Happy Halloween, pedophile-style

A company called Party City must be run by pedophiles. Here are some of its costume options for girls:

"French Maid":

french%20maid.jpg

Is there any earthly reason to promote costumes like this other than to sexualize little girls? See more on page 2.

"Devil Grrrl":

devil%20grrrl.jpg

"Major Flirt":

major%20flirt.jpg

"Little Red Riding Hood":

little%20red%20riding%20hood.jpg

"Runway Diva":

runway%20diva.jpg

"Devil Bride":

devil%20bride.jpg

"Alley Cat":

alley%20cat.jpg

"Aqua Fairy":

aqua%20fairy.jpg

"Bad Spirit":

bad%20spirit.jpg

[HT: moderator MK]


Comments:

Darn, I wanted to be a hooker for Halloween when I was 12.

*eyeroll*

What self-respecting parent would let their kid dress up like that? I mean Jiminy Crickets! I was usually a hobo or something dead for Halloween (prosthetic glass shards in the face are an AWESOME costume. :-p)

Posted by: Rae at October 16, 2007 10:57 AM


While I'm not sure that dressing little girls in sexy outfits is exactly healthy, I think it's better than the Freudian nightmare that is the "Purity Ball."
(A local church is throwing one of these creepy fetes instead of a Halloween party. Eeeeeeeew...)

http://www.glamour.com/news/articles/2007/01/purityballs07feb

Posted by: Laura at October 16, 2007 11:04 AM


Heh, I think they're kinda cute. Several of these look like young adult costumes, like, from the 10-16 area. Anyhow, I know a lady who is taking her 5 year old little girl to cheerleading camp. You want skimpy little girls? Check that crap out.

Lol, I'm pretty sure I could fit into half those costumes. Glory to my tinyness.

Posted by: Erin at October 16, 2007 11:11 AM


OH! Can I send you that article/video now Jill? I sent it to you a month ago and you said it was interesting and to send it back for Halloween.

Posted by: Jess at October 16, 2007 11:12 AM


Well some of those girls look like they could be in their later teens. Also did you ever see how short Sherily Temples skirts were!?

I like getting raisins on halloween.

Posted by: Jess at October 16, 2007 11:14 AM


Yes, it's difficult to imagine any other motive than sexualizing minors for these costumes; I also can't think of any reason to expect anything better from a company called "Party City", especially in connection with a satanic high holy day. These costumes don't just expose young girls to sexual corruption, they also expose the true nature of Halloween.

Satan is committed to corrupting and destroying everyone he can, especially children. He is jealous of God because God can create what Satan can only destroy. If Satan's servants at Planned Parenthood cannot kill them in the womb, then they seek to sexualize them via their sex ed propaganda in order to exploit and destroy them that way, and Party City seems all too happy to assist in this campaign in the wardrobe department. And of course, Planned Parenthood, et al, are only too happy to provide a kickback in covering the tracks of child predators, when the victims are fertile schoolgirls.

Be in prayer, especially this season, for those targeted by PP and other groups that target the sexually pure (hence the special focus on children) for corruption and/or sacrifice.

Posted by: know the truth at October 16, 2007 11:35 AM


These costumes remind me of the Bratz dolls.

As Catholic blogger Mark Shea has often said, "Show me a culture that despises virginity and I'll show you a culture that despises children."

Posted by: John Jansen at October 16, 2007 11:37 AM


I also can't think of any reason to expect anything better from a company called "Party City", especially in connection with a satanic high holy day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)..................


Posted by: Laura at October 16, 2007 11:45 AM


Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)..................


Posted by: Laura at October 16, 2007 11:45 AM

--------------------------------------------------
OK, that made me laugh.
I think the costumes are scary and would never let my daughter go out like that. Most of those girls look to be pre-teen to me. I can think of no rational reason for paying your hard earned money to let your child dress up like a hooker. But all the talk of Satan and Halloween is seriously almost as disturbing to me.
Wow...

Posted by: fresa at October 16, 2007 12:15 PM


Fresa,

Over the past number of years I have learned a lot about multicultural and intercultural communication. Different cultural groups use different words for things based on cultural and religious traditions.

Some people, because of religious background use "satan" where secular folk might say "bad influence" If you don't come from that background and you are reading something or listening to someone who uses the term "satan" and you kind of substitute in "bad influence" the point they make may seem clearer to you.

Among americans there is much diversity in dialect, register and style in speech and communication.

Posted by: hippie at October 16, 2007 12:33 PM


good point Hippie. But you left out the fact that only the crazies use the word "satan." But...more Americans believe in a real Satan then believe we landed on the Moon.

Oy vey.

Posted by: Hal at October 16, 2007 12:38 PM


That's creepy

Posted by: TexasRed at October 16, 2007 12:40 PM


Be in prayer, especially this season, for those targeted by PP and other groups that target the sexually pure (hence the special focus on children) for corruption and/or sacrifice.

***********************************************
Oh brother! I hope this is TIC and not a genuine fruit cake ...

Posted by: TexasRed at October 16, 2007 12:42 PM


Hal,

I posted this before but maybe you didn't see it.

When I taught Romeo and Juliet to my ESL class, a full half of the class wrote essays saying that since Romeo and Juliet disobeyed their parents, they deserved to die.

I don't want to call half the class crazy. They just come from a different cultural perspective with different values.

Posted by: hippie at October 16, 2007 12:46 PM


Hal,
You've obviously never met a priest who's done exorcisms! What Satan likes best is that no one believes in him!

Posted by: Patricia at October 16, 2007 12:58 PM


Hippie, I agree that your students who felt that way weren't crazy. It's a legitimate perspective I suppose. But Satan? I don't want to argue about it,I just promised MK I'd try to be less of a smartass. whatever you guys want to believe, fine by me.

Posted by: Hal at October 16, 2007 12:58 PM


Those costumes are normally found in older teens and up. I'm getting sort of sick about the fad even among older adults, to have women dress like a hooker form of [insert something here]. One of my friends (she is a little heavyset) wanted to dress up as rainbow brite. With no costumes in town, the ONLY kind we saw ANYWHERE online (and actually saw one in a store yesterday) was the same hooker-esque version:
http://www.zoogstercostumes.com/products/la83090.html

I'm going as a tavern lady, and I have a long skirt and long sleeve shirt with the fake leather fest and a tavern cup (target-you are awesome). Actually I originally wanted to dress up in a gorgeous indian sari but those things cost so much its ridiculous! Seems unfair to pressure even adults run around in the cold looking like a hooker. But if people want to objectify themselves they can.

