schwirl said: Lolita is sexual. Literally. The definition of lolita is a sexually attractive adolescent girl. It's not just a cute 'kawaii' fashion statement. You can't sexualise something that is already sexual by default.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Literally. If I got a dollar for every person who thought this because they couldn’t be assed to do their research, I’d be a happy girl indeed.
Lolita is a book written by Vladimir Nabokov about a girl named Dolores Haze, but her nickname is Lolita. The protagonist of Lolita falls in love with Dolores despite him being 42 and her being 12. He is a pedophile who abuses, rapes and takes sexual advantage of her after becoming her stepfather.
Lolita FASHION is something else entirely. Lolita FASHION is a fashion trend that started in Harajuku, inspired by victorian fashion, victorian dolls, sailor dresses and femininity, and most of all, self-expression. It has NOTHING to do with the book by the same name. The only thing they share is their name. Lolita FASHION has nothing to do with sex, because it’s just that; A FASHION.
Lolita is a term misguided and misinformed people (such as yourself) use about attractive girls when, in truth, it stems from a book about a pedophile rapist.
Do your research before you try to start a discussion on something you have no clue about. There is absolutely no reason for you to be this much of an arrogant know-it-all when you haven’t even done the research to back up your arguments. Don’t be overconfident before you’re 100% certain that you’re right.
Can I just add a thing here
When my mum heard about / discovered that this weird fashion I started trying to wear at 16 was called “lolita,” she had a miniature heart attack. She thought I didn’t understand that that word was used in the wrong context often. She thought that the fashion was intended to be sexual and that I was too naive to understand that, and that I just took it to be a cute fashion. Here’s the thing tho: it IS just a cute fashion. And after explaining this, she was then worried that other gross people would sexualise me against my will or target me and therefore I shouldn’t be wearing it.
Wrong. It is other people’s fault for sexualising me, not mine. It is never my fault, if I am sexualised against my will. It is never anybody’s fault.
Especially when, personally, I liked the idea of lolita because it was so darn sweet and elegant, and in my opinion, so not-sexually-charged in a world that shoved sex in my face every day. It was a breath of fresh air. I’ve had more sexual connotations associated with me when I was fucking 12 and wore a tank top and shorts to grade 7 orientation on a hot summers day and everyone who didn’t know my name called me ~the girl with the boobs~ for two years straight. Like ????
And then we fast forward to when I met my dad’s partner and she heard about lolita and had a minature heart attack because, in juxtaposition to my mum, it was so adorable, she couldn’t believe it. In her native culture, Lolita was a nickname for Dolores and had little-to-no sexual connotations with it. She even, if my memory serves me right, mentioned that lolita or dolly was just something you called sweet young girls. So the word was really fitting and it was all just so sweet and cute. She even pronounces it with a Spanish accent despite having an Australian accent because that’s what you do with totally native words.
So I’m emphasising a cultural difference here.
And here’s my thing, here’s a bit of TL;DR:
Have pedophiles and misogynist pigs who sexualise young girls seriously infiltrated every aspect of our society that it is somehow more fucking plausible that girls who want to dress in cute and feminine fashion are doing so because they want to be sexualised? Or that they should expect to be sexualised? Is that what people are saying now? That girls cannot take charge over their lives and their aesthetic for one god damned second before being, yet again, sexualised in every aspect of their being?
I don’t want to use ‘you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t’ but hey, that’s all I can muster up right now because I feel like I’m on a different fricking planet.
And, as a not-so-subtle side note, if you don’t think mainstream porn and it’s culture has something to do with this, you are dead wrong.
Amazing new concept: If girls want to be sexual, they can be sexual. If they don’t, they don’t. Either fucking way it is impossible to win when mainstream society oversexualises young girls and their fashion in an ~adult way~ and if you somehow take a different path you’re fetishised as an ~innocent sex nymph doll~ like where the fuck do we draw the line?
I will tell you where we draw the god damned line: where ever the fuck the girl in question draws her own m o t h er fricking line.
'Odile and Odette' 2005 (clip) Yinka Shonibare
Wonderland Magazine, September 2014
Photographed by Stefan Khoo
Anonymous said: can i be educated as to why his characterization was wrong?
