Thursday, October 7, 2010

You can't spell Halloween without Ho

I guess it was only a matter of time until Victoria's Secret (my nemesis) came out with a line of Halloween costumes. After all, as the folks at Victoria's Secret know, you can't spell Halloween without Ho. Though I think someone in merchandising confused "trick or treat" with "turning tricks."

Also, I'm guessing that these sexy little Halloween costumes were designed for gathering treats indoors (not out), if you catch my drift.

Sigh. Call me old fashioned, but I long for the days when Halloween meant putting on clothes (or sheets), not taking them off.

Btw, is it just me or does the Victoria's Secret Sexy Little Air Hostess (top row, second from left) look a lot like Britney Spears in "Toxic"?


Anonymous said...

$198 for a few inches of fabric???

Am out!

Charlene said...

I'm not all that excited about Halloween, never have been. Since I have no children and therefore no prospect of grand children, that's just fine.

I am not attracted to all that expensive lacy straining fabric and look best naked in candlelight! Otherwise, wouldn't those who parade around thus be exhibitionists?

J. said...

@Anonymous: Especially when a birthday suit is free! ;-)

@Charlene: I loathe Halloween, and have been known to turn out all the lights out and hide under the bed to avoid trick-or-treaters, but the kid loves it, so I put on my happy face, which is typically the only costume I will be sporting. Though this year I may put on my old high school uniform for grins (because I can).

Anonymous said...

As Dave will tell you our fraternity's birthday was Halloween. That was a quarter of a century ago and costumes of this sort were pretty thick (thin? transparent) on the ground. I seem to recall a lot of kittens, devils, angels etc.. in those days. So I can't imagine a lot has changed but the price of the decorations.