Mild Amnesia

Please?

5,802 notes

schwirl asked: 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.

lapinhearted:

p0kemina:

petitepasserine:

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.

WOW.

This is important.

You know that is valid and fascinating point of inquiry. When did cute and sexy become the same thing? I want to say it never used to be synonymous or connected. Not so directly or overtly. Maybe someone out in the tumbleverse knows.

Filed under reblog good question when was that when must enlist other tumblrs for this inquiry to

133,629 notes

knightarcana:

fuckyeahplussizealternatives:

toomanyfandomssolittletime:

maahammy:

jadethemerman:

July 28th, 2014: Out and about in New York City

How problematic

im gonna fuckin throw up

Okay, okay calm down, people.

While you are all losing your mind over ‘cultural appropriation” of an Indian dress, nobody actually consulted THE INDIANS. 

In our country, if a foreigner wears an Indian saree, we actually appreciate it. It shows that the foreigner respects us enough to try our clothes. And the saree, mind you, is not a religious thing. Hindus can wear sarees, Muslims can wear sarees, Sikh’s can wear sarees, Jain’s can wear sarees and so on.

Like Americans have short dresses, compare that with sarees. Going to a party? Saree. Going to temple? Saree, and so on.

Some Indians wear it, some don’t. Some hate it and think its oppressing, some love embracing the unique style.

Point is, don’t hate on her for wearing this. Don’t hate on anyone for wearing sarees or any variations of sarees. We love to see others embracing our culture. Why do you think we open our gates to allow everyone to practice yoga and find spiritual meaning?

Culture is not meant to be kept within four walls, it should be spread.

I did not know this. That is really interesting to find out. Thanks for the information.

"Culture is not meant to be kept within four walls, it should be spread."

Breath of fresh air that. Ergo, reblog

(Source: ladyxgaga, via addyopaddy)

Filed under reblog breath of fresh air

74,352 notes

the-goddamazon:

fuckyeahbiguys:

"I’m sick of how bisexuality is erased in LGBT spaces. I get really nervous before any LGBT event, especially Pride. I feel incredibly sad and hopeless when gay and lesbian people call me insulting names. If gay and lesbian people don’t understand me – Continue reading Prejudice at Pride at Empathize This

This just punched me in the heart.

You mean Spartan kicked in the heart down a flight of stairs

(via burnt-toast-strikes)

Filed under reblog beautiful why does this happen biphobia shouldn't exist anymore than homophobia

21,378 notes

thymoss:

railroadsoftware:

no one ever says that Rome needed help from aliens to build their empire

#l laughed for days when i found out that #ancient egyptians used water to reduce friction and move blocks for distances #and that this was literally DEPICTED ON THEIR HIEROGLYPHICS #but ~western archaeologists~ #thought that the pouring of water depicted ~superstitious rituals~ #jfc

Could also be like what that one individual hypothesized, that the blocks were made in place. A sort of old school concrete, hell I even believe they found evidence to support it. I’ll have to find the article concerning it and post it near-future

(via burnt-toast-strikes)

Filed under reblog facts about pyramids