Then there is the fad of making younger children grow up too quickly. Damn guys, let kids be kids. At a store I saw thongs for little kids. A former dance teacher of mine dressed her 5 year old in long black boots and amini skirt. Her age I would wear long green shorts and a made at home watermelon tshirt. It is sort of saddening.

Oh and you halloween hating people: I too think that kids dressing up and going door to door asking for candy is just a ruse for the devil--I think he is hiding in one of the peanut butter cups.
On a scary note, a friend dragged my sister last year to a Christian haunted house and she said is was REALLY creepy, but not in a good way. It was basically saying "follow me and we will show you who is going to hell." They had a scene where a guy shot himself in the head on his front porch, and I think there was one mimicing a columbine-esque scene. Jesus.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 12:59 PM


OK, those are costumes that ADULTS should be wearing, not children. Those are ridiculous, especially with how short those skirts are...plus all the makeup those little girls are wearing is appalling. I didn't wear makeup normally until high school. The closest that ANY of my costumes has ever come to that is a devil costume that covered significantly more leg than that one girl's outfit. AND I was 17 (yes, I know, a little old, but there was a costume contest in high school). Halloween is my favorite holiday, and I have had a costume every year...but never as overly-sexualized as these little girls' costumes. I could never condone parents allowing a little girl to wear something like this.

Posted by: Lyssie at October 16, 2007 1:00 PM


Those costumes would be great..... on girls in their 20s.... this is just sick...

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 1:00 PM


ooh ooh freshman year my roommate had that EXACT little red riding hood costume. Funny thing, her friend (going to a sorority party) was 'tinkerbell' which consisted of fishnet tights, a green miniskirt, a tube top, and plastic see through wings. That year I did a tongue in cheek costume- I put on a long black skirt, a long sleeve shirt and made an "A" and made a puritan hat for myself. I called it, 'the original slut.'

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 1:02 PM


PiP

Your costume story reminds me of my cousin and a couple of her friends.

They dressed up as the following.

HO - hooker

HO HO - the snack cake

HO HO HO - hooker in a skimpy santa's helper outfit

Posted by: hippie at October 16, 2007 1:07 PM


I'd like to see the children WALK in the shoes the models have on!!
We have had All Saints Parties on Halloween. It's been great fun for my kids- they dress up as a saint. The children then present their saint and others have to guess who they are. As the kids got older the costumes became quite good with many of the participants making or designing their costumes. My kids always wrote limericks for their saint.
Between trick or treating and the All Saints parties, the kids have preferred the latter. My youngest finds Halloween too ghoulish.

Posted by: Patricia at October 16, 2007 1:09 PM


Fresa, Hal, and ilk,

Truth is often disturbing. That is why Satan, the Father of lies, hates it, and constantly seeks to get people to deny it. Especially when the truth exposes him.

Anyone who can kill his own children without any remorse doesn't have any room to be talking about "crazies", and calling someone "crazy" just based on their religion, which you cannot honestly refute, is bigotry. (Bigotry being defined as being more down on something than you are up on it.)

Christianity is not a mental disease, and it clearly exposes both the existence, and the nature, of Satan. The closer anyone gets to sanctity, the closer he gets to sanity.

It seems that I read awhile back here, too, a very good post to the effect that the further one advances into the realm of darkness (that would be Satan's realm, for those of you in the land of pure materialism), the less there is that you won't do to others whereas the further you advance toward the realm of light (that would be the kingdom of Christ) the less that there is that you won't do FOR them, if you can.

Certainly bears repeating here, and there's certainly no basis presented here for taking the words of TexasRed, Laura, Hal, Fresa, or Mencken over those of Christ. He is a much better place to put your hope.

Posted by: know the truth at October 16, 2007 1:12 PM


hippie

HAHA that's hilarious. I love clever costumes. Last year I dressed up as jerri blank. I took a lot of pictures that were from the show.

Long story short I actually went to the hospital that night, and it was really awkward because my hair was still white and I had all of my fake tattoos still on.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 1:19 PM


My 12 year old wasn't going to dress up this year then a few of her friends asked her to go out as a group. She's relatively tall for her age, about 5'5" and wears a size 2. Just TRY finding a costume for her size that doesn't look like a slut. It's nearly impossible. Thank goodness she was as disgusted as I was at the costumes and we settled on a very modest long sleeve, to the ground, high collar princess. I mean come on, it's OCTOBER in Chicago! FREEZING!

Posted by: Kristen at October 16, 2007 1:20 PM


Kristen,

You should see the "dirty martini" costume I saw last night.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 1:21 PM


PIP, I saw that one searching online for my daughter. GROSS!

Posted by: Kristen at October 16, 2007 1:23 PM


Certainly bears repeating here, and there's certainly no basis presented here for taking the words of TexasRed, Laura, Hal, Fresa, or Mencken over those of Christ. He is a much better place to put your hope.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're right. Halloween is my favorite holiday, and the the portal to the best time of year (I'm a festive holiday geek!) But I think we should maintain at least one biblical standard:

Proverbs: 31 6-7

Give beer to those who are perishing,

wine to those who are in anguish;

7 let them drink and forget their poverty

and remember their misery no more.

Posted by: Laura at October 16, 2007 1:24 PM



"Anyone who can kill his own children without any remorse doesn't have any room to be talking about "crazies", and calling someone "crazy" just based on their religion, which you cannot honestly refute, is bigotry."

Refute what?

What can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Posted by: Hal at October 16, 2007 1:25 PM


Lol, I also don't know where they are celebrating Halloween but it's not in my area! I mean, I was considering wearing something skimpy but then i would be confined to my hall. To damn cold! My costume will probably include mittens, a scarf and a hat.

Posted by: Jess at October 16, 2007 1:29 PM


Kristen,

I KNOW. Some of those costumes really creeped me out.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 1:29 PM


HA! I'm going to be a pile of laundry!

Posted by: Jess at October 16, 2007 1:31 PM


This is the tinkerbell costume:

http://www.yandy.com/Shopping/products/prod_666.asp

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 1:33 PM


For the record, I never said, or thought, that anyone who practiced their religion in any non-violent manner was crazy. The talk of the present-day Halloween being somehow related to Satan and evil is, however, disturbing to me.
I fail to find the link between my 3 year old Monkey, 5 year old Power Ranger and my 6 year old Hello Kitty Butterfly, the pixie sticks we will hand out, our trio of pumpkins and Satan.

And, I guess while I am on the topic. When bad things happen or I do bad things or I see bad people doing things, I don't think, Oh, there is Satan again. I think, Wow, what can I do to make this situation better. If you think Satan has won with me, you are wrong. Whether I believe in him or not.

Posted by: fresa at October 16, 2007 1:36 PM


PIP, they try to make everything sex related. They have a "Ghostbusters" costume out there now. The only resemblance is the color. It's just stupid.

