At some point it became a generally accepted concept that the purpose of adult participation in the event was to reveal one’s sexuality in ways usually not approved for the everyday.

Halloween is getting to be much more an adult thing. That is not to say that fewer children are participating in the youngsters’ trick-or-treating ritual that has become the staple for the event. Nor is it to say that more adults are celebrating on the occasion — it would be safe to say that adults have always welcomed a reason to gather and socialize. By “adult,” I do not mean that the festivities are becoming more mature either, maturity being an assumed corollary of adulthood. In fact, the children are as adorably immature as ever in their floppy animal costumes. Adults, in turn, take the opportunity to lower their presumed maturity — it would be safe to say that adults are increasingly welcoming the chance to be sophomoric.

Maturity is not the only thing that usually goes along with adulthood. The adult attribute concerned here has to do with sexuality. It was everywhere last Halloween. Some time very recently it became a generally accepted concept that the purpose of adult participation in the event was to reveal one’s sexuality in ways usually not approved for the everyday. Dirty old men will intimate on how they hope young women’s costumes are skimpy this year. Radio personalities profess their love for the “holiday” because, “of course, girls get to dress like sluts.” Even women proudly acknowledge that men only want to see women dressed provocatively as if it is their only chance to be seen positively.

Not only do costume contests have a category for “sexiest costume,” but categories for “scariest” and “most original” teem with sexually-driven entries. One can’t deny that sexuality can be fairly original and even scary, but when those sexually-driven entries take home prizes over much scarier or original costumes, perplexity arises.

I saw a costume last Halloween that could compete for the most original costume ever. Somebody sculpted a miniature Mt. Rushmore and replaced one of the president's faces with his own. Reactions were remarkable, I’ve never seen a more positive response to a costume ever. You just don’t see that kind of creativity very often and most people appreciated it.

Mt. Rushmore wasn't the only creative costume. There were a number of exceedingly original costumes. Why then did these imaginative costumes fail to win the contest for most original? The answer is that there was no vulgar nudity, blatant intercourse or violent gender-bending involved. The winner was a skeleton flasher with a misplaced femur. Funny, somewhat original, but most importantly, it was the only sexual entry. Evidently, sex equals two thousand dollars.

The contest was based on crowd appreciation, which is a dubious judge for creativity in the first place. Aided minimally by a biased MC, the crowd is ruled by the loudest and most obnoxious. This kind reliably encourages pushing the already overwhelmed cultural envelope, especially in the arena of sex. Here, it should be said that the contest was flawed in allowing judgment to be placed in the hands of the drunken masses appropriately dressed as barbarians.

But those barbarians weren’t the only ones riding this trend of sexuality. It was everywhere, even with those who appreciated Mt. Rushmore. Given a different structure for Halloween contests, one could ensure just victors, but that doesn’t negate the true concern at stake — the concern being the obsession with sexuality so evident in our culture.

It is not that sexuality is evil or that it should be repressed. Sex is necessary for humanity’s continuance and potentially an enjoyable, even virtuous endeavor. What seems to be lacking is not a sex police, but a refinement of sexuality such that it is seen as what it is and employed only when it is appropriate.

Without even examining abuse by the likes of MTV and film, regarding any social interaction will educate one on the frivolous use of sexuality. Witness people carelessly using sexual innuendoes in non-sexual dialogue; women dressing seductively on occasion at work; preteen magazines turning young girls onto clothes that are “sexy.” It is true that the potent human libido can overpower reason and skew one’s ability to decipher appropriateness, but it is not the basic instincts at play here. Attractive women effectively make sexual advances to undesirable men at work for reasons other than sex drive. ‘Tweens don’t even have sex drive.

What is going on is a thorough, undisciplined and decadent overhaul of vocabulary. Most relevantly, the concept of good has been replaced by sexual, and everything that used to be understood as good becomes inseparable from sexuality. If someone wants to be good or successful or original or creative at what they’re doing, he will be sexual. At work, one will dress sexually if she wants to put forth what she considers elevated apparel. One will interject patronage of homosexuality if one wants to be socially acceptable.

This trend’s consequences endanger us as humans, specifically in the realm of relationships. Union between men and women is important to a degree much higher than the satisfaction of urges. A relationship has responsibilities that include economic stability, acknowledgement and facility of principle, ritual and ceremony as well as the nourishment and cultivation of offspring into virtuous and productive humans. As soon as that union is seen only as sexual gratification, the higher reasons for relationships are lost.

This happens congruent to a more general trend that can be evidenced in the costume contest. When something so crude as sex is exalted, we lose the sophisticated things that make life amazing, those that make life even livable. Creativity, imagination, respectability, inspiration, progressiveness, idealism and true humbleness are all undermined when sex is the purpose of all enterprise. In effect, Mt. Rushmore would not have been built if the artist was respected only for flashing his sexuality.

Hang on a second — do I claim that no one would produce art if it wasn’t appreciated? Do I assert that the purpose of art is to be appreciated? No, indeed not. Such a claim would counter my encouragement of higher human responsibilities. That is, the purpose of art is a higher good in itself, not in what the audience thinks of it. But before one aims for that higher good, a base of social acceptance is necessary, and falling short in that category can be disastrous. Witness past artists, unaccepted by society, who lived and died in utter anguish. Witness the feeling of betrayal that the truly creative costume designers felt upon losing to the undeserving.

Art will always be endeavored and whether the artist’s product is consumed or not concerns the audience more than the artist. That is because the artist will always have the art and the negligent consumers may be without the gift. If the art is what is important, the masses benefit more from seeking out good art and encouraging its production. This way, they too can partake in what is important in life.

Our level of freedom has given us a chance to do monumental things. If the human will persists, these things will always be available to mankind’s seers. All that is needed for these wonderful things to be realized and cause the progress of mankind as a whole is an understanding and appreciation for all that man can do. It is possible, a guy who dressed as a monolithic Teddy Roosevelt last Halloween should know.