So I read Dan Savage’s article on Halloween, and I’ve been ruminating on it, particularly in light of my previous criticism of “sexy” Halloween costumes.
The short version of Dan’s piece is that we should embrace sexy costumes, because Halloween is a great holiday for people to celebrate and have fun with their sexuality, and it’s kind of the only holiday where straight folks are encouraged to do that.
And y’know, he’s got a good point. Much of the fun of Halloween is the malleability of identity and the flouting of taboo, and that goes really well with sexuality. The Halloween party I’ve thrown every year since 2004 has ritualized spankings for people who don’t come in costume, and a special room set aside for party hookups. This year, that room saw the active… ahem… “celebration” of heterosexuality, male and female homosexuality, and bisexuality, simultaneously, within two feet of each other. I am fully on board with embracing Halloween as a sexy holiday, and totally agree with Dan Savage’s agenda in that regard.
However, I think he overlooks a couple important points. One is, of course, the body-image thing: when he says “there are a lot of straight guys out there who have amazing bodies, and they should be encouraged to show off on Halloween, to celebrate their erotic power”, I’m not sure he realizes that he’s writing off the erotic power of those of us whose bodies fail to amaze. (Of the seven or eight people I remember being in the Red Room mentioned above, a majority did not have “amazing” bodies, myself included.) That ties in with the bigger point, though, which is the difference between sexy costumes and “sexy” costumes.
The complaint about sexualized Halloween costumes that Mr. Savage seems to be missing is not that they’re about heterosexuality, it’s that they’re about a really awful, reductionist, exclusionary vision of heterosexuality. Women are only sexy if they’re skinny and showing off as much skin as possible, and men are… well, we’ve been over the collection of penis costumes. Let’s just say that the vision of male heterosexuality presented thereby is not exactly progressive. I’m not sure where exactly one would go nowadays for a positive, healthy representation of male heterosexuality, but it damn sure ain’t a Halloween store.
Now, if you happen to be into skinny girls in short skirts, or into guys who like to talk about their dick a lot, then great, you are totally being served by the vision of sexiness presented by the Halloween costume industry. For the rest of us, the ones who can’t fit into or just plain don’t like those narrow definitions, the objections Mr. Savage seeks to dismiss remain valid. It’s not that we object to a holiday celebrating our sexuality—it’s that we object to a holiday industry trying to dictate our sexuality.
Eh. Can’t get worked up about this. I think you’re analyzing the fun out of Halloween. Don’t like “sexy” or penis costumes? Make your own. Want to show off your “unconventional” sex appeal? So do it.
Lowest common denominator is itself a slur, against what is popular, solely on the grounds that it is popular; it is an inherently elitist comment. And that’s actually one of the primary problems I have with this blog. The “lack of diversity” comment, from somebody who would self-describe as diverse, sums it up; if a white straight heterosexual male said that there should be fewer people not like him and more people like him, we immediately recognize the evil inherent in the statement. If a racist laments the fact that there aren’t enough white people, we recognize the evil inherent… Read more »
“It implies it’s in human nature to be shallow and brutish, and that anything more substantial and benevolent must have been added later. On the other hand, I get the meaning well enough and I’m not sure there’s a better word for it.” “Shallow and brutish” did it just fine in the first sentence, didn’t it? I get why it seems so easy. Socially validated slurs convey a lot of meaning and extend social cache. Unfortunately, that creates blind spots. One uses “caveman” to mean “shallow and brutish”, but “caveman” could also imply “stupid” or “motivated by sex”. In actuality,… Read more »
I wish there was something else to call this group than caveman. It implies it’s in human nature to be shallow and brutish, and that anything more substantial and benevolent must have been added later. On the other hand, I get the meaning well enough and I’m not sure there’s a better word for it. Lowest common denominator perhaps?
Otherwise, I agree completely that a lack of diversity is the main issue, not the existence of any specific costume (barring that prison costume from the other thread).
“I just mind that there’s a massive lack of options for everyone and that only a small subset of society’s definition of “sexy” (namely: white/cis/het guys who think like cavemen) is being served.” Can we not throw around the old “cavemen” canard? It’s wrong for so many reasons. First, it ties our concept of intelligence with how “evolved” someone is, which plays into classic Social Darwinism. Second, it goes along with the whole “guys are kind of dumb” line of thinking, whereby male stupidity is simply “common knowledge”. Men can be smart and sexual at the same time. It’s not… Read more »
I wore a very sexy costume. It was a Ren Faire outfit that covered me from neck to ankles, with the exception of a tiny bit of cleavage.
“Sexy” definitely isn’t limited to “bare thighs and midriff.”