Jess, the best costume I ever saw, creatively speaking, was a friend of mine who dressed up as "static cling." It was great! Underwear, bras and socks stuck all over.

Posted by: Kristen at October 16, 2007 1:38 PM


Know the (your)truth:
Oh, and also. I never thought anyone should listen to me (or you for that matter) over the word of God.
That, is seriously ridiculous.

Hippie:
Thanks for the insight into the Satan issue. I see where that could just be part of some people's vernacular, and so maybe I shouldn't be so judgmental. But, my initial reaction when I see/hear of all the talk of Satan is to tune them out. I will try to replace that with bad influence and see if I can eek my way through to the point. I know I can always use hearing the other side.

Posted by: fresa at October 16, 2007 1:42 PM


I went as a dinner table once. Big cardboard box with a hole for my head, a tablecloth over it, utensils and a wine glass glued on...then I cut a silver plastic plate so it fit around my head and looked like my head was the entree. It was pretty awesome.

Posted by: Erin at October 16, 2007 1:56 PM


Two friends of mine dressed up in white t-shirts with a big capital "P" on them, and they drew black circles around their eyes. Black-eyed peas...it was so stupid that it was funny.

Posted by: Carol at October 16, 2007 2:15 PM


Purity balls worse than slutty costumes for pre-teen girls? Only in the twisted alternate universe of the Left.

Oh, and Laura, this Catholic won't object to your verse from Proverbs. ;-)

Posted by: Matthew at October 16, 2007 2:19 PM


When I taught Romeo and Juliet to my ESL class, a full half of the class wrote essays saying that since Romeo and Juliet disobeyed their parents, they deserved to die.

Posted by: hippie at October 16, 2007 12:46 PM

Hippie - have you ever read an article called "Shakespeare in the Bush"? Without going into too many boring details, a western (white, anglo-saxon type) man was sharing stories with an African tribe. He chose to tell them Hamlet. The results were not what he expected. None of them could understand why Hamlet was so outraged by his mother's marriage to his uncle, because to them, that was what you were supposed to do if your husband died.

Posted by: Carol at October 16, 2007 2:19 PM


Purity balls worse than slutty costumes for pre-teen girls? Only in the twisted alternate universe of the Left.

Posted by: Matthew at October 16, 2007 2:19 PM

Matthew - this leftist thinks that both things are equally creepy for the same reason: they reduce young girls to nothing more than their value as sexual objects.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 16, 2007 2:21 PM


OOops, forgot to sign the above. That was me posting to Matthew.

Posted by: Carol at October 16, 2007 2:21 PM


Carol,

Excellent point. By marrying her husband's brother, the property and wealth stay in the late husband's family. She would be like a traitor to pick her own husband outside of her late husband's family. It is not just the husband who owns her, his family does as well.

Posted by: hippie at October 16, 2007 2:32 PM


Erin, Carol

I love your costume ideas. Wonderfully creative and fun.

Posted by: hippie at October 16, 2007 2:35 PM


Anonymous - No, Laura said "I think it's better than the Freudian nightmare that is the 'Purity Ball.'" So, she thinks it's worse.

And no, I don't think Purity Balls intentionally reduce young women to sexual objects. What the organizers of such balls need to do, for purposes of "equality," is to preach that purity is a responsibility of young men as well.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 16, 2007 2:38 PM


I'm pretty sure purity balls are scarier than any horror movie I've ever seen.

Except maybe Jesus Camp.

Posted by: Erin at October 16, 2007 2:41 PM


When I first heard about the purity balls, I was pretty surprised.
Then I thought about it for awhile and figured that even though it seems like an awkward way for a father to give his daughter some positive reinforcement, to the participantnts it may well be fun to get to dress up and spend an evening together. The father daughter connection is important for self esteem and daughters whose academic, athletic and personal achievements are recognized by dad tend to really thrive.

Purity balls may not be to everyone's taste, but hey, what is?

Posted by: hippie at October 16, 2007 2:48 PM


Jess, yes, please do.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 16, 2007 3:03 PM


My son michael dressed up as a gang banger with a sherlock holmes hat...called himself Sherlock Homie.

Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 3:20 PM


If you saw the actual ad, you'd see that ALL of those costumes came in size 4-16...

A pedophiles wet dream...

Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 3:22 PM


OMG, I just got my "I Am America" book today and I'm really excited! It's so fancy and clever! Can't wait to start reading it

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 3:53 PM


Honestly, a couple of them aren't that bad....the only ones I thought were a little odd was the french maid and little red riding hood, and the devil because i've seen adult costumes that look almost exactly like it.

God, whatever happened to dressing up silly for halloween? I was a purple-haried pirate one year, an Australian Outback girl another year, Lady Lovely Locks.....and my sister would really dress up silly. I was a bride one year too.

And I never dress up in high school. and in college I went as a pirate one year and as an 80s girl last year. the other years I just didnt care. I really wish Halloween wasnt every girls excuse to dress revealing, but you know what? If they want to, its their prerogative. Of course, if they're over 18.

Posted by: Womyn at October 16, 2007 3:59 PM


I usually dress up as weird things, and go all out. i LOVE halloween. I think this year, i will go out as my own Grandfather, where his Uniform and cause a ruckus. I always wanted to before, but wasnt about to dawn the uniform of an IRA Colonel. but no one in Germany will start shit, so it will be fun.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 4:29 PM


I think those that depise purity are only upset that they themselves, aren't pure.

I think it's jealousy.

P.S. Purity is not virginity. Virgins can be impure and non-virgins can be a pure as Ivory Soap.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 16, 2007 4:34 PM


Considering that the holiday is called the Eve of ALL HALLOWS, not "Act Like An Idiot Day" or "Dress Like A Prostitute Day", and that the Church created the holiday to get rid of pagan crap (in the same manner in which Christmas, Easter, and Valentine's Day were placed on the calendar on specific days to get rid of other pagan crap), it would be nice if some folks used the day (or at least the day after) to pray for the dead.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 16, 2007 4:42 PM


I'm pure.

Posted by: Hal at October 16, 2007 4:43 PM


JL; I do pray for the dead, then dress like one, and do EXACTLY what my Grandfather would do if he was alive and my agge, Get piss ass drunk and have kinky sex with my wife.

*Whispers* I think shes gonna let me try anal this year *wink*wink*

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 4:45 PM


Furthermore, studies have proven the importance that fathers have in developing a young lady's self-esteem. Girls with absent or abusive fathers are shown to become sexually active earlier and become promiscuous moreso that fathered girls. Fathers instill in their daughters male validation- so they don't feel the need to seek such validation in the back seats of cars. Purity balls, where fathers lavish their daughters with attention and positive praise do wonders to help girls make more self-respecting choices. I never attended one, but I would have loved to.

It's not so much that they dad is guarding the girls purity with a shotgun- in fact, those girls that were accused of being "sluts" by their fathers were actually the ones that I noticed becoming promiscuous. Do you see the power of a father in shaping a girls' self-image?

But, and I say this emphatically, Costumes such as these emphasize the need for fathers to protect their daughters from sexualization.
Purity Balls are a great way to show girls that their fathers are going to protect them from sexual predators, a world that is trying to sell them as miniature sex objects, and the empty promises of sex before marriage. Little girls are vulnerable- so having a grown man committed to protecting them is simple wisdom.

P.S. When I see a little girl in short shorts with words across the rear drawing attention to it, my first thought is, "Where is her Daddy? Why does he let her wear clothes where people most focus on her butt?" I would never have been let out of the house dressed like that- for my own protection. Are there no more fathers out there like mine?

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 16, 2007 4:46 PM


I'm pure.

My ass.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 16, 2007 4:47 PM


Jacqueline;

Fathers also instill one other thing.... Fear into BFs. as in "If you touch my baby, i will slit your throat from ear to ear and laugh as you drown in your own blood."

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 4:49 PM


haha jonathan, bad experience?

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 5:01 PM


PIP; sorta, i am that father. My daughter is my world. even tho i had her young. the last boy she brought home was no good. lied to my face. i wont tolerate that. so i told him if he ever touched her, i would sick a pipe-bomb up his arse. (i wouldnt REALLY..... but he doesnt know that).

im also fairly large (6'3 15.5st.)

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 5:07 PM


f you saw the actual ad, you'd see that ALL of those costumes came in size 4-16...

A pedophiles wet dream...

Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 3:22 PM
...........................................
Seems to me that anyone finding a child sexually attractive regardles of attire or lack of it is a pedophile. I find nothing provacative about these costumes. I have to wonder why you do MK.

Posted by: Sally at October 16, 2007 5:12 PM


Haha yikes.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 5:12 PM


Hal said: "I'm pure."

Yes, but pure what? I have some appropriate words to fill in the blank with, but I don't think Jill would appreciate it.

Jonathan, I'm not interested in your ridiculous behavior.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 16, 2007 5:25 PM


Fathers also instill one other thing.... Fear into BFs. as in "If you touch my baby, i will slit your throat from ear to ear and laugh as you drown in your own blood."

Indeed! My father liked to talk to my boyfriends about all the land he owned and that he could hide a body and no one would ever find it...

NOT KIDDING.

My dad also wanted to get a picture of my father with a gun to tack on our refrigerators with the caption, "This is my Daddy. He wants to meet you."

Also. Not kidding.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 16, 2007 5:27 PM


Jacqueline,

i can see it. i told one kid "i own a boat, and the ocean is pretty big..... so dont f&$# up"

but i liked that one, he looked me in the eye and said "if i do, i'll meet you at the pier"

THATS the kind of bloke i want my daughter to marry,

JL; come on, live a little.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 5:31 PM


i told one kid "i own a boat, and the ocean is pretty big..... so dont f&$# up"

My father would love that line. His favorite "calling-in-sick-to-work" excuse is, "I'd come into work today but the voices in my head told me to stay home and clean my guns."

He likes to show my boyfriends his arsenal. This is Texas, after all.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 16, 2007 5:45 PM


Jacquieline;

Ya, my wife tells me horror stories about Texas.... i have some nice older guns, and am a good shot. but more people are scared of the look of me. Beard, mohawk, tall and broad....

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 5:55 PM


"Refute what?" That Jesus is Who He claimed to be; the way, the truth, and the life, Who laid down His own life for others, rather than taking life from others, as you have done to the children with whose care you were entrusted.

Since He is the God of the living, not the dead, it would seem more appropriate to pray for those living who are endangered, rather than those already dead. The "pagan crap" that "All Hallows Eve" was supposed to do away with has definitely had the ascendency over anything to do with Christ for as long as I can remember Halloween being observed.

Real fathers protect their daughters from the degradation and dangers posed by predatory sex, and part of that protection would naturally include modest dress. I don't agree with the "slut defense", the practice of blaming the victim of sexual assault for the crime because of inebriation or immodest dress; young (and old) men should be taught to protect young women, not exploit them, under any circumstances.

However, G.K. Chesterton was correct in stating, "There is such a thing as pornography; as a system of deliberate erotic stimulants. That is not a thing to be argued with one's intellect, but to be stamped on with one's heel...If a man tries to excite a sex instinct that is too strong already, and that in it's meanest form, he must be a scoundrel. He is either taking money to degrade his kind, or else he is acting on that mystical itch of the evil man to make others evil, which is the strangest secret in hell."

God did not put boundaries around sexuality to deny people pleasure but to spare them a great deal of suffering. Abortion, STDs, the heartache of intimate betrayal, all these and more miseries are much more likely to follow violations of God's commandments concerning sexual behavior than adherence to them.

Sexual pleasure always has a price; for legitimate pleasure, you pay before; for illegitimate pleasure, you pay later; and it's usually a much higher price. But PP and those who support them won't mention that, since there is such a very large conflict of interests between the truth and their bank account.

One of my other favorite writers happened to be a Puritan, and from what I've read of his work so far, Mencken's judgment of them is way off. I wonder how many of them Mencken or his pet parrot, Laura, has actually sat down and read. Neither of them has probably read Watson; there is nothing in any of his works so far to suggest that he was unhappy, or wanted others to be; quite the opposite is actually the case.

Although Chesterton, from what I understand, also had his differences with some of the Puritans (like Mencken, he tends to lump them all together, rather than refuting anyone of them in particular), he made another observation about Christ and His critics that seems quite relevant to this discussion:

…“And then in a quiet hour a strange thought struck me like a still thunderbolt. There had suddenly come into my mind another explanation. Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has already been admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape. Outrageously tall men might feel him to be too short. Very short men might feel him to be tall. Old bucks who are growing stout might consider him insufficiently filled out; old beaux were growing thin might feel that he expanded beyond the narrow lines of elegance. Perhaps Swedes (who have pale hair like tow) called him a dark man, while Negroes considered him distinctly blonde. Perhaps (in short) this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing; at least the normal thing, the center. Perhaps, after all, it is Christianity that is sane and all its critics that are mad – in various ways. I tested this idea by asking myself whether there was about any of the accusers anything morbid that might explain the accusation. I was startled to find that this key fitted a lock…” – G.K. Chesterton, “The Paradoxes of Christianity”, Orthodoxy.