Y E S
- "We have orders. We should follow them." Steve. Steve Rogers. Steve "well looks like I have to go behind enemy lines to go save my best friend and company and you can’t tell me otherwise" Rogers. Steve "sixth time is the charm at the carnival recruiting office" Rogers. I’m not buying it, Joss.
- "I get that reference." We all know that Steve was under ice for 70 years, thus he missed a lot. He keeps a notebook of things he should look up, sure, but for him to be like HEY EVERYONE THE OLD GUY GOT THIS doesn’t strike me as believable. It seems like a shoddy shot at comic relief at Steve’s expense. Steve Rogers is the guy who takes the confused look on someone’s face and explains the reference to them, not the guy who points out that he understood it.
- "We need a plan of attack!" because jumping out of an airplane before you get to your destination, while being fired at, and trying to single handedly complete a rescue mission with a handgun and a metal shield is definitely backing this line of thought up.
- “Let’s start with that stick of his. It may be magical…" "is that what just happened" and "seems to be powered by some sort of electricity" remind me of painting Steve as the naive, less intelligent younger brother that everyone gets tired of explaining everything thing to. Steve has a vocabulary. Steve Rogers grew up with electricity. He knows what it is. Steve Rogers also could have just said that it worked like the Hydra weapon, except there are these unnecessary comments to make Steve seem less than everyone else. I hate that whole scene.
- "What’s the matter? afraid of a little lightning?" since when does Steve mock other people like that? Sure, he was smarmy towards the Red Skull ("Nothin’. I’m just a kid from Brooklyn" "So why are you running?") but they’re retaliations. He doesn’t start that sort of thing. That’s Tony’s job.
- The whole “there’s only one God, ma’am” thing. It just seems so proper and Steve isn’t really proper or good with women, especially ones he’s just met. He doesn’t call Peggy ma’am when he’s conversing with her, he fumbles over “dame, woman, agent.” He also doesn’t seem the kind to bring God into things, even when Schmidt was “harnessing the power of the gods.” The whole line/situation irked me, and that just might be more subjective than objective, so you can ignore this point if you think it has too much fallacy in it.
- Steve always comes up one quip short with Tony. Continually. That might just be a nit-picky thing, but I don’t like it. Smart-mouthed Steve Rogers doesn’t keep playing into somebody’s hand the way he does with Tony. Steve is used to bantering with people- with Bucky, with the people who beat him up - he doesn’t back down with “one more wisecrack out of you” or any of that.
If you like Whedon’s characterization of Steve, that’s fine. You are welcome to your opinion, just as I am to mine. I wouldn’t say his characterization is poor more than it is wrong.
to think i’m studying over in england and yet i may set a shakespeare play in early 19th century southwest america.
If you ever see a bad picture of yourself just think about sunsets
Have you ever tried to take a picture of a sunset with a crappy camera? It turns out like shit. I mean that could be the most beautiful sunset you’ve ever seen in your life and the photo looks gross.
That doesn’t mean the sunset isn’t breathtaking, it just means the camera can’t contain it’s beauty.
You are a gorgeous motherfucking sunset never forget that
More details about Disney’s Moana
Walt Disney Animation Studios revealed plans today for Moana, a sweeping, CG-animated comedy-adventure about a spirited teenager on an impossible mission to fulfill her ancestors’ quest. In theaters in late 2016, the film is directed by the renowned filmmaking team of Ron Clements and John Musker (The Little Mermaid, The Princess and the Frog, Aladdin).
In the ancient South Pacific world of Oceania, Moana, a born navigator, sets sail in search of a fabled island. During her incredible journey, she teams up with her hero, the legendary demi-god Maui, to traverse the open ocean on an action-packed voyage, encountering enormous sea creatures, breathtaking underworlds and ancient folklore.
“John and I have partnered on so many films—from The Little Mermaid to Aladdin to The Princess and the Frog,” said Clements. “Creating Moana is one of the great thrills of our career. It’s a big adventure set in this beautiful world of Oceania.”
“Moana is indomitable, passionate and a dreamer with a unique connection to the ocean itself,” Musker said. “She’s the kind of character we all root for, and we can’t wait to introduce her to audiences.”
I think I just heard my heart break.
Harry Potter drinking game: chug the whole bottle when dobby dies because when dobby dies you die too