Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Good Girls Go Bad, for a Day
new york times ^ | 10/19/06 | STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM

Posted on 10/19/2006 7:17:27 PM PDT by mathprof

IN her thigh-highs and ruby miniskirt, Little Red Riding Hood does not appear to be en route to her grandmother’s house. And Goldilocks, in a snug bodice and platform heels, gives the impression she has been sleeping in everyone’s bed. There is a witch wearing little more than a Laker Girl uniform, a fairy who appears to shop at Victoria’s Secret and a cowgirl with a skirt the size of a tea towel.

Anyone who has watched the evolution of women’s Halloween costumes in the last several years will not be surprised that these images — culled from the Web sites of some of the largest Halloween costume retailers — are more strip club than storybook. Or that these and other costumes of questionable taste will be barely covering thousands of women who consider them escapist, harmless fun on Halloween.

“It’s a night when even a nice girl can dress like a dominatrix and still hold her head up the next morning,” said Linda M. Scott, the author of “Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism” (Palgrave Macmillan) and a professor of marketing at the University of Oxford in England.

The trend is so pervasive it has been written about by college students in campus newspapers, and Carlos Mencia, the comedian, jokes that Halloween should now be called Dress-Like-a-Whore Day.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: coustumes; halloween; sexualization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: patton
That does not make us all saints.

The Bible teaches that there are only "saints" (ones sanctified by the blood of Christ) and those unrepentant sinners who will suffer eternal separation from God and His Saints in Hell.

I was speaking of saints and their child raising.

21 posted on 10/19/2006 7:46:34 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: unspun
" The Bible teaches "

Which translation of which books?

I watched an old scholar once attend a biblical diatribe at MSU - he listened to the lecture for a while, then called BS. "I have a copy, in the original..."

"That word does not mean what you think it means..."

Funny, how words change things.

Let the little kids have fun.

22 posted on 10/19/2006 8:01:42 PM PDT by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: patton
The Bible is consistent. It doesn't not contradict itself. It doesn't say don't dress up in a costume and go trick-or-treating. It does say not to join in the world's celebration of sin, where it does.
23 posted on 10/19/2006 8:20:20 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Again I ask, " Which translation of which books?"

Show me an original Bible.

24 posted on 10/19/2006 8:24:50 PM PDT by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: patton
Again I ask, " Which translation of which books?" Show me an original Bible.

Wherever they are found, the earliest known manuscripts of each Book of the Bible are notoriously consistent, one to the other.

25 posted on 10/19/2006 8:27:14 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Do you include the Book of Judas in your assessment?

It makes history, and the most supressed book ever. Banned for 1800 years, the only existing copy was then debated for 40 years, on whether it should be burned, or released.

Look, if you favour the King James, and believe it to be the Word of G_D, I wish you well - go with that. It will help you in this life, and save you in the next, I hope.

But about a million other versions exist, all of which contradict that one - maybe G_D left the whole thing an open question, and wants people to think.

26 posted on 10/19/2006 8:35:12 PM PDT by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: patton
Do you include the Book of Judas in your assessment?

Wheoew! I smell very old red herring!

Let me think. No.

The New Testament Canon was settled way back at the time of Augustine. I could like to it, but you could look it up, for yourself.

That which was found, by rational analysis, prayer and Christian comit, to be the Canon contains no self-contradiction. That was one of the tests, of course, the words of Christ, Himself leading the informed heart and mind.

27 posted on 10/19/2006 8:43:25 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: patton
like = link
28 posted on 10/19/2006 8:43:53 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: patton
comit = comity

Better hit the sack.

29 posted on 10/19/2006 8:44:30 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Goodnight, I am off to bed.

Please consider that your argument is circular, and I will respond on the morrow.

"The book is consistent, because everything inconsistent was burned. That proves its literal truth."

30 posted on 10/19/2006 8:53:31 PM PDT by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: patton
"The book is consistent, because everything inconsistent was burned. That proves its literal truth."

For your morning, since I may not be here: think of a circular orbit around what is actual.

Here's a riddle for you: why do counterfeits exist?

Also, think of maintaining consistency with the words of actual participants and witnesses. (That will help in your Constitutional interpretation, as well.)

31 posted on 10/19/2006 8:58:38 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: patton
"The book is consistent, because everything inconsistent was burned. That proves its literal truth."

Oh, and the other documents are widely available, to this day. No ashes, only paper, vellum, and competing data.

32 posted on 10/19/2006 9:00:20 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mathprof; MeekOneGOP; Conspiracy Guy; DocRock; King Prout; SandyInSeattle; Darksheare; OSHA; ...
There are pics. You need another reason?


33 posted on 10/19/2006 10:18:51 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (Natalie Maines fears me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Sure. I'd just love to get into an irrelevant theological debate on a thread with pics of women in lingerie.


34 posted on 10/19/2006 10:22:51 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Saw your name and just had to troll you.

Ready...?

Which of those costumes would you most like to see Lisa Randall dressed in?

Full Disclosure: No fair saying "I'd like to see her *out* of them" ;-)

Cheers!

35 posted on 10/19/2006 10:27:13 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux
Sure. I'd just love to get into an irrelevant theological debate on a thread with pics of women in lingerie.

You could discuss Heavenly Bodies ;-)

Bad...bad kitty!

Cheers!

36 posted on 10/19/2006 10:30:10 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Heh heh heh...


37 posted on 10/19/2006 10:34:41 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux
Sure. I'd just love to get into an irrelevant theological debate on a thread with pics of women in lingerie.

I'm still trying to figure out why Santa and the cross are both symbols of Christmas, but a crucifed Santa just ticks people off.

38 posted on 10/19/2006 10:43:49 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (Natalie Maines fears me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
I'm kinda partial to that ref costume. It suggests all sorts of stuff, you know...the blowing of whistles, going offsides, backfield in motion (sure there's a penalty for that, but only after the, uh, infraction), illegal use of the hands, ... (there's a million of 'em).

Ah, Lisa, penalize me...please!

39 posted on 10/20/2006 12:34:08 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Slut sells! Thank you MTV...


40 posted on 10/20/2006 12:49:39 AM PDT by endthematrix (“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson