Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Oh, Baby...


Dear God. I feel like just looking at the "Major Flirt" outfit should get me investigated by the FBI.

Posted by David Schmader | October 24, 2006 1:54 PM

I'm going this year as a pregnant Mudede.
I'm childish, sorry...

Posted by Goat Bastard | October 24, 2006 2:00 PM

No, you're right. That is deeply fucked up.

Posted by flamingbanjo | October 24, 2006 2:01 PM

Part of the fun of wearing slutty clothes as an adult is that you didn't get to wear them as a kid.

Or at least that's how it was for me.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | October 24, 2006 2:02 PM

And a great couples costume could be John Michael Karr and JonBenet Ramsey. It's so adorable when you make pre-teens look like expensive call-girls.

Posted by monkey | October 24, 2006 2:04 PM

I totally agree with you Erica. It's totally creepy.
I'll bet the religious right blames it on "liberalism", while the progressives blame it on socially regressive, desperate capitalism.

Posted by treacle | October 24, 2006 2:08 PM

Monkey, that is brilliant. I need a blonde date this year looks like...

Posted by Dougsf | October 24, 2006 2:09 PM

Goat Bastard, don't forget the viagra.

Posted by Gomez | October 24, 2006 2:10 PM


I say just go back to Dan Ackroyd's Mainway toy company costumes and adapt em for girls - Johnny (Jenny) Human Torch, Johnny (Jenny) Invisible Pedestrian, as either of the preceding would actually be less harmful to kids...

Posted by Mr. X | October 24, 2006 2:11 PM

I wonder, if you were to actually posit to a Fundie that this sexualization of pre-pubescent girls is simply a manifestation of the Free Market system at work, would their heads explode from trying to sort out the logical conundrum?

And also, would anyone in say, S.C. even look twice at nine or ten year-old girls wearing these kinds of outfits?

Posted by COMTE | October 24, 2006 3:10 PM

This is bad. Seriously.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 24, 2006 3:38 PM

You guys are old and out of touch.

these girls aren't particularly slutty. No cleavage and the skirts are pretty low. these costumes have obviously been toned down for children.

Posted by Doink | October 24, 2006 3:48 PM

I am so turned on right now.

The JonBenet/Karr idea is the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

Posted by Fnarf | October 24, 2006 3:57 PM

Ew. Ew. Ew.

I can't imagine a parent letting their kids wear this.

Posted by Dianna | October 24, 2006 3:58 PM

Doink, I hope you're joking, but if not ... eight-year-olds don't HAVE cleavage. They're pre-pubescent ... which is what makes this all so disturbing.

Posted by Gloria | October 24, 2006 4:03 PM

Yeah, but where the cleavage would be is covered up. these are pretty modest costumes. They are trying to be cute, not sexy. I'm pretty sure that pre-menstrual girls occasionally wear skirts and short sleeves on days other than Halloween. Just because childless adults can only see sex when looking at these costumes doesn't mean that the kids who wear them do.

Posted by Doink | October 24, 2006 4:26 PM

I remember seeing the Harem Girl one on Amazon a few years ago and being horrified. Until I saw that you already mentioned it, I was going to post about it, but also, there is the fact that the SKU number for the one I found (not on Amazon, btw), is "rub881060".


Posted by Kristin | October 24, 2006 4:27 PM

I'm not sure why you'd single out childless adults specifically, over adults who do have children. Are we somehow more prone to viewing children in sexual contexts?

Posted by Gloria | October 24, 2006 4:43 PM

There is no way in holy hell my mother would have let me wear a single one of these costumes as a child. It's not so much that the costumes are revealing in and of themselves (most are not, particularly), but they ARE conveying an idea of a girl as a sexual being. Attaching the word "sexy" to anything having to do with a prepubescent child just squicks me. Don't young girls have enough shit to deal with without being tarted up and pimped out from the time they're little?

What the hell happened to the kitty and clown and ghost costumes? Where are the nonsexy witch and devil costumes?

Take a look at the boys' costumes. Superheroes. Ninjas. Firemen - and not the calendar variety, either. Not a one with the word "sexy" attached to it.

Posted by Geni | October 24, 2006 5:17 PM

Why are you surprised by this? The sexualization of children isn't anything new and it isn't restricted to Halloween. Have you forgotten the A&F thongs for children? I mean, it's still absolutely disgusting, but it's not suprising.

Posted by Gitai | October 24, 2006 5:41 PM

Once again folks, we are dealing with labels (the labels here are more inappropriate than the costumes) and the Judeo-Christian myth. Sexy women are to be discouraged, put down, feared but sexy girl children,… no problem. Yes, it is a sick society that sells “sexy” to prepubescent girls and that their parents would buy it for their little dears. (Children aren’t people, they are dolls to dress up?)
Unfortunately, this theme is played out in subtler ways on a regular basis. It’s a twisted message. Made more so by the opposite message that only “bad” girls are sexy and a girl/woman is responsible for every man’s sexual reaction.
We are inundated by these messages daily. Just look at the 12 year old models wearing women’s sexy cloths and make up. Look at the costumes for the dolls that are sold as age appropriate. Look at the message behind so many advertisements with which children are inundated.
Adults playing out the FANTASY of sexy prepubescent girls in another thing altogether and a very common, too.
What a can of worms!

Posted by Dat Bathani | October 24, 2006 6:06 PM

Yes, sexiness + children = yuck. However, as usual the rest of your post is completely lost on me.

Who says you need permission to dress sexy? And since when is Halloween the only day of the year when dressing sexy is allowed.

Who says dressing sexy is always bad?

How is dressing sexy the equivalent of "playing out male fantasies of subservience"? Who says male sexual fantasies are primarily about female subservience?

Who dresses sexy in the interest of "reclaiming stereoptypes"? Don't most people dress sexy for the fun of it?

Posted by Sean | October 24, 2006 6:07 PM

Doink: two things. First, what happened to the innocence of childhood? Second, whether it's sexy or cute - it spells out loud and clear "I'M AVAILABLE" to older boys wanting some action and, most worrisome it serves as advertising for pedophile rapists.

Posted by Dilda | October 24, 2006 6:09 PM

There's nothing wrong with these costumes as long as there's a 4-foot minimum distance.

Posted by Phan | October 24, 2006 8:48 PM

I love when little girls wear toght clothes, their tight little butts and...oh if you can catch a camel toe, WOW!

Posted by Frank Ronco | November 2, 2006 8:03 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).