employee. Seems to me that if if any person dresses, acts, or speaks in a way reasonably calculated to evoke a response, then that person is at least partially responsible for the response.
Comment by Christian — October 18, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Halloween sucks. Everything about it.
Comment by The Wiz — October 18, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Hmmm, did someone get rocks in her bag of treats as a girl?
Comment by MCQ — October 18, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Christian, do you really want to get into this argument with me again? It’s not that tough of a concept to grasp. You are responsible for your own thoughts and actions.
Comment by Quimby — October 18, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
[…] Feminist Mormon Housewives When did Halloween become an excuse for women to dress like […]
Pingback by Blogs | Annual Dress Like A Slut Day at The Mystery Is The Truth — October 18, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
I said
Quimby chanted herdogma, using her usual patronizing Emperor’s New Clothes argument where I’m dumb if I don’t agree with her and she doesn’t need to explain why or explain how her dogma applies to the sexual harassment example that I offered:
I grasp that you and I are responsible for your own choices. Some of your thoughts and most of your actions are your own choice. But if I tap your knee in the right place, and your body responds by kicking me in the face, and you did not choose to kick, but responded by reflex, that is my fault, not yours. And since you refuse to hold men and women to the same standard when it comes to the issue of free will, that begs the question of whether you believe that women are people.
Comment by Christian — October 19, 2007 @ 3:09 am
I am looking for a 40’s frock or suit with criminal shoulder pads, backseam stockings, pumps, eyebrow pencil, and a purse full of wire hangars…I think i could fake up the hair…
Joan Crawford isn’t too slutty to emulate, is she?
Comment by Mommie Dearest — October 19, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
Christian, I really don’t appreciate the insults. If you’ve got a problem with what I’m saying, take it up with Jesus, who said the same thing.
You brought up sexual harrassment. Sexual harrassment in the workplace is designed to intimidate and control women. Women are belittled in order to make them feel threatened. It is a form (albeit it a very mild form) of sexual violence.
On the other hand, me wearing a tank top is designed to cool me down on a hot summer day. I am not trying to belittle or threaten you.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Poor Quimby. You said:
And I called you “patronizing”! What’s the world coming to? For someone who regularly applies words like “twat” to people who disagree with her, I think you should develop a thicker skin to criticism. What you said *was* patronizing. If you can’t deal with having that pointed out, then stop being so bloody patronizing.
It’s not like I stooped to your level and acknowledged that you were acting like a total prick, Quimby.
Thank you for that typical shallow and chauvenistic response. In fact, there’s no legally cognizable element of sexual harassment that requires the offender to be male, or the victim to be female.
Ah, but only when it happens to *women*, according to you. Hence your bigoted construction that: Any kind of immoral thoughts or behaviors that a woman’s dress inspires in a man is totally his fault — but not vice-versa.
And when the hell did I say anything against you wearing a tank top? We went through all of this before. I said, specifically, that
If you’re wearing a tank top to cool you down on a hot summer day, then you’re not dressing in a way reasonably calculated to evoke a response in someone else, are you? So why do you pretend that your reply is relevant to what I said? Why do you patronize me by implying that I don’t “grasp” the “concept” that you’ve explained?
As for that apalling bit of priestcraft where you claim to simply be stating what Jesus said, let’s take a closer look at the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said
To “LOOK upon a woman lustfully” is not just an act; it’s a volitional act. A choice. Jesus doesn’t say, as some sickos (male and female alike, I’m sorry to say) implied on another thread, that any deacon that happens to see a nipple and pops an erection because he hasn’t learned to control his thoughts has committed a terrible sin. (I hope to God that those posters never raise sons, ’cause the poor guilt-ridden boys could very well turn out like Ted Bundy).
In the same talk, Jesus also says “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” By your abysmal logic, that means that the person who gets angry is the only one who has committed sin, regardless of what was done to provoke it.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Let’s cut through the nastiness and discuss this.