The teachings of Christ are a much better standard for morality, and optimal human happiness, than those of any of His detractors, past, present or future. And He can be trusted to tell the truth about Satan much further than anyone else, and much further than Satan's minions (witting or unwitting) can be trusted to tell the truth about HIM.

Psalm 118:24

Posted by: jtm at October 16, 2007 6:01 PM


pip, let me know how that is, I've been contemplating buying that book, it looked hilarious/amazing.

Posted by: Dan at October 16, 2007 6:07 PM


JTM;

Then explain this:

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
- John 5:31
I am one that bear witness of myself...
- John 8:18
[Jesus was the speaker in both of these quotes]

or maybe this:

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22
Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Again, both are Jesus.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 6:09 PM


Since He is the God of the living, not the dead, it would seem more appropriate to pray for those living who are endangered, rather than those already dead.

I invite you believers to pray for me when I am dead, as if I am still being sanctified in purgatory, I can't pray for myself.

Please pray for me. I am a converted Protestant, And most of my loved ones are still Protestant (and they don't recognize 2 Maccabees), so my only hope for getting prayed for is to beseech my Catholic brethren.

Then again, I hope to marry a devout Catholic man and have droves of Catholic kids, so maybe my concern is unfounded. :)

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 16, 2007 6:11 PM


Dan, I'm on page 13, and some friends and I have flipped through and looked at the pictures.

IT IS HILARIOUS. Like you don't even know. I'll give you a taste:

"America used to live by the motto "Father Knows Best." Now we're lucky if "Father Knows He Has Children." We've become a nation of sperm donors and baby daddies. But there's more to being a father than taking kids to Chuck E. Cheese and supplying the occasional Y-chromosome. A father has to be a provider, a teacher, a role model, but most importantly, a distant authority figure who can never be pleased. Otherwise, how will children ever understand the concept of God?"

"Tip No.1: Set some rules.

Don't worry if a rule makes sense-the important thing is that it's a rule. Arbitrary rules teach kids discipline: if every rule made sense, they wouldn't be learning respect for authority, they'd be learning logic.

So go crazy with the rules-the time your child spends trying to figure them out is time he won't be stapling firecrackers to the neighbor's dog.

Suggested Arbitrary rules:
-Wash your hands before talking to strangers.
-If you look at a cat and it sneezes, no dessert for a week.
-Jell-O must NEVER be jiggled.
-"Red" means "stop," "green" means "go," and "purple" means "Wednesday."

And if they ever call "bullsh*t" on your game, there's an added benefit there, too. Let me tell you a little story. Once, there was a child whose father had lots of rules he thought were unfair. What's more, the strict father was never around, but continued making even more unreasonable demands on the child. finally the child had had enough- he rebelled, and lived happily ever after.

That child's name? America. (Last name: thebeautiful)."

"Tip no. 4: Don't Cry Over Spilled Milk.

Unspill it. If you ever wanted to travel back in time to relive your childhood, now you can- by living it through your kid's childhood. Children are tiny versions of you, minus the crushing failure. If you're not going to live your unrealized dreams through your kids, WHEN WILL YOU?
Fill them with your dashed hopes and shattered dreams. If they succeed, then doesn't that mean, in some small way, that you yourself succeeded? And if they fail, well, then your dream was probably impossible in the first place- though your child may want to throw HIS kids at it, just to make sure."

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 7:57 PM


Seems to me that anyone finding a child sexually attractive regardles of attire or lack of it is a pedophile. I find nothing provacative about these costumes. I have to wonder why you do MK.

Ah Sally,
You're such a card. Yeah, that's me, closet pedophile. Or maybe you were implying prude?

Either way, I wouldn't expect you to find these clothes provocative. You'd have to actually understand the difference modest dress and well, those costumes. Yes, we should all dress our six year olds in 6 inch platforms, thong underwear, and midriff baring tops.

Now tell me something Sal...why do men go to strip clubs, look at porn and read playboy? Could it be because they are "turned on" by provocative clothing? Wouldn't they get just as turned on by say...stella todler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoOfXt81HTM

Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 9:28 PM


To anyone who really cares about the apparent contradiction posed by Jonathan, if you will read the verses quoted IN THEIR CONTEXT, they will make more sense.

In both texts from John, Jesus was acknowledging His total oneness with, and dependence on, God; that while His own witness was true, it was not generated just from within Himself. In the first text, He was pointing out that God had confirmed His identity and ministry through John the Baptist.

There is a difference between pointing out someone's folly, per se, and hatefully calling someone "fool", "crazy", etc., just to put them down. Also, as God in the flesh, Jesus had a clearer take on folly than others. I know it's difficult for people who hate God to acknowledge that He knows more than they do; but people who don't make such boasts, and don't claim equality with the Creator of the universe, the notion that He is a better judge of wisdom and folly clears up any apparent contradiction between those texts, also.

But I think Jonathan would do better considering the explaining he will have to one day do to God, rather than demanding that God explain things to him, especially things that aren't that hard to discern with just a little more perspective and attention to context.

Posted by: jtm at October 16, 2007 9:57 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL8YHc2TV5U

I am just in a mood I guess

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 16, 2007 9:57 PM


JMT;

I have more, those are just two glaring ones. im also a big fan,

Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword.
- Matthew 10:34

All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
- Matthew 26:52

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 10:09 PM


Seems to me that anyone finding a child sexually attractive regardles of attire or lack of it is a pedophile. I find nothing provacative about these costumes. I have to wonder why you do MK.

Ah Sally,
You're such a card. Yeah, that's me, closet pedophile. Or maybe you were implying prude?

Either way, I wouldn't expect you to find these clothes provocative. You'd have to actually understand the difference modest dress and well, those costumes. Yes, we should all dress our six year olds in 6 inch platforms, thong underwear, and midriff baring tops.

Now tell me something Sal...why do men go to strip clubs, look at porn and read playboy?
Could it be because they are "turned on" by provocative clothing? Wouldn't they get just as turned on by say...stella todler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoOfXt81HTM

Oh good grief.

Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 9:28 PM

Posted by: Sally at October 16, 2007 10:11 PM


Also JTM, dont worry about me and God, we talk regularly. and we're tight. its his followers i dont agree with.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 16, 2007 10:52 PM


"Now tell me something Sal...why do men go to strip clubs, look at porn and read playboy?

Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 9:28 PM"

Well, don't go bashing Playboy.....its a very good magazine. I read it on occasion; it has fabulous articles. People just tend to overlook that aspect and only focus on the nude women (which, btw, aren't always that provocative in my opinion. It isn't like Hustler or Penthouse, which are too sexual).

Posted by: Womyn at October 16, 2007 11:14 PM


Jonathan,

its his followers i dont agree with.

