bambhs said: If you post anything to do with "Lolita" in the context, even just using the word (which originates from Nabokov's novel as it's a nickname for Dolores), you are romanticizing it. Not only is that grossly inappropriate for those victims of people who are groomed like Dolores is in Lolita, but it's extremely demeaning for women! I'd like to think as you're exploring your sexuality freely, you could call yourself a feminist but you honestly can't if you support this kind of dominating "daddy" role
I don’t want this to seem like a personal attack, I’m sure you are a lovely person and you have the right to be a sexual being as a woman, but you need to understand the content of this blog is extremely inappropriate and demeaning.
oh my God, do you realize how naive you’re sounding??? i’ve read the book i know that lolita is a nickname for dolores (one that nabokov didn’t originate by the way, it was a semi-popular girl’s name/nickname around the time he wrote it). so if i post, let’s say, a quote from the novel then i’m romanticizing it? if i say that it’s my favourite book i’m immediately condoning pedophilia? that’s like saying, “if you reblog anything that has to do with “inglorious basterds” then you’re a supporter of neo-nazzism!” and i’m not saying i want to be in dolores’s place- she was a victim. it has nothing to do with exploring my sexuality, i know quite well about my own sexuality and nothing about it has to do with some book that i like.
besides the fact that the whole “daddy dom/caregiver” thing has, a)nothing to do with lolita, and b)nothing to do with feminism. if a woman chooses to be a part of a relationship that involves the caregiver/little dynamic then that is her choice and doesn’t make her any more or less of a feminist or of a woman or of a woman deserving of equal rights.
so again. you need to understand that you’re completely looking at the surface and staring at the reflection you want to see. message me again and i’ll hit ignore, i’m done with this conversation.