1. I used male perpetrator/female victim because it is (at least in popular culture) the more common scenario. Male perpetrator/female victim OR vice-versa, sexual harassment that is designed to threaten or intimidate a coworker or employee is wrong, and is in a totally different ball-park to “immodest” dress.
2. By “immodest” dress (in quotatations) I mean dress that may be construed to be immodest, when that is not clearly the intent of the wearer. IE, tank tops (which are considered “immodest” in LDS culture), things that show cleavage (but without the risk of wardrobe malfunctions), etc. To clarify: Dress that is appropriate for the situation, but might show flesh that other people might think is unnecessary.
So, for instance, when I wear my too-cute-for-words 1950s vintage-inspired sleeveless dress to a family dinner at a restaraunt, it is culturally appropriate (in the context of the wider culture in which I live) and it is appropriate for the event, but my fundy nutcase BIL (who I call a fundy nutcase because he is one, and not because he doesn’t agree with me) takes offense and calls me a slut - to hell with him. He doesn’t have the right to dictate what I wear, which is precisely what he is trying to do in that situation. If he is so offended by the sight of my shoulders, he can sit himself in such a way that he doesn’t have to look at them. If it inspires impure thoughts in him - in the wider context of my culture, I do consider that his problem, because in the wider context of my culture there is nothing inappropriate or immodest or innately sexual about shoulders.
If I wore the same dress at church it wouldn’t be appropriate to that specific cultural sub-set. If, however, I wore the same dress at church with my great-grandmother’s mohair bolero jacket, it is entirely culturally appropriate.
3. By “immodest” dress I do not mean clothes that cover only the “naughty bits” (and I use “naughty bits” in a light-hearted way; I also don’t advocate the practice of referring to any parts of our body as “naughty”). So, to take again the example of my fundy nutcase BIL (because it’s an easy example to take) if I showed up at the same family dinner in a 3-inch-long mini and a 3-inch-long boob tube, it wouldn’t be either culturally appropriate or appropriate for the setting, (or appropriate for my body) so I could understand him taking offense. Still, to a certain extent, to hell with him. If he doesn’t like it, he can sit where he can’t see it. But if it inspires impure thoughts in him - well, he’s sick if he’d think that way about my body seeing it clad in six inches of fabric, because let me tell you it’d inspire full-body-heaves in most people; but it’s more understandable.
4. What I object to is the notion that women should dress a certain way to avoid men thinking certain things. Different men have different turn-ons, and the only way to dress in such a way to avoid men having any sexual thoughts whatsoever is to wear a burka, and I’m sure there are some men who get turned on by them too. By saying men are slaves to their thoughts and can’t control them - I think that’s selling men short. I don’t embrace that strain of feminism that says women need to be protected from men; nor do I think men need to be protected from women.
To a large extent, what is considered “sexual” or “immodest” is based on cultural context. Growing up in Europe, I’m sure you understand that. In a primitive culture where women routinely walk around topless (assuming such cultures even exist anymore), walking around topless is completely culturally appropriate and is not in any way immodest. If you were to visit such a culture and take offense or get sexual thoughts upon seeing a topless woman, that would have less to do with the innate sexuality of her bare breasts, and more to do with your own cultural context. You have been taught to think that breasts are sexual; therefore you get turned on when you see a breast. (I’m using breasts as an example. Maybe you don’t get turned on when you see a breast. I am also using “you” in a more general sense than in the sense of you, Christian.)
In such a situation it is easy to say, “Oh well, you can’t control it.” What I am saying is that, yes, you can. Maybe not initially. But if something is just a cultural response - and I fully believe modesty falls into that category, because there are so many different norms when it comes to modesty - you can teach yourself to not have that cultural response. You can teach yourself to not think of breasts as being sexual. It might be a bit of a downer for your sex life, and I’m actually not advocating you do it, because breasts are fun; even I can see the attraction and I’m a straight woman. But I’m saying that it’s possible to come to think of breasts as nothing more than lumps of fat - which is, essentially, what they are.
So, to clarify my position on this issue:
Women should be allowed to wear whatever they want to wear, assuming it is culturally appropriate and appropriate for the situation.