Saying, "my Father and I get along great, but I trash my brothers and sisters, whom he loves as much as he loves me."

Loving your neighbor and communion with them is a requirement. In fact, God goes as far to say that if you can't love your neighbor who you can see, how can you love God who you can't see?

What you said reminds me of what some immature believers say about authorities. They don't respect or obey authorities and claim God is their only authority- when God made it clear that He established authorities and our compliance is expected.

Acceptance of the Eucharist means that you announce your communion with the teachings of the Church and with all others receiving and making that same announcement.

We're family. Your goodness to family is expected.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 7:33 AM


Womyn,

Men don't masturbate the the articles.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 7:34 AM


Jacqueline;

i never said i dont love everyone. i said i dont AGREE with everyone. do you have siblings? If so, you'll know what i mean. i dont always AGREE with my brother, but i still love him.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 17, 2007 8:24 AM


i never said i dont love everyone. i said i dont AGREE with everyone. do you have siblings? If so, you'll know what i mean. i dont always AGREE with my brother, but i still love him.

We don't have the luxury of disagreement on theology, nor the audacity to think our limited understanding exceeds 2000 years of apostalic theologians. We accept the Church, Her authority and Her teachings as a part of trusting Jesus. Whichever brother or sister is out of communion with the Church teachings must make reconcilation and repentance. If that brother is you, then your disagreement WILL effect your communion with God.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 9:06 AM


Jacqueline;

who is to say the catholic church is right? (this is a circular question, because it can only be answered by things circular or impossible to prove)

I mean, whos to say Vishnu did not create the world? and the Vedas is all fact?

Posted by: Jonathan at October 17, 2007 9:15 AM


who is to say the catholic church is right? (this is a circular question, because it can only be answered by things circular or impossible to prove)

I will say that the Catholic Church is right! And if you can't say the same, you're out of communion.

I am a reconciled Protestant, former Evangelical/Pentecostal type, and I realized that all these human interpretations of Scripture have led us further and further away from the Church Jesus founded and more and more into familial discord. Do you know there are over 30,000 official Protestant denominations? 30,000! Because they disagree on bits and pieces of doctrine, which is easy to do. Sadly, though. someone must be right and someone must be wrong. And the very basis of this discord is protesting God-given spiritual authority, which I think is immoral. So, I, myself a very intellectual and well-educated person, decided to please God and to do so I would subjugate myself under the authority Christ gave me- because I trust Him. I may not always understand or in my limited understanding "agree," but I will choose to trust and submit to the Church. I think 2000 years of brilliant apostalic successors who've dedicated their lives to the study of Christ are more likely to be right than a 27-year-old Christian convert educated in secular matters.

I know what I just said will invoke a hailstorm from arrogant people (likely Pagan people, also) who think that they can condascend to know God better than the apostles and their chosen successors. I know I'll be called a "Godbot" or mindless religious follower. But Jesus and I are blissfully in love and I long to make Him happy with me. Our relationship and romance is unmatched by anything worldly, so I can shake off such accusations- I am elated with Jesus and His Church, and I will protect Her unity and reputation at the peril of my life. Anyone else not willing to do this is undeserving of Her and should not call themselves Catholic.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 9:31 AM


Hahaha, talking about parenting... I know my bf would be kinda a hardass dad. He doesn't think kids should watch cartoons or eat candy, ever. My kids would take one teary eyed look at me and I would say, "oh, ok sweetie, pop tarts for dinner it is!"

Posted by: Jess at October 17, 2007 9:33 AM


I mean, whos to say Vishnu did not create the world? and the Vedas is all fact?

Almighty God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. That's the creed we profess each Sunday. That's our profession of faith at Confirmation.

If you disagree with the profession of faith and your baptismal promises, in whole or in part, you ain't Catholic. Thus you shouldn't represent yourself as such because it damages the Church's reputation. Many Christian faith traditions as well as non-Christians know little to nothing about the faith and rely on what they see and hear from self-professed Catholics to form an opinion about the Holy Church. You are giving false information, Jon.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 9:37 AM


Jess,

My kids would take one teary eyed look at me and I would say, "oh, ok sweetie, pop tarts for dinner it is!"

LOL! I am a sucker, too. I think a couple of attempts to put sugar-rushing kids to bed might firm you up, though. Nonetheless, between the two of you, you'll still get to be the "fun one." :)

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 9:39 AM


Another classy costume from the Party City website:

Any little girl o' mine could never leave the house without her stomach covered.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 9:45 AM


@Jacqueline: You should have seen the costumes that the little kids wore when I took dance. The recital costumes were very...skanky.

I'm going to be a Middle-Ages bar-wench because I bought a wench-y costume this year at the Renaissance Festival. Of course, I'm nearly 20 so it's a-ok. :-p

I was a sandwich one year when I was growing up. ^_^ I had a little "toothpick" and everything. I was a devil for my first Halloween at the ripe old age of 8-9 months. :)

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 12:24 PM


Ren Fests are fun. And empire waists make my boobs look awesome. I wanna go!!!

I haven't done the Halloween thing in a while- although I do want to find some sugary-wax teeth/lips/fangs. I love those...

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 12:47 PM


Rae that is totally my costume too! It looks cool, inexpensive, it's not too skanky, and I can carry around a beer stein.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 17, 2007 1:56 PM


Veronica of Planned Parenthood blog fame hates these too!
http://vivalafeminista.blogspot.com/2007/09/and-what-are-you-for-halloween-10-year.html

Hmmm... something we can all get behind?

Posted by: Milehimama at October 17, 2007 2:23 PM


Jacqueline.

If people like Jasper, JL, and others can tell me Stalin was Communist (even tho he broke all the major principals of communism) then i can say im catholic.

Also, i never said i BELIEVED in Vishnu, merely asked for validation of the Bible over any other religious text. which cannot be given.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 17, 2007 3:12 PM


The authority is Jesus.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 5:26 PM


Seems to me that anyone finding a child sexually attractive regardles of attire or lack of it is a pedophile. I find nothing provacative about these costumes. I have to wonder why you do MK.

Ah Sally,
You're such a card. Yeah, that's me, closet pedophile. Or maybe you were implying prude?

Either way, I wouldn't expect you to find these clothes provocative. You'd have to actually understand the difference modest dress and well, those costumes. Yes, we should all dress our six year olds in 6 inch platforms, thong underwear, and midriff baring tops.

Now tell me something Sal...why do men go to strip clubs, look at porn and read playboy? Could it be because they are "turned on" by provocative clothing? Wouldn't they get just as turned on by say...stella todler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoOfXt81HTM

Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 9:28 PM
...............................................................................

