Little Girls are Immodest and Deserve to be Punished

Schlitz Lipz —  03/01/2013 —  Comments

Purim is over, but it’s hard for me to come up with subject material to write about that isn’t cats because that’s actually all I care about. So instead, let’s milk that silly little Jew-Halloween for all it’s worth.

In the past, the Motherland has faced some controversy for not showing girl’s faces in Purim costume advertisements. Because they decided that wasn’t weird and sexist enough, they decided to up the ante this year by¬†not showing girls at all.

But why aren’t they showing lil girls in their cute lil costumes? What is the difference between a little boy dressed up as something adorable and a little girl also being dressed up as something adorable?

vet costumeI hear a rhythmic pounding when I look at this image and I think it’s my biological clock ticking.

If you don’t really get how a child can be perceived in such a way, take a step in someone’s shoes and to understand why the ultra Orthodox in Israel find the female form offensive in advertisements of any sort. Those nasty child bearing hips, child-feeding breasts, and child producing vaginas really should be looked as something to be hidden away and not something to be appreciated and yes, loved.

And don’t get me started on showing advertisements of little girls. Nothing is more provocative and immodest than a four-year-dressed as a white, fluffy bunny. Pure sex.

I’m not going to argue against the fact that sometimes children’s costumes are made far too sexy for a young girl to be wearing. However, there has to be a middle ground in between not showing girls in advertisements (but still selling them costumes) and showing pictures of toddlers in weirdly slutty cowgirl getup.


Surriously guys, come on.

Schlitz Lipz


Some of my best friends are dogs. Follow me. @lipsitzngiggles