Any man who takes offense has the right to look away. Any man who gets turned on has the right to get turned on, but he certainly doesn’t have the right to act on that; and he also has the ability to stop himself from getting turned on. He does not have the right to say, “Don’t wear that because it turns me on.” Because, ultimately, whatever a woman wears, it’s likely to be a turn-on to some man, somewhere.
Different cultures and different circumstances will determine for themselves what is and isn’t appropriate.
A woman who decides to dress wildly outside of the accepted “norms” will have to accept the consequences of her decision, to the extent that those consequences do not involve physical, sexual, or verbal harassment or violence. But to the extent that such consequences may mean she’s taken less seriously at work or doesn’t get a promotion because she insists on coming into work in a corset and bunny-ears (assuming she doesn’t work at the Playboy Mansion, and assuming it’s not Halloween) - she has to live with that. It’s probably not fair and it would probably be better if she was judged on her merits instead, but to some extent, we all have to play along with society’s rules.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
1. If that’s what you meant, I think you seriously erred in this context, since my whole point of raising sexual harassment examples was to try to come down to standards of free will equally applicable to all people, i.e. to women as well as men.
2. As we established the last time we had this argument, I agree with you here, both in principle and in specific application. If anything, I’m more liberal about what female clothing is acceptable, since hell, I live in Vegas, where the woman giving the opening prayer in sacrament meeting today had a nose-ring. But you would probably say that’s just more context, and I’d agree with you there again.
3. I agree with you that it’s not bits that are naughty, but context. And I’m less concerned with how you dress in your family’s house, than how someone dresses in a courtroom or in a classroom, where that person might obtain a competitive advantage from distracting classmates, opposing counsel, or jurors. I think that society has a duty to prevent certain injustices, such as sending some poor innocent twerp to a hole for life because some jurors were hypnotized by someone’s see thru shirt, or flunking a sharp but hormonally challenged boy who found the butt crack of the girl sitting in front of him more fascinating than his physics lecture.
Again, by that logic, you’d have to toss out sexual harassment laws, since different cultures have different standards for what is considered offensive. Some cultures might kiss on the mouth to say hello, and I’m sure that bushman didn’t mean to offend the white lady when he groped her in “God’s must be Crazy,” etc. But I’d prefer that you returned to the logic of #2, which is that intent and context dictate meaning, and by extension, responsibility.
I’ve seen employers and one court judge toss men out for wearing knee length shorts, but keep in women who were wearing miniskirts. Their reasoning is that it’s “unprofessional” for a man to show his calves, but that it would be “sexist” to tell a woman that she can’t show her thighs. Well that’s a lot of subjective crap to justify a double standard.
Likewise, if a woman shows cleavage, that’s supposed to be OK in a so-called professional context, but if a guy were to walk in, with his shirt unbottoned to the point that he was showing the same amount of chest, he’d get tossed out.
Why is it OK to tell a man how to dress in order to make others feel comfortable, but not OK to apply the same bleeding standards to women (cover your legs and chest) as we do to men, for the same stinking reason?
So my answer is no, I’m not willing to extend rights to you that society denies to me. And I’m not willing to say that my reasons for asking you to cover up your chest and legs are any less valid than society’s reasons for asking me to cover up my chest and legs. You want to go running down the street topless in a sports scenario, like a man can, or play shirts and skins, or take your top off at the beach, then more power to you — that’s an equality argument. But likewise, in the name of equality and also in the name of folks being able to pay attention, let’s keep the standards equal in our classrooms and courtrooms.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
I’m really confused. I thought that’s what I’m saying - that any harrassment that is designed to intimidate or threaten anyone is wrong, regardless of gender.
With my point #4, I thought the proviso of “appropriate” was understood. If I am in a culture where it is appropriate to do a “squeeze the breast” hello, as per Jerry Seinfeld’s suggested alternative to a kiss hello, I won’t complain. I would advocate that a woman could give a man a “squeeze the groin” hello in that culture, because if some guy is going to grab my breast and twist (the equivalent in such a culture to a firm handshake) you’d better believe I want to return the pain. But again in my #4, I was never stepping away from the idea that intent and context ditacte meaning and responsibility.
Two reasons that I can think of: One, because it’s much more interesting than the sort of Star Trek world you seem to be advocating, where everyone wears a set uniform (boring!), and two, because the world is consistently sexist against women, so if we get one up on you, tough luck. (I’m being flippant, in case that wasn’t obvious.) It goes back to what is “culturally appropriate”. In this culture, it is appropriate for a woman to wear a shirt that is unbuttoned a couple of buttons. Don’t like it? Instead of taking away something I like* fight to change the culture so you can claim the right, too.
*As a woman with breasts, it is uncomfortable to wear a shirt that buttons over the breasts. It is unnecessarily confining. Clothing is designed to fit the “average” woman, which means, if I am to wear a shirt buttoned to the top, either I have to wear it a size bigger - which presents modesty problems when leaning over - or my breasts strain against the fabric leading to that inevitable “button gap” - which, in my opinion, is less modest than unbuttoning it a couple of buttons, because straining fabric draws a lot more attention to the breasts than a button not-done-up.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
On that we agree completely, and I thought we established that before. That’s why I was taken aback by your remark in #92, which contained no such qualifications.
I do not think that it’s fair or reasonable to tell typical hetero guy that if some cute woman flashes him, that he’s responsible for his own thoughts. Or to tell some hormone-traumatized deacon that if his anatomy is inflamed at the sight of some nursing mother in sacrament meeting that he’s a damned sinner. (Nor does it mean that she should not nurse — I don’t think that God has some policy that someone must always pay when a 12 year old pops a boner). We’re responsible for our volitional thoughts, words, and actions, but sometimes no one’s to blame. **** happens. Conversely, if some woman is dressing appropriately for the situation, and some guy swerves off the road and runs over a boy scout troop because he’s never seen a woman other than his mother out of a Burkha, I certainly don’t think that’s the woman’s fault. OTOH, I think that the pimps who design the road signs in Vegas, filled with salacious advertising for call girls and other whores, and *designed to distract drivers*, should be held morally and legally accountable for all the traffic deaths that they have caused.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Quimby, that’s your consistent attitude, so it’s not just flippancy in this conversation. Your response to my schools and courts examples, gives the impression that you really do care more about how your breasts fit in whatever shirt you find convenient to wear, more than you care about schools educating, and more than you care about courts dispensing justice.
All that I’m saying is that in specific situations where paying attention is mission-crititcal, i.e. in schools and in courts, that rules should minimize distractions.
I don’t claim the right. I’m just pointing out that I endure the restrictions in ALL environments considered “professional,” whereas you only need to endure them in schools, courts, and churches, and that society’s tolerance for self-indulgence should have some limits. Learning is more important than schools, and justice is more important in courts, than allowing you to enjoy the special privileges that our society gives you, but not men, in other “professional” settings.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
In my defence, oh legal one, #92 was written on a hot Friday afternoon with the promise of a long, hot weekend before me, and I plead temporarily-distracted-by-the-bliss.
Of course it’s not a sin for a 12 year old to get an erection looking at a breast-feeding mom. But it’s also not a reason to tell that breast-feeding mom not to breast-feed - which is precisely what lots of people on that same post advocated. A woman shouldn’t have to deviate from culturally-accepted norms of dress or behavior (or in the case of breast-feeding mothers, something that may not be fully culturally accepted but is certainly beneficial, healthy, and natural) because some 12 year old boy (or grown man, although if it’s a grown man getting turned on by breast-feeding, I think we can both agree it’s kinda gross) thinks it’s a turn-on. The 12 year old boy has the ability to monitor his thoughts. Maybe not right there, right then, when he’s presented with (giggle) a nipple; but he can learn to see a breast-feeding mother as nothing more than a breast-feeding mother. We sell him short when we pretend he can’t.