We wore dresses and hot pants much shorter than those shown back in the day. It isn't clothing that turns men on, unless he has a fetish, it is the concept of easy accessibility to sex. If one finds a child wearing anything or even buck naked sexually attractive, that person is sick. You are blaming the victims of pedophilia with such an attitude. Sexual predators don't give a rat's patooty what their victim is wearing unless they have a trigger applying to clothing. Clothing does not turn balanced people into sexual predators.

Posted by: Sally at October 17, 2007 5:27 PM


My parents have a picture of me naked in the bathtub when I was a baby. Obviously, it's kiddie porn!!!

Posted by: Erin at October 17, 2007 5:38 PM


who is to say the catholic church is right? (this is a circular question, because it can only be answered by things circular or impossible to prove)

I will say that the Catholic Church is right! And if you can't say the same, you're out of communion.

I am a reconciled Protestant, former Evangelical/Pentecostal type, and I realized that all these human interpretations of Scripture have led us further and further away from the Church Jesus founded and more and more into familial discord. Do you know there are over 30,000 official Protestant denominations? 30,000! Because they disagree on bits and pieces of doctrine, which is easy to do. Sadly, though. someone must be right and someone must be wrong. And the very basis of this discord is protesting God-given spiritual authority, which I think is immoral. So, I, myself a very intellectual and well-educated person, decided to please God and to do so I would subjugate myself under the authority Christ gave me- because I trust Him. I may not always understand or in my limited understanding "agree," but I will choose to trust and submit to the Church. I think 2000 years of brilliant apostalic successors who've dedicated their lives to the study of Christ are more likely to be right than a 27-year-old Christian convert educated in secular matters.

I know what I just said will invoke a hailstorm from arrogant people (likely Pagan people, also) who think that they can condascend to know God better than the apostles and their chosen successors. I know I'll be called a "Godbot" or mindless religious follower. But Jesus and I are blissfully in love and I long to make Him happy with me. Our relationship and romance is unmatched by anything worldly, so I can shake off such accusations- I am elated with Jesus and His Church, and I will protect Her unity and reputation at the peril of my life. Anyone else not willing to do this is undeserving of Her and should not call themselves Catholic.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 9:31 AM
..................................................................

Many Catholic theologians and scholars found the RCC out of communion with God and formed the Protestant movement. The RCC demonstrated it's lack of communion with God by their practice of inquisition making Prostantism a necessity for those of conscience. You may find blind faith to be a comfort. I find Blind Faith an excellant but short lived band.

Posted by: Sally at October 17, 2007 5:48 PM


Jacqueline:
and how do you know Jesus is that authority?

Posted by: Jonathan at October 17, 2007 5:52 PM


Sally,

Sexual predators don't give a rat's patooty what their victim is wearing unless they have a trigger applying to clothing. Clothing does not turn balanced people into sexual predators.

Where exactly did I say that men that never had a sexual feeling toward young girls would suddenly crave them because of these costumes?

What I said (and stand by) is that men that are bent this way, will have all the access they want to what I consider child pornography.

And yes they do like their girls to dress a certain way. I'm not blaming the victim. I'm blaming the "victim's" parents for allowing their 8 year old to parade around in public like this.

Where are the parents of those models?

Posted by: mk at October 17, 2007 5:56 PM


Any little girl o' mine could never leave the house without her stomach covered.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 17, 2007 9:45 AM
.....................................

Every little girl in the country was wearing rib tickler shirts back in the sixties. Of course back then people didn't blame little girls for the sick urges of pedophiles.

Posted by: Sally at October 17, 2007 5:56 PM


@Erin: Me too! My grandma has one of those "pornographic photographs"! My older (female) cousin said to me when we were looking through my grandma's photos (after my grandpa died, we all sat around for several hours looking at old photographs) and she goes, "Girl!? It's not fair! You had bigger boobs then me when you were less than a year old!"

Cousins are embarrassing, and I was a chubby baby...

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 5:56 PM


Sally,

I feel sorry for you...

Posted by: jasper at October 17, 2007 5:59 PM


My parents have a picture of me naked in the bathtub when I was a baby. Obviously, it's kiddie porn!!!

Posted by: Erin at October 17, 2007 5:38 PM
............................................

I have an adorable pic of my daughter 'dancing' on the coffee table when she was a little over 1.

Posted by: Sally at October 17, 2007 6:00 PM


Sally,

Sexual predators don't give a rat's patooty what their victim is wearing unless they have a trigger applying to clothing. Clothing does not turn balanced people into sexual predators.

Where exactly did I say that men that never had a sexual feeling toward young girls would suddenly crave them because of these costumes?

What I said (and stand by) is that men that are bent this way, will have all the access they want to what I consider child pornography.

And yes they do like their girls to dress a certain way. I'm not blaming the victim. I'm blaming the "victim's" parents for allowing their 8 year old to parade around in public like this.

Where are the parents of those models?

Posted by: mk at October 17, 2007 5:56 PM
...........................................

You are a pedophile's apologist. I couldn't control myself because little red riding hood was wearing a dress above her knees? She obviously wanted me to molest her?
Children need to be taught the truth. And that truth is that molestors aren't interested in what a child is wearing. What little boy clothing do you find to be molestor bait?

Posted by: Sally at October 17, 2007 6:10 PM


An altar boy outfit, obviously, Sally!

Posted by: Erin at October 17, 2007 6:11 PM


@Erin: Sic-burn.

That's gonna rile up some folks. *runs and hides from the ensuing fritz-storm*

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 6:12 PM


*small cough*

I rented an awesome documentary the other night called "Deliver Us From Evil"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814075/plotsummary

Way to go, Catholic church?

Posted by: Erin at October 17, 2007 6:13 PM


@Erin: Is that about that one Irish priest? I've heard of it.

Just wait, here's the response you're going to get:

"Another biased anti-Catholic film."

"That priest wasn't a real Catholic."

"Damn liberals and their evil, evil lies!"

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 6:16 PM


Oh! And I almost forgot:

"At least that priest isn't killing innocent children in the womb and abusing women like abortionists do!"

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 6:17 PM


*gigglepees herself*

I love you, Rae. :D

But, I've got to be off now....Organic chem test time. :(

Posted by: Lyssie at October 17, 2007 6:23 PM


@Lyssie: Bye-bye! I miss organic chem, shame we can't do a Vulcan mind-meld and I could helpe you with your exam. :(

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 6:25 PM


Oh fritz. I meant "help", not "helpe". Durrrrrr.

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 6:25 PM


Sally,

A child doesn't have to be molested or even touched. Fantasy is a large part of the game, and I wouldn't want my daughter (or son) to be part of anyone's sexual fantasy.

