August 25, 2004

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

Stop the world, I want to get off

Profanity is too weak. No, no, I can't describe it. You'll have to see for yourself.

Posted by Jane Galt at August 25, 2004 6:25 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments
Posted by: John Thacker on August 25, 2004 6:27 PM

Indeed. Four costumes for boys, and only one for girls?! Clear sex discrimination!

Umm, yeah. Ridiculous.

Posted by: AllenS on August 25, 2004 6:46 PM

I hate to say this, but sometimes I think we deserve to be nuked.

Posted by: Perry Metzger on August 25, 2004 7:19 PM

Hey, it's just capitalism at work. Either it sells or it doesn't. :_

Posted by: susan on August 25, 2004 7:26 PM

So what happens when you open your front door on Halloween and are faced with one of these? I swear, I will ask the usual, "And what are you dressed as?" "I'm a pimp," he'll say. "And what's a pimp?" I'll ask.

Posted by: Patrick on August 25, 2004 8:03 PM

I look at it, and I think, this can't be serious. It must be some sort of parody or joke. But I can't see the humor in it. Maybe it's just too sophisticated for me. But, that's just gross.

Posted by: Angie Schultz on August 25, 2004 8:28 PM

AAAAGGGGGHHHH!!!!

That's it. I'm becoming a Republican.

Posted by: jason on August 25, 2004 8:28 PM

You fools, don't you read Doktor Frank? Pimp is an acronym for Positive Intellectual Motivated Person.

http://www.allhiphop.com/hiphopnews/?ID=3402

Posted by: anony-mouse on August 25, 2004 10:05 PM

Rather disgusting to say the least, and yet, I'd be far more outraged if the costumes I saw at the link were somehow LESS modest than what passes for "junior fashion" at any major clothier these days.

Posted by: Dan on August 26, 2004 12:22 AM

Hmmm, adds new meaning to the phrase "trick or treat", doesn't it?

Posted by: Winston Smith on August 26, 2004 1:13 AM

That doesn't look like any "ho" I ever hired. Er, uh . . .

Posted by: Will Allen on August 26, 2004 2:05 AM

I have no desire to harm, or even interact in any way with the people who are responsible for such developments, but there are times that I really relate to Mark Twain's description, in his later years, of the "goddamned human race".

Posted by: Patri Friedman on August 26, 2004 2:35 AM

What's the problem? Wouldn't you rather be a pimp daddy than another goddamn ghost or skeleton?

And how is the "ho" costume different than dressing up like any rock star - which lots of kids do every year? Britney Spears...Madonna...Ho...

Some of you are in denial about children and sexuality.

Posted by: Joe Bagadonuts on August 26, 2004 8:11 AM

Go to an elementary/middle school and you will see any number of young girls (less than 10) dressed in the mid-riff/cheek baring fashion know as "Prostitot"

Hmmm, maybe the Amish tradition of shunning should be adopted as a response to these trends.

Posted by: Bolie Williams IV on August 26, 2004 9:11 AM

I don't particularly like the prostitot style, either.

However, it's not about how revealing the costume is, it's that they are selling costumes for kids to dress up as prostitutes and pimps.

Can you see a kid asking to dress up as a whore? I suspect this is the kind of thing that the parents will choose. And that disturbs me.

Bolie IV

Posted by: Shawn Levasseur on August 26, 2004 9:50 AM

I wouldn't be critical myself of the "Pimp" costumes, if it wasn't for the accompanying "Ho" costume.

The "pimp" style has taken on a life separate from it's occupational origins. Even the verb "pimp" now has a second defenition, to dress or decorate something in very colorful attention-getting style to the point of excess. Often used to describe what is done to a car, rather than a woman.

But when paired with the "Ho" part of the equation, there is no separation from its origins, and it makes the topic prostitution very much "in your face".

Posted by: Shawn Levasseur on August 26, 2004 9:52 AM

Though, to be quite honest the supposed "Ho" costume looks more like a 20's Flapper than anything else.

Posted by: Chief on August 26, 2004 10:28 AM

If you click through the Child Ho costume, you get this notice:

"Due to overwhelming demand, our child ho costume is currently sold out. However, we are currently accepting preorders. All preorders will arrive in time for Halloween 2004."

What is wrong with some parents?

Posted by: anony-mouse on August 26, 2004 1:31 PM

Some of you are in denial about children and sexuality.

...whereas others of us know exactly what is going on, and would prefer less of it.

Posted by: LB on August 26, 2004 3:55 PM

Naaaaaaahhhhh - That has to be a gag!

Posted by: Mikey on August 26, 2004 4:35 PM

As I remarked in Dean's World "Looks like the children's section of Hot Sams or City Slickers."

Posted by: dsquared on August 26, 2004 5:02 PM

Can't help noticing that all the children are white; this doesn't quite square with my reading of the ouvre of Iceberg Slim, although I daresay that there is a professor of literature out there who could explain it to me.

Posted by: markm on August 26, 2004 8:29 PM

"Can't help noticing that all the children are white." I suspect this has something to do with black parents having some idea what those costumes represent, and/or having the sense not to encourage their kids to consider a career in the sex trade.

Posted by: French snob on August 27, 2004 10:46 AM

The word is œuvre. Ouvre is another word entirely. If you don't remember how to spell it, try "work," which may not establish your French snob creds but does at least save you the embarrassment of discussing your reading of the "open" of Iceberg Slim.

Posted by: dsquared on August 27, 2004 8:06 PM

It's because of connards like this and their weird insistence on Academie Francaise standards in online typing, that French French is unlikely to ever become an Internet language, while Canadien might.

Kestketuveudire?

Posted by: French snob on August 28, 2004 4:46 PM

Let's try this again. Oeuvre is perfectly acceptable, if you don't happen to know the html entity for œ. Ouvre is not. Got it?

Posted by: David March, animator & fiddler on August 29, 2004 4:43 AM

I would LOVE to be able to blame it on the progressives and liberals who have been telling us for decades we have no right to JUDGE different lifestyles, and who REFUSED to criticize Clinton for his misbehaviors.

But I have to ponder...

In one sense, the huge problem we have is that our high-technology-dependent world requires of a person far more training than used to be necessary to prepare a person for self-sufficiency. You could say that adolescence has been extended from age 15 to the mid-twenties for most people

At the same time, improved nutrition and general health seem to be advancing children to puberty and sexual maturity at ever-younger ages.

So we now have an enormous population of children who are ready for sex, but not for the responsibilities and challenges that inevitably result.

Posted by: Pamela on August 30, 2004 2:30 PM

"The "pimp" style has taken on a life separate from it's occupational origins. Even the verb "pimp" now has a second defenition, to dress or decorate something in very colorful attention-getting style to the point of excess. Often used to describe what is done to a car, rather than a woman."

The inmates are truly in charge.....!!!


Comments are Closed.