For centuries, women have been told it is their duty to “protect” society, to “protect” men - that we are responsible for men’s sexual purity. That’s bull. But it’s an attitude that is still heard in church. I can’t count the number of times I had to sit through the “modesty talk” in YW - and the #1 reason given for dressing “modest” was always, “Because boys might get impure thoughts.” It’s also something I’ve heard over the pulpit numerous times since leaving YW. (I also hate it because it implies that *only* boys get impure thoughts. Not true. Let’s acknowledge that we women can get pretty smutty too.) Frankly, it’s not my problem if a boy gets an impure thought; and I shouldn’t have to tailor my dress (again, assuming I’m dressing appropriately under cultural norms) because some male of the species might have a sexual thought. By all means teach your children to dress modestly - for themselves, to show respect for their own bodies, to show respect for Heavenly Father, but not to “protect” a member of the opposite gender.
If anything I think this theory that women can or should “guard a man’s honor” is counterproductive. For one, it sells men short. My reputation as a man-hater notwithstanding, I think men are quite capable of guarding their own honor. It also seems to me that those cultures that are most caught up in this idea that it is a woman’s job to “protect” a man from impure thoughts, are the very cultures that embrace women fully covering up - thus fetishising the entirety of the female form, until even a stray wrist or elbow or strand of hair is sexual.
BTW, as a woman, I really can’t see how any guy would think salacious advertising is sexy. When I’m awake late at night and I see those “Call me, call me now” phone sex ads, I just want to laugh. Really? That’s what guys find attractive?
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Christian, firstly, if you’re advocating a set “uniform”, I will never accept that, because it’s attempting to make women into men with breasts, and that’s boring and unnecessary.
If a man is distracted by my shirt being open another button, that really isn’t my problem. A man can learn to not be distracted by it. For starters, he doesn’t have to look. Again: If we assume that modesty is a cultural construct - and it is, because there are no universally accepted rules of what is and isn’t modest - then it’s up to men to not be distracted by something that is culturally appropriate. I’m not going to wear a burka because it might make it easier for you to pay attention in law school.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
See, this is where we differ. Some years ago, when I was 17, my teacher yelled at me because, in the process of debating a US Senatorial candidate who was visiting my AP Government class, I embarassed him. He couldn’t answer my relatively straight-forward question on an education policy that he was promoting. My attitude was, “He’s a senator, if he can’t take the heat from a 17 year old he has no business being in politics.” My attitude is the same here. If a judge can’t dispense justice because some woman is wearing a miniskirt, (s)he has no business being a judge. If a teacher can’t teach because some student is wearing a tank top, (s)he has no business being a teacher.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Yup. And I was the only one on that thread who took the position that both sides were nuts. That it’s a good thing to protect the deacons from boner-encouraging sights while passing the sacrament, but that feeding hungry babies simply takes priority, period.
What’s the judge have to do with this? I’m talking about a jury.
What’s the teacher got to do with it? I was talking about other students.
I take it that you changed the jurors into judges and teachers into students because you recognized at some level that you can’t run out and say that if a student can’t learn because other students are dressed like prostitots, that the student should not be a student. And that making jury selections along those lines would be unconstitutional.
If the judge can toss a man out for wearing shorts, she can toss a woman out for wearing a miniskirt.
Uniforms? Straw man. Never said that skirts weren’t OK; never said women should wear ties, or be required to wear button shirts.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
If you’re in court, and the distracted man is on the jury, then it’s the judge’s problem, since it’s the judge’s responsibility to ensure a fair trial, then if she’s a remotely competent judge, she’ll tell you to button up, and if you don’t, she’ll give you contempt and let you show off your neat little outfit to the other ladies in lockup.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
If a student can’t learn because other students are dressed like prostitutes, the student is obviously not spending enough time looking in his book. If a jury can’t learn because a witness (or lawyer) is dressed like a hooker, the lawyers should’ve done their job better and eliminated all those juries who responded, “You said duty, heheheh”.
