Cultural Imperialism, Fresh Squeezed from New York Magazine

[x_los]

From an article blithely endorsing the Slut Costume trend with little insight and no research worthy of the name, but plenty of patronizing self-satisfaction.

http://nymag.com/nightlife/mating/39931/

"Halloween isn’t just a license to be sexy—it’s a license to be sexy in a way that the flyover states would understand, for a change: stripper chic rather than faded vintage slogan tees, pirates and wenches rather than underfed emosexuals."

Note the elaborations on the fascinating 'emosexuality' of New Yorkers. "In some quarters, dry wit and insider hipster references are still sexier than a latex-clad French maid." Yes, no one in the South, Midwest or Great Planes could understand desire as anything more complicated than 'me fuck stripper nao.' Everyone from a smug consumer metropolis is more educated, intelligent, emotionally aware and relevant than anyone from anywhere else simply by virtue of where they happen to live. And what's cleverer and more provocative than a dubiously 'witty,' cliched, spiritless, creativity-free 'naughty' costume? Oh wait! Everything.


*EDIT*

Told magazine so, prefacing it with the below:

At the bottom your articles, there are many little applications connecting one to the flotsam of the web, but no simple comment box and ensuing thread. Where do I direct vitriolic snark re: the article Halloween is for Lovers if there's no comment thread?

I wanted Em and Lo's readers to know the following, but alack, webdesign has failed me. Much like their writing.

Comments

[blinkidybah.livejournal.com]

God I hate the trend of Sexy!whatever. It's so demeaning and not at all representative of women as TEH SEX first and OTHER CATAGORY second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AtCmpSW7TY Though I would totally be SEXY 1900S STEEL CONGLOMERATE TYCOON!!!

[x-los.livejournal.com]

Why the fuck can't Halloween be either scary, or fun in the sense of cool, creative, possibly funny or possibly just well-made costume?


And frog.