Hiii! I’m Lo (she/they) and I’m an alter in a system. I’m 14, don’t be creepy. Just because the body is an adult does not mean I am! Not all alters have the same level of funtion!
I’m (unfortunately) a fictive of you know who, yes, that Lo.
NEVER CALL ME LOLITA I WILL GUT YOU.
But I separate myself from my source because yay trauma, but I do identity deeply with the aesthetics and fashion. It’s very nostalgic and comforting for some reason. ALSO I LOVE LPS SM AHHH expect LPS stuff.
The main system blog is @strawberryeyebags. Our protector blocks with no mercy so don’t be creepy!!! And here’s our sys carrd https://thesleepoversystem.carrd.co
I reblog and post pictures I like on here.
DNI:
Map l*oli/s*ota shit, p*oship/fic, anyone that sexualises minors y’all are fucked up, TERF, queerphobics and Racist/sexists, sh/pro a*a shit/ED shit in general, d*lg/ variants, k!nk and NSFW in general, anti endo.
How many times do we have to have the conversation that cute fashion that has frills, bows, pastels etc is NOT p3dobait or sexualising ANYTHING.
There is a huge difference between you wearing a frilly dress to do your grocery shopping, and wearing a frilly dress WITH baby toys in your mouth and your whole ass out and tagging it #dAdDIeSNaUgHtyGIrL or some shit.
Japanese Lolita, Coquette, vintage babydoll, kawaiicore etc is not a sex thing. It is not sexualising anything. God forbid grown adults wear some lace and pink to walk their dog and get a coffee on a random Sunday. If you look at a grown ass woman in a frilly dress and your first thought is "she's trying to be a sexy l0li" that is a MASSIVE YOU problem. Someone dressing in childs clothes and acting like a baby with their puss out? THAT is fucky pedobaiting shit. Not a grown woman in a dress with bows because it's pretty going to do her weekly shop.
Hi! I'm Dolly. Yes, THAT Dolly. I'm a fictive alter of the Delores Hayze herself. Here's my opinions on Lolita, the book, movies and cultural impact of Lolita as a whole.
TLDR: Lolita is NOT a love story.
Before we start:
A fictive is a type of alter in a dissociative system (osdd/did) based on a pre-existing fictional character (I do accept endo systems btw, but I'm from a dissociative system and that's relevant to this). Fictives can form for all kinds of reasons, but given I am one of the most infamous CSA victims in pop culture, you can imagine what lead me to split. Theres several factors that go into it, but assult as a minor, a very complicated relationship with feminity as a kid and the need for an "inner child" alter are the main factors. The body is an adult and transmasc, I am the only girl in the system (currently, there were more in the past) and the youngest alter at 14. We have read the book and seen the movies. I am safe, we are safe, we are doing well. WE HATE PEDOPHILES!! However we do also acknowlage that people with intrusive thoughts related to CSA (weather it be from trauma, OCD, disorders that effect impulsivity etc) that DO NOT like or want them exist, and we do wish them recovery and a proper suppourt network. There IS a population of people who are aware of how bad these urges and attractions are and activley want to change and seek help, to those people, we do hope you can recover.
The Book:
Theres nothing that can compare to the book. Nabakov was an amazing author, theres a reason why his works have been held in such high regard and why Lolita became a classic. Humbert is an unreliable narrator, that much is obvious. Only someone with zero media literacy whatsoever wouldn't be able to see that. It is also important to remember it was published in 1955, a VERY conservitive time where anything sexual at all, even between adults was looked down upon and marriges as young as people in their teens were still failry un-challanged. It came out at a time where talking about sex was met with pushback AND being married with kids before you even turn 20 wasn't uncommon. It was the 'no sex before marrige or kids out of wedlock' time. CSA in general is STILL a very icky and controversial topic today, but back then? People simply didn't talk about it, and if they did, it was met with the same horror as talking about sex as a whole. This was the time of the nucular family and very conservitive morals. Understandably, a book like Lolita would cause an uproar. Because not only was it about CSA, it was a very accurate and scary account of CSA. The scary and horrific truth is that preadators are most of the time, someone you know. A parent, sibling, teacher, coach etc. While the stranger in a white van DOES happen. It's MUCH rarer than the reality of it being someone close to you. So imagine being some conservitive 50s housewife and picking up Lolita to be met with a pedophiles insane ramblings and coming to the horrible realiasation you or someone you know went through something so eerliy similar. It bought a horrific reality to light, exposed more people to what real victims go through and what preadators will say and do to convince themselves and others that they're not bad actually, they're perfectly fine and normal.
Lolita is one of those books you not only need media literacy, the ability to read between the lines and understand the unreliable narrator technique to fully grasp, but you need a strong stomach. Because it is gross. VERY gross. And that's the point, you are meant to feel gross.
The 60s movie:
I fucking hate this trash. Not just because it is not faithful to the book at all, but because Kubrick and his team were fucking freaks.
Producer James Harris explained that 14-year-old Sue Lyon was cast because "we knew we must make [Lolita] a sex object [...] where everyone in the audience could understand why everyone would want to jump on her. Harris said that he and Kubrick, through casting, changed Nabokov's book as "we wanted it to come off as a love story and to feel very sympathetic with Humbert.