This implies that women shouldn’t be allowed to show their legs because men can’t. So uniform is less of a straw-(woman). (Let’s not be sexist okay!) How I read this was: Men have to wear pants so women have to wear pants. Men have to wear ties so women have to wear ties. That’s how it came across to me; maybe not how you read it, but how I read it.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Lachlan to his mother: “Mom, it’s not my fault I flunked my math test, Chloe was wearing a miniskirt!”
Is that really what you’re advocating? How long before, “It’s not my fault, Chloe was wearing a miniskirt” becomes “All female students must wear burkas”? Teach Lachlan to read his book instead of checking out Chloe.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
If you take it out of context like that, maybe.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Is your argument really that if we require knee length skirts, that we’re going to inevitably creep towards requiring Burkhas?
Why do you offer an olive branch and then make such a transparently bad faith argument?
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Sounds a lot better for society to tell those half of potential jurors to think with another organ of their body. Your values seem more warped than mine, my friend, if you’re willing to give men a free pass on sexualising everything that moves rather than insist we, all of us, hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Spoken like someone who doesn’t really give a damn whether courts execute justice, so long as she wins the argument.
You can TELL Jurors lots of things. We tell them, for example, to pay attention, stay awake, and stay sober, not physically threaten each other during deliberations.
Do you have any other brilliant ideas, aside from telling them to not get distracted by the pretty titties during the three-hour cross-examination of an evasive, lying cop by a stammering public defender?
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Where do you get that from? Justice is okay if it turns half of the world’s population into sexual objects? What sort of world is that?
I really don’t think there’s any point continuing this conversation with you, Christian.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
TEACH, then. The world will be a lot better off when men LEARN to think with another organ of their body - and it CAN be done, because (as I’ve said time and time before) modesty is a cultural construct.
Little Lachlan might like a nice pair of legs. Little Mitch has a thing for arms. Little Rodney likes a good butt. Everybody has a different sexual turn-on - so the only way to keep all men “safe” from their own turn-ons is to cover up women entirely. Not something I will ever advocate. I’d rather walk nude through a room of Al Queda sympathisers.
I am starting to think you want an argument today, and I’ve played along for far too long already.
Comment by Quimby — October 21, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
So holding you to the same dress standards as a man, while you’re in a court of law, is turning you into a sexual object? What sort of argument is that?
Do you have any idea how bleeding difficult it is to keep a jury’s attention in a complex trial? Particularly in a criminal defense argument? Is your best idea here to just tell jurors to not get distracted by the pretty titties during the three-hour cross-examination of an evasive, lying cop by a stammering public defender?
No. It’s men have to wear long pants and cover their whole leg, so it’s not unfair to require women, in a specific context, to cover part of their leg.
Does anyone here believe that Quimby honestly believes that continuing the dress standards forwomen as well as men in courts will lead inevitablty to Burkhas?
It’s filthy of you to turn the argument into a personal worthiness attack. I’ve clearly spoken about junior high and high school, not about law school. I’ve done quite well in law school and passed the bar, while living in Las Vegas, so it’s either incredibly foolish or dishonest to imply that I speak for myself when I say that pubescent and adoescent BOYS, and JURORS have a hard time with skin distractions.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
If you want that message taught, then get off your lazy ass and teach it yourself. Don’t hijack courtrooms and junior high classrooms, don’t force judges, lawyers, and physics teachers to preach your messianic vision. We’ve got more pressing issues to deal with, such as teaching physics to Sally and Steve, and trying to give folks a fair trial.
Feel free to stop, if you think you’re capable of stopping, Quimby.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
To which Quimby replies, “TEACH them then.”
Bravo, Quimby. That’s got to be the most useful and warm-hearted revolutionary thought since “let them eat cake.” If only we realized that using the word “teach” rather than “tell” would somehow make it all happen? While we’re at it, why don’t we just “teach” jurors to pay attention, stay awake, stay sober, not physically threaten each other during deliberations? Or is all of that less priority to you than letting some women flash T&A at the jury?
