My feminazi interboobs have been hot-flashing all day with talk of a certain “Naughty Leopard” Halloween costume, which reportedly sexualizes youngsters by dressing them up like a sensual, erotic purple cat in a dress. Now, not only am I against both the sexualization of youngsters and dyeing your cat purple and making it wear mary-janes, I am also a staunch advocate of thinking critically about sexist messaging that conditions young women to believe that performing traditional femininity and being one-dimensional sex-chattel is their paramount utility in life.
HOWEVER. I do have one question here. What the fuck is actually sexy about this business? It’s just a kid in a dress with a dumb ear-hat. (Honestly, I’m more offended by what a GARBAGE LEOPARD it is. Hey, Walmart, let me help you out with that.)
According to Feministing, “your small girl-child is being urged by Walmart to invoke one side of the virgin-whore dichotomy whilst dressing up for Halloween this year.” And while I support the sentiment—I’ve got that sentiment’s back to the max!—I’m just not convinced that it applies in this specific instance. Because, honestly, I can’t actually detect anything remotely sexual about the “Naughty Leopard” costume beyond the word “naughty” itself. And is that really enough to condemn it? That one word?
As we all know, “naughty” is a Halloween term that means “sexy, but like a baby.” But if we peer a little bit further back into “naughty”‘s etymological history, it used to just be a normal word you called a kid when it was being a mischievous dickhead! I have proof! This British lady told me! Sure, naughty has had sexual connotations as far back as the mid-19th century, but it’s been used to describe disobedient kids since the goddamn 1600s. So why did we let hornay college chicks hijack the word in all its forms? Why can’t children be naughty anymore?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