Erin, Alyssa and Rae.

Another biased anti-Catholic film. I mean, c'mon, if he was doing that then that priest wasn't a real Catholic.

Besides, it's not like he was killing innocent children in the womb and abusing women like abortionists do!

Posted by: mk at October 17, 2007 6:31 PM


@MK: Hah! I knew I had y'all figured out. :-p

I is lernin' reel gud in skool!

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 6:32 PM


My 7 year old son just said no girls should wear those clothes cuz their gross. Out of the mouth of babes.

Posted by: mk at October 17, 2007 6:33 PM


I know my parents wouldn't have let me out of the house dressed like that. My dad still has a fit when I wear low-cut shirts (which is like...once in a blue moon...and even those aren't that low cut).

Posted by: Rae at October 17, 2007 6:36 PM


Can I get one of those "French Maid" costumes?

Just how big is a size 16, anyway?


Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 17, 2007 6:44 PM


My 7 year old son just said no girls should wear those clothes cuz their gross. Out of the mouth of babes.

MK, when he starts liking girls he'll be all eyes for it.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 17, 2007 6:45 PM


Doug- a size 16 fits me, I'm 5'0 and a little under 100 pounds.

Posted by: Erin at October 17, 2007 6:51 PM


I rented an awesome documentary the other night called "Deliver Us From Evil"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814075/plotsummary

Way to go, Catholic church?

Posted by: Erin at October 17, 2007 6:13 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Was that just a nightmare?
Not only did the church hierarchy enable the molester, they helped shield him from prosecution.

Posted by: Laura at October 17, 2007 7:31 PM


Sally,

I feel sorry for you...

Posted by: jasper at October 17, 2007 5:59 PM
..............................

I'm sure that you will get over it.

Posted by: Sally at October 17, 2007 7:31 PM


An altar boy outfit, obviously, Sally!

Posted by: Erin at October 17, 2007 6:11 PM
........................................

Oh yes of course!

Posted by: Sally at October 17, 2007 7:34 PM


To anyone who honestly wants to understand the teachings of Christ and not just twist His words into shallow pretexts for trying to discredit them, like Jonathan and others, I commend the library at ccel.org. Matthew Henry's classic commentary is especially good, and you can access it directly at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.html. Jonathan won't find much help there, since the works available there are written by followers of Christ, with whom he seems to categorically disagree. (How's that again about "circular"?!)

To Jonathan, "we talk regularly; we're tight". Sounds to me as though you do most of the talking, and don't really allow Him much room for expression without your jumping on His every word as an adversary. The "tight" is all in your head; He said Himself that many would claim kinship with Him to be told "depart, I never knew you."

I know that many people do things in His name that He did not authorize (like you do, by trying to discredit Him and challenging His authority while at the same time claiming to be "tight" with Him), but they are not His followers. His followers are those who humbly seek to understand and follow His teachings, over those of any one else; whether it is themselves, the pope, or even family.

And, insofar as you are at variance with anyone honestly seeking to follow Him, you are at variance with Him, not "tight" with Him.

If you had read Him as what you really are in relation to Who He actually is, His teachings would not seem so ridiculous (and you have ridiculed them, without bothering to inquire of anyone closer to Him than you are, whether your interpretations might be amiss) to you.

I am not suggesting that questions won't arise in the course of examining a faith and pursuing it because they will unless your mind is either dead, or so sharp that they answer themselves as quickly as they arise; and most people fall somewhere in between those two states. But asking questions just to ask questions not because you want answers, and are willing to accept the entailments of them, is dishonest. Jesus never rebuffed honest doubt or honest questioning; but He was not as accomodating with those who only wanted to "trap" Him for sport, because they did not want to honestly deal with His claims.

Sort of like Laura's harping on pedophile priests when she supports PP, which destroys children in utero, then seeks to destroy the ones they missed there via destructive sexual activity...and which keeps pedophiles preying on minors by covering their tracks for them. She doesn't give a rat's behind about the victims; only about covering up her collusion with her set of their victimizers. If the pedophile priests are wrong, then why isn't she going after PP with the same zeal? She is actually delighted that the pedophile priests have done the wrongs they have, because it makes her feel justified in her own part in PP's destruction of children.

Posted by: jtm at October 18, 2007 11:47 AM


JTM, I think you misunderstand planned parenthood and the good works they are doing. If there was a God, he'd be on their side.

Posted by: Hal at October 18, 2007 1:00 PM


Actually, Hal, there is a "god" who is on their side. So you're half right.

Posted by: Bethany at October 18, 2007 2:42 PM


Doug- a size 16 fits me, I'm 5'0 and a little under 100 pounds.

Erin, I see.... Looks like bein' 6' 2" and 150% over your weight rules me pretty well out.

Plus, those things shrink when you wash 'em, I think.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 18, 2007 4:21 PM


Bethany,

Applause sign for JTM if you will....

Posted by: mk at October 18, 2007 6:06 PM


Thanks, Bethany; Satan is the “god” of this world, but not the ultimate, true God.

Hal, et al:

Think again. You have to ignore, deny, distort and misunderstand a great many other things to deny the existence of God, or to call PP's racist, deceptive, murdering of innocent children, seeking to involve older children in arguably destructive sexual activity, and subjecting women to needless, non-therapeutic, invasive surgery just to further their own bank account and social agenda "good". Some of the medical "icing" may be innocuous-looking enough, but the cake is too toxic to make even the icing safe to eat.

Thus you confirm Chesterton's observation, “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can’t see things as they are.”

You continue to justify, rather than repent, your sin of killing your own children; as long as that is the case, you will not be able to see God, or much of anything else, as it really is or, just as importantly, as it ought to be.
Give it up.

Posted by: jtm at October 18, 2007 7:08 PM



Bethany, Applause sign for JTM if you will....

No problemo!

Posted by: Bethany at October 18, 2007 7:34 PM


Bethany,

Merci buttercup!

Posted by: mk at October 18, 2007 9:27 PM


"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

Posted by: Anonymous at October 19, 2007 12:06 PM


You continue to justify, rather than repent, your sin of killing your own children; as long as that is the case, you will not be able to see God, or much of anything else, as it really is or, just as importantly, as it ought to be.
Give it up.

Posted by: jtm at October 18, 2007 7:08 PM

I will Never repent nor "give it up." Despite being very pure of heart, I have not seen god.

Posted by: Hal at October 19, 2007 3:55 PM


Hal, LOL! You couldn't/wouldn't even watch the abortion videos. You are such a coward!

Posted by: heather at October 21, 2007 6:36 PM


Heather, we both know that any and all abortion videos are fake.

Posted by: Womyn at October 22, 2007 3:13 AM