I stopped using the word feminist to refer to myself after I found out that the folks that taught me that we teachers were paying disparate attention to boys, and needed to focus more on girls, were lying to us. And saw the real studies coming back showing that schools were screwing boys out of an education. I’ve heard quite enough from pseudofeminist sociopaths about what boys need in schools. Y’all fooled me once, and God forgive me, I collaborated. Never again. I’m not interested in crippling another generation of boys to make up for past injustices to women.
Comment by Christian — October 21, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Not to worry, Christian. Once we’ve successfully trained men not to respond sexually to female bodies, there won’t be any need for things like miniskirts. Everybody wins!
Comment by madhousewife — October 22, 2007 @ 10:01 am
Go for it, mhw!
Comment by Christian — October 22, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Okay, so I wanted to use this as an opportunity for costume advice, but we’ll have to see if anyone slogs through Quimby and Christian’s debate to see my post.
I started a new job about three months ago, and I am trying to figure out if I should dress up or not. So far my plan is to wear an Old Navy Halloween t-shirt. We have a pretty casual office, and I know there is at least one costume contest going on. But I am unsure how far to take the dressing up. Will I look like a total doofus if I wear a (non-slutty) costume? Or will I be the boring one if I don’t dress up? What do you guys think?
Comment by Kiki — October 22, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Any way you could take an outfit (or part thereof) with you? I’m thinking maybe something simple like wear black pants and a black shirt and bring a pair of cat ears, and that way if everyone else is dressing up you can slip on the cat ears and be a part of it, but otherwise you look perfectly acceptable for work.
Comment by Quimby — October 22, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
Never. Won’t happen. Forget it.
Comment by MCQ — October 23, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Yes, my husband showed me the Party City Ad. I thought maybe it was an add for Hollywood H****r or somesuch. A librarian by trade, I’m confused about the reduction of costume options when there is so much breadth of imagination and reality. It’s amazing to see that we’re being reduced to the display our physical assets.
Oh did I mention that we’re raising a 10-year old daughter too. We found a great costume, my daughter and I. She is dressing up as a Ninja complete w/stealthy chopsticks in her hair.
Comment by Yet another Janet — October 23, 2007 @ 7:49 am
#121 — It’s Halloween, Kiki, and you say that you know that there’s at least one costume contest going. So if costumes appeal to you, I think you should err on the side of being too creative rather than too boring. Since you say that it’s a “non-slutty” costume that you have in mind, I don’t see what permanent harm could come from being overcostumed on Halloween. Some folks might bear a grudge over a “slutty” costume, and others might bear a grudge over a constume that was politically charged (say if you showed up in a Hillary Clinton mask with a basket of condoms that you were handing out to children, or as George W. Bush with your hands covered in blood, etc.). But assuming you avoid those obvious pitfalls, you should be fine.
Comment by Christian — October 24, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Interesting article in the Washington Post, about the trend towards oversexed costumes for young girls:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR2007102902095.html
Comment by Kaimi — October 30, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Kaimi-
This was in Newsweek too.
http://www.newsweek .com/id/62474? GT1=10450
You should write up a post about it.
Comment by mmiles — October 30, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Try that link again
http://www.newsweek.com/id/62474?%20GT1=10450
Comment by mmiles — October 30, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
And watch this.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/29/pn.halloween.costumes.cnn
Comment by mmiles — October 30, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
[…] Annual Dress Like a Slut Day […]
Pingback by Women Dress Like Sluts on Halloween | All Diva Media Blog — October 31, 2007 @ 5:15 am
Interestingly, last night in Vegas, I didn’t see any trick or treating kids “dressing like sluts” for halloween.
Kaimi asked:
I suspect that’s just about point of view; we set a much higher threshold to judge males “provocative” and resort to racist and classist terms to exclude other expressions of male sexuality from the common “decent” view. I certainly saw at least as much male skin as female skin when my wife and I went dancing last night. Male costumes included some costumes that were completely torso bare, e.g. a “pool partier” and a few gladiators. And not sure how you’d classify the cross-dressing males, e.g. bad taste spoofs of star female athletes.