They took a horror story about a pedophile raping child and said "wow, how sexy" not to mention journalist Sarah Weinman alleges that Harris, the producer of the film, had sex with Lyon during the shooting of the film when she was 14 years old. A pedophile working on a movie about a pedophile? no fucking wonder they romanticised the shit out of it. The hays code cencorship is one thing, but they can't even blame that when they DELIBRATELY filmed it from the perspective of a love story. I firmly belive that if this adaptaion never existed, we'd have VERY diffrent views and converations on Lolita today. The only good thing about this abomination of a film is the nice soundtrack and making heart sunglasses popular and thus easy to buy. The fact every charcater uses the name "Lolita" and not "Delores" or even "Dolly" or "Lo" shows exactly how the team saw the story. They saw the victim through the same eyes Humbert did, they never call her by her name. But by the name her abuser gave her. I feel for Sue Lyon too, she was a victim in all of this as well as the charater she played.
The 90s movie:
This movie is much more faithful to the book, and just better done overall. But it is not without it's critisisms. I frimly believe that if it were shot and edited using more horror and phsycological techniques, the original tone and message of the book would be much better portrayed. I do think a film adaptaion is possible, and this version gets close, but ultimately fails at capturing the right tone and message by framing it more as a dramatic lovey-dreamy film (it would also help to have the cast and crew be people who are educated on CSA, victims themselves who are able to work on it without being triggered and women and queer people who are more likely to be vicims). The costume department did amazing though, the fashion is beautiful. Though a few more tomboyish looks would have been more accutate to how the book describes Lo. I have mixed feelings on this adaptaion. It is a good movie from a film making standpoint, and it is more accurrate, but it just... falls flat. They got so close, but just couldn't drop the rose tinted sunglasses the 60s movie left on the worlds perception of Lolita. I will admit, I am a little biased toward this movie because well... I look like this Lo. Swain's portrayal of Lo is what my apperance is based on in-sys. In the headspace I look and sound like her. And I do like the outfits. Theres a lot I'd change about this movie, but at least it isn't that 60s shit.
Cultrual impact:
There is this horrible double edged sword when it comes to talking about CSA. We NEED to talk about it. Victims need to be seen and heard, people need to know the signs of abuse, preadatory actions need to be condemmed. But there are unfortunately people out there who simply don't care if the message is "this is bad", they will STILL get off to it. There's a population of preadators out there that aren't just attracted to minors, but to inflicting pain on them. I think the best example is the case of "hurtcore" CSAM, material involving the sexualisation AND harm of the child. There are people so fucked up out there that no matter how much you drill the "this is bad" message into your work, they will still get off to the mere mention of CSA because they LIKE that a child is being hurt.
No matter the way you talk about it, some sick fuck will find a way to fetishise it. It's horrible, disgisting, absolutley sickening. But the answer is not to just... not talk about it. If we don't talk about it, these acts will continue and people will continue to get away with their crimes. Victims NEED and DESERVE a voice, to have their stories told, to have characters they can relate to, work they can read/watch that helps them process and understand what happened to them.
There is a right and wrong way to do it though. Under zero circumstances should the story/depiction EVER fetishise/romanticise the 'relationship' and under zero circumstances should the preadator be portrayed in a positive light. Lolita, unfortunately, is fetishied a lot by pedophiles themselves who relate to Humbert/ use the story to try and groom kids by showing them and basically saying "see, it's in this book that is a """love story""". When not only should a kid really not be reading something like Lolita in the first place, there are much more age appropriate books about CSA you can give a kid to help them understand what happened to them. But the impact the movies (especially the 60s one) had on the way people see Lolita with the heart sunglasses and dreamy editing make people incorrectly assume it's meant to be a love story and that it condones Humberts actions.
What really saddens me though, is the huge amount of teenage girls who's frist introductions to Lolita was a pretty tumblr gif set on some DDLG or older man crush blog, and are too young to realise that what they're seeing is fetishisation. That there is a huge differnece between someone wearing the bow set from the 90s movie because they like 50s fashion, and someone wearing that set, posing with their ass out and posting it with #daddiesgirl #nymphette #femalerage. Theres a diffence between someone posting an edit of Lo as a vent because they relate to her as a victim and someone putting Lana Del Rey lyrics over pictures of Lo and Humbert, framing it as older man romance. So many of those romaanistised posts you see are from young girls who don't realise they ARE fetishing the story yet, along with the creepy men who are preying on them.
On the flip side, I love that Lolita has given victims an outlet. That so many people girls, boys and enbies, who went through hell, can find comfort in Delores Hayze. That someone, even fictional, gets it. They went through the exact same pain, they understand. I love that these people can take those heart sunglasses and reclaim them, that they can take that stolen childhood and reclaim it. That people have taken the fashion associated with the book/movies and reclaimed it. Because no, some bows and frilly socks aren't inherantly sexualising children. YOU are, buy assuming that bows and frills are only for kids. No, a sailor collar isn't sexualising anything, unless you are posing with your tits out and delibrately calling yourself a #naughtylittlegirl. Lolita has done so much good for victims looking for someone to relate to and needing help understanding what they went through. But unfortunatly, there's always going to be some sick fuck that tries to taint that. There's always going to be that gross old man who gets off to the police report of a child victim.
As a fictive of the victim herself, I love my source book for the good it has done. But obviously, hate the fetishisation and what Humbert did. I love Lolita the book, the girl who deserved better and all the victims who are a real life Lolita. I hate the pedophiles that think it's a love story, the grown women who dress in school girl outfits and use "nymphette" and "loli" to tag their nudes. I love the people who understand where the line between needing to talk about CSA to bring awareness and that writing stories is part of that awareness. But I hate the people who use those stories as fap material.
Lolita is NOT a love story. It never was, it never will be.