I wore a black oilcloth duster and a black oilcloth hat, with blue jeans and a button-up tan shirt. Cowboy through and through, although most people wouldn’t recognize the coat as something genuinely worn on the range (unless they’ve actually worked out there, anyways); I got more people thinking I was dressing up as a wrestler (who in turn dresses up as a cowboy, go figure) than recognized the cowboy theme. I rock the look. It’s sexy through and through. That’s PRECISELY why I wear it. But nobody looking at me would -think- I was dressing up to look sexy.… Read more »
“The fact that you largely see models in the online ads for costumes, and the fact that models are largely hairless (and have exaggerated muscle definition because they’ve been limiting their water intake to the point where they are endangering their health), doesn’t mean that the only sexy costumes are the ones that are centered on revealing a set of six-pack abs.” This isn’t just about costumes, it’s also about models. For about the last five years there has been a trend for male models to show body and facial hair. depending on a guy’s genetics, even rather young men… Read more »
I have to say, I do think most “sexy” costumes are problematic. The male ones are as previously stated, dick jokes, and the female ones are scraps of fabric that don’t resemble the thing they’re trying desperately to represent! I don’t mind skimpy costumes. I just mind that there’s a massive lack of options for everyone and that only a small subset of society’s definition of “sexy” (namely: white/cis/het guys who think like cavemen) is being served. I’d like to see more diversity there–and for the love of reason, some goddamned cultural awareness.
The thing with sexy men’s costumes is that there are plenty of them that don’t reveal a lot of skin. Sure, I have often gravitated towards costumes that involve tights (anything Renaissance, anything pirate or outer-space themed) because I have nice legs. But even if you can’t pick a part of your figure that you want to show off, you can look hot in costume. Uniforms, for example, are pretty widely considered attractive. Policeman, military dress outfit (not fatigues, but the fancy look — especially the US Marines with their white gloves), even a bus driver uniform can look hot.… Read more »
typhon: From Wikipedia – “In Freudian psychoanalysis, a Madonna–whore complex is a psychological complex that is said to develop in the human male when he sees all women not as individuals along a continuum, but as either saintly Madonnas or debased prostitute-like personalities.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex
That is not to say that I judge all women invariably by these lines, of course.
Pocketjacks wrote:
Ill second that…
Dan Savage has had these things explained to him enough times that he no longer gets a pass on “misdirected but sincere.” He knows what he’s saying.
@ Balconyscene
“Granted, I have the biggest madonna/whore complex the world has ever seen.”
…?
“I think that women should wear whatever they damn well please but I hate the idea that some women are trying to have it both ways, i.e. sexy on halloween, conservative otherwise.”
Isn’t that the whole point of dressing up? I’m afraid I don’t really see your point here.
“I think that women should wear whatever they damn well please but I hate the idea that some women are trying to have it both ways, i.e. sexy on halloween, conservative otherwise.
But BS, that’s the whole point of Halloween costumes in the first place! In fact that discontinuity fomr everyday life is the whole point of holidays.
I think that women should wear whatever they damn well please but I hate the idea that some women are trying to have it both ways, i.e. sexy on halloween, conservative otherwise.
Granted, I have the biggest madonna/whore complex the world has ever seen.
On your point about sexy costumes, all kinds of things can be sexy, and I agree, most of them get left out. Sexy can be an open leather vest and chaps over blue jeans, but sexy can also be a full suit buttoned up to the neck, or a suit with the tie hanging loose and the sleeves rolled up. Sexy can be a truly awesome hat or that tilt of the head that makes a smile seem devilish. There are so many types of sexy, so many things that can be sexy, that “sexy” Halloween costumes fail to embrace.
“when he says “there are a lot of straight guys out there who have amazing bodies, and they should be encouraged to show off on Halloween, to celebrate their erotic power”, I’m not sure he realizes that he’s writing off the erotic power of those of us whose bodies fail to amaze. ” You right about this. It isn’t logically necessary – you can say roses are red without denying or “writing off” violets are blue – but what you say is going on here really is what is going on here. Savage has done a lot of invaluable work… Read more »
What monkey said. Savage is a proud, unrepetentant fatphobe.
Actually, I think you’re being too easy on Savage. He’s really pretty vicious about body types, and what’s worse he falls back on the excuse of “but I’m just looking after their health!” Savage seems to think that in order to be healthy one must have zero body fat.
However, I think he overlooks a couple important points. One is, of course, the body-image thing: when he says “there are a lot of straight guys out there who have amazing bodies, and they should be encouraged to show off on Halloween, to celebrate their erotic power”,
Maybe he’s that’s his (misdirected but sincere?) way of saying that guys can be hot too?
@Danny: I think you’re probably right, which is why I don’t want to get too much on his case for it. Still, though, I’m against anyone, men or women, being required to have a certain body type in order to feel sexy, y’know?