One female costume (dancer, not kid trick or treater) that kept popping up that I hadn’t seen before was the sexy cop with handcuffs. The feminist lens is hard to kick; I could not help noticing the large number of female costumes where the woman was outfitted as the obvious sidekick to a male counterpart. (No pimp/ho combinations, fortunately; we don’t go to that kind of party).
My wife and I reversed that trend, since I was the sidekick figure. She was the Princess; I was the Pea.
Comment by Christian — November 1, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
We got giggles with our “Nacho Libre” love story. DH was a monk with a luchador mask, I was the seven-months pregnant nun. We called our other kids (dressed in various costumes) “orphans”.
Comment by sofia — November 1, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
[…] Annual Dress Like a Slut Day - From Feminist Mormon Housewives. I keep FMH in my reader, they always come up with witty stuff. I linked this up over at The Mystery Is The Truth and it dominated Google on Halloween week and spiked traffic like 10 times for two weeks. […]
Pingback by Great Posts at nikao | a collective — December 10, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Wait a minute. Girls (and women up to 30-something) have always (in my lifetime) dressed like sluts for Hallowe’en. But it isn’t just for Hallowe’en. That’s how they dress when they go out nightclubbing. I live in a major U.S. city (on neither coast) and girls dress that way whether they are in Junior High School, High School, College, or up until they grow up (whenever that may be). The line between hookers and topless dancers on the one hand, and all other young women has been blurred. I go to “gentlemen’s clubs” and have met many young women who are college students or graduates, and who hold regular 40-hour jobs and who also dance topless one night a week “just for the fun of it.” I’ve had many female friends defend the practice of young women dancing topless for extra cash. Teenage girls in Jr. High go to mall stores and buy g-strings to wear under very short skirts. Its all fun and normal now-a-days. And mothers and grandmothers condone it and even encourage it. So don’t tell me that it isn’t a part of our culture now.
Comment by Mac McManx — April 23, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
[…] :: mormon sluts :: I linked to this post on the Feminist Mormon Housewives blog Filed under Blogs | Subscribe | What is […]
Pingback by Where Ya From at nikao | a collective — July 30, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
why would anyone be upset with having a day we can dress as slutty as we want and actually pull it off in the name of fun
Comment by ricky — October 24, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
i dont know why people react to a fun day of dressing up it feels great to have a day that we can let our hair down
Comment by miss kathy — October 24, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
What happend to when families dressed in themes even though often my mother would disapear for days she’d also be home in time for halloween wich may be little weird but you know the best thing she ever did was to be there then and as crazy as it sounds she tried to dress us in themes are family i think i was 9 or 10 you tend not to know age for year when born in november because your 1 age till november then next in november and december I was dressed as salt my sister pepper the baby at time my little sister was butter and mother corn. Also I rember one year my mother made it when I was in chair and we all went to mall for halloween we were all part of cirucus and though am terrified of clowns shutter I was one because what else can ya really dress up person in a wheely as. My cousin even game with us that year and my mother dressed him as horse. My 6th grade yr of school i instited on dressing up as baby but me and some friends of mine made a pact to do that and really after that I didn’t trick or treat till senior year of high school and only did that so the newest baby 2nd boy in family had 1 halloween with me the year I instined on being a baby my little sisters’ the older 1 of them was little bo beep and younger a sheep my sister’s dog was a sheep to. I dont recall what my mother was that year and our first brother was dressed as pumpkin.
Comment by Amanda-Beth — March 7, 2010 @ 6:33 am
Because us guys want to see those tits, and girls want to show off their tits.
Comment by Bfx — April 4, 2010 @ 4:11 am
I went to the company Halloween party and I dressed like a harem girl with a sexy midriff top and bracelets I resent the fact that you bitches call women who wear “immodest clothes” sluts
why don’t take a good look at yourselves bitch
Comment by babara Godding — July 21, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
Hey Moderataors– OVER HERE!
Comment by Moniker Challenged — July 21, 2010 @ 5:33 pm