I've been thinking along the same lines. It amazes me how easily adults on the DIS throw around derogatory names for women--imagine if people threw racial epithets around like that! I mean, what exactly is a *****? Traditionally the word means a prostitute. In broader terms the way it's used tends to pick out women who are excessively sexual, always available for sex, and who are thus condemned. That is what some of you have been implying about any girl who would want to wear such costumes (hence about some of the posters here and probably about some of your own daughters as well).
And it's exactly these types of names that get thrown at women during rape trials for the exact reasons given here--her outfit showed too much leg or cleavage. Thus, she must have been available for sex. And historically this defense in actual trials has been amazingly effective. Women have been humiliated as every detail of their outfit, body, and sexual history is torn apart on the stand. We had to institute rape shield laws to prevent women from being treated this way, though outside of the trial the media still manages to do a good job of humiliating women and sometimes parts of one's sexual history can still be admitted into evidence at trials. The "she's a *****--or at least, she was dressed like one" defense still works to some extent. Why does the extent work? Only because the term ***** and the connection btw women's dress and her sexual availability still holds currency for the average person.
