Amy Winehouse
I want to comment on Halloween. (I am a bit late.)
I spent Halloween night at the NYC parade and the surrounding bars. Usually, Halloween is the night where it is socially acceptable – almost socially required — for women to dress as slutty as the temporarily relaxed local “decency” laws allow (in NYC that means one-step shy of full frontal nudity). Given that I was expecting uber-slutty, I was surprised at the very large number of girls who dressed up as Amy Winehouse . I do not care how hot you are…crack whore is not sexy.
I do not think many women have repressed fantasies about being a crack whore (at least, I hope they do not). I do think that women are very good at identifying what is, and what is not, attractive. Adopted fads are usually attractive. I think girls who wear Uggs with a Northface jacket and leggings look ridiculous (IT’S A UNIFORM!), but that does not mean I don’t find them cute. There was nothing attractive about the Amy Winehouse contagion. Women simply were aware (by word of mouth or some beacon of fashion) that other women were going to dress up as Amy Winehouse and, apparently, this costume passed some internal mental test of novelty.
Novelty apparently allowed a bad idea to bypass rational filters (e.g. do I want people to associate me with a crack whore). I think this a very common mistake; I know I make this mistake often (I mean being seduced by novelty, not dressing up as a crack whore). Novelty encourages us to throw out common sense rules. We do not know the associated outcomes of adopting (or using or whatever) something novel and we don’t seem to care. We think novel is interesting. Somehow we forget that novel can be good or bad (Yes, that flame is pretty, but I remember when I tried to touch it, it hurt).
I do not think the average trader is more sophisticated than the girls in Amy Winehouse army. They (myself included) are captivated by novelty (Whoa; CDOs are SEXY). Novelty is dangerously seductive.
On the other hand, it was Halloween, so maybe I should STFU.
