Applied Epistemology

...then what does that make evolutionary psychology?

Evolutionary psychologists would dismiss studies about the well-being of mothers in modern societies as irrelevant: what is an adaptive age for maternity in a highly technological culture is unlikely to reflect what was adaptive among the Australopithecines.

Also, if there is an evolutionary strategy at work, it is likely to be a very general preference for youth and its visual markers, not necessarily for any specific age. So the baby-doll dresses wouldn't indicate a biologically worthless inclination to pedophilia, but merely be a cue that says "youth!", which would yield a selective advantage. Let's just say it would explain why there aren't too many Miss Havisham outfits on the store racks.

While I am skeptical of much evolutionary psychology (and yes, about half the studies I hear about sound more like rationalizations for the scientists' preferences in porn), I thought it odd that while the NYT article consulted several academics to guess at explaining the trend, at no point did it consider any biological accounts. In particular, the expert quoted above chastises women for being poor strategists, as though they weren't sufficiently rational actors. I was suggesting an alternative hypothesis to the "dumb choices" model: the strategy isn't dumb, it's just not a strategy for their benefit.

Its possible that women choose sexy Halloween costumes because they have a subconscious drive to attract a mate and there is a universal recognition that looking younger, more voluptuous, and more sexual will attract someone who is interested in having sex and making a baby inside you. Like you, I didn't appreciate the academics who criticized women for choosing sexy Halloween costumes as if bringing down the integrity of the gender. The article did talk about the majority of men's costumes being goofy or jokes. So if adult Halloween costumes are about attracting a mate, why is the sexuality one-sided?

Personally, I believe that there are many women out there who would like to experiment more with their sexuality, and that was discussed in the article too. An interesting side note is that if you attend a Lesbian halloween party, you still find a high percentage of sexy halloween costumes. Not being well-versed in evolutionary psychology, I'm uncertain about the position it takes on homosexuality, however it should give the feminists pause (regarding Halloween as sexually degrading.)

Other thoughts on this article: Didn't "vamp" as in "a seductive woman who uses her sex appeal to exploit men" come from vampire? Sexual imagery has had a dark side for a long time.

Also, so what if 30 teenage girls from San Francisco can't tell you what makes them feel sexy? I'm surprised the professor thought that was noteworthy. Since when have we expected teenagers to have a well-developed sexual awareness?

I agree that surveying 30 teenagers about sexuality is not likely to be a representative sample of anything. Professor Tolman seems to find it significant that the girls answered a question about their feelings by speculating about the perceptions of others, and she seems to interpret that in the standard social science way, as a quasi-Marxist example of false consciousness (the girls are fecklessly buying into the oppressor's ideology). To me, that suggests that conscious choices are not involved in the strategy at work here. (It also reminds me of Nietzsche's speculation that consciousness itself is only a derivative side-effect of language and communication. And this free association also reminds me of Chomsky: we don't have to think about growing an arm, we just do.)

Of course, you may be right that we should opt for the simplest explanation: we live in a permissive society for female sexuality (permissive, that is, compared to most of history); costumes, like carnivals, allow transgression; end of story. However, this explanation doesn't account for the difference between men's and women's costumes either. I suppose it could be that men are freer to explore sexual strategems without consequence most of the year, so there's no need to use the holiday as a special license for exploration. The social explanation would say this is because of historical inequality between the sexes (double standards); the evolutionary explanation would say it stems from the biological costs of reproduction being steeper for women.

As for vampires and other things that go bump in the night (so to speak) -- I've always felt that the modern, post-Stoker vampire is at bottom a Victorian story about female sexuality (just as I think Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde is about homosexuality -- Hyde literally goes through a back door to hide in a closet!). So I'd be shocked if Halloween vampires didn't express these unconscious drives more or less overtly.

"I suppose it could be that men are freer to explore sexual strategems without consequence most of the year, so there's no need to use the holiday as a special license for exploration."

Really? Let's see what the most popular male costumes are - Fireman, Policeman, pirate. It sounds like the Village People Reunion tour. They are exploring their sexuality - those costumes are hyper masculine. I mean Halloween has always been about the exploration of sexual boundaries for adults. Arguing that men's sexuality can is infantilizing based on a costume designed to be worn by an adult is a odd idea. Most of these costumes are revealing - big surprise there - it's a standard signifier for sexuality and availability. For men the signifier culturally isn't wearing less, it's adapting various masculine personas. I just guess this researcher just doesn't go out on Hallween.

You're right to point out that uber-macho costumes perform a similar function. (What, no "college professor" costume?) I think the point is that 90% of the women's costumes are overtly sexual, whereas the corresponding figure for men's costumes is, I presume, less.

My other point is that the signifiers for male potency in our cultural aren't showing off your body but showing off other attributes. Whether or not this is way things should be is another thing.