Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Pete, USA on February 16, 2008:

What I find disgusting are the very young girls displaying sexualized behavior in beauty pageants. Remember the videos of Jon Benet Ramsey on the news?

As for an innocent looking bed named "Lolita" I thing it's a stretch as something to get worked up about.

Posted by Joe, Ohio on February 16, 2008:

I personally believe this is much ado about nothing. I would not have made the connection to the name Lolita. Of course, I have absolutely no interest in reading these types of books or viewing movies of this kind. While I agree that some products are marketed inappropriately, I also find it hard to believe that this bedroom set was intentionally marketed in the assumed fashion.

What I find objectionable is the price of $769.00 USD for a very cheap looking piece of furniture!

Posted by Bob, Amsterdam, NY on February 16, 2008:

Is it really inappropriate advertising? Some people get upset, others don't understand what the fuss is about. The fact of the matter is this is a generational issue. Those of us old enough to react to the name Lolita don't realize there is a whole generation out there that doesn't share our experiences or "cultural artifacts". The store personnel's explanation that they had to look it up is a clue that a younger generation is running things. I'm sure we can find other similar generational items, albeit with a less sensitive topic.

Posted by Jorge, Guadalajara, Mexico on February 16, 2008:

Lolita or Lola is a nickname for Dolores, an Spanish female name. The meaning of the word 'dolores' is 'grief' or 'sorrow' (www.wordreference.com); and refers to Mary, the mother of Christ's grief after his crucifixion. Its a common name in Spain and Latin America.

The sad fact is that Lolita is the name of a child abuse novel character and after that novel that many Americans relate the name to hispanic women sex related pictures and movies.

Maybe a mistake from the British department store.

Posted by Maven in Texas on February 17, 2008:

In response to Bob in Amsterdam's comment, 'The fact of the matter is this is a generational issue. Those of us old enough to react to the name Lolita don't realize there is a whole generation out there that doesn't share our experiences or "cultural artifacts".'

The term "Lolita" is in common usage in the USA usually referring to an under the legal age of consent, overly sexually aggressive female. (AKA-Jailbait)

In addition, it has also been adopted by the Goth subculture to describe a fashion trend where one dresses in frilly Victorian-esque pinafores that are both innocent children's style as well as very sexualized. It is a popular fashion trend in Japan also, with magazines dedicated to the look. The major differences being it is marketed to teens and 20 somethings, not pre-pubescent girls.

Nabakov's novel hasn't been forgotten by a long shot. It has in fact been adopted by a new generation.

Posted by Patrick, UK on February 17, 2008:

Perhaps it's the case that modern usage of this term is slightly less known / common in Britain than it is in the USA?

I suspect that if it had not been for the internet, I also would not have understood the problem here...

---

As a reminder, it was a British parenting web site that raised the alarm in the first place. -rc

Posted by Alice Shade @ Odessa, Ukraine on February 17, 2008:

Score another blunder for "specialised" education.

Supposedly, even though the target audience of the product might be a little too young to have read Nabokov yet, advertisement specialists who done the PR research for it don`t quite have that excuse.

What puzzles me most of all, though, is not the fact that no one involved in Woolworth made the connection, but rather that they most definitely had not attempted to even search the name through any search engine to see what kind of associations it pulls.

Term "lolita" or "loli" is actually pretty common around the net as the definition of anything sexual, looking or being overly young. Although yes, origins of term lie in Nabokov`s work, internet usage of word is quite distorted compared to its source...

And, while I'm on topic, I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with equating classic literature and child abuse. Core fabula of the book laid not in sexual overtones, and should not be assumed to be victorian version of textual smut.

Actually, the main motif of the book revolved around a girl, who behaved abnormally maturely for such a tender age and, I have to say, quite aptly at that. Similarly, the issue raised in the book had nothing to do with child abuse - the book had extrapolated on the influence of then-modern world on people, and how the advents of society had pushed children to mature too soon and too fast to keep up with the world.

Had I more faith in humanity, I could've even thought that naming was an elaborate joke - reference to the classics and in the same time a joking promise that such a furniture will help the child to mature.

However, I`m afraid, such a joke would be quite too subtle. Not a lot of people would get it, and even less - have a gall to laugh freely.

Nay... As much as I'd loathe it, it's just an oversight by all-too-lazy PR & advertisement people - another amusing yet depressive brick laid into the wall of inept stupidity.

Posted by Dan - Texas on February 17, 2008:

I'm in the Goth subculture, and my girlfriend does occasionally dress in the Lolita style. Calling it a "very sexualized children's style" is inaccurate. Frilly and Victorian, yes. Very sexualized, no. Any girl I've met in the scene that dresses in Lolita-type garb could be accurately described as modest.

/tangent.

Posted by Austin,Texas on February 18, 2008:

I am currently working on a Lolita style line, more along the lines of it's current meaning in costuming society. It is indeed kin to children's Victorian wear, and in a society of today's standing, very modest. In my opinion the style has never been overly sexual in nature.

The term Lolita has been defined and changed over time so much that it's no wonder the PR reps for this company had no clue of its meaning. I commend them for finally removing the product, but laugh at their doubts of the origin of the word.
However, if they drop in a twin instead of a small bed and then put a Woolworth's in the middle of the Harajuku district in Japan, they would be unable to keep these in stock.

Posted by Jimmy, Oklahoma on February 18, 2008:

The Pimp and Ho costumes from Brands on Sale are definitely appalling. But all you have to do is look at the Brands on Sale website and check the Preteen Girls costume section to see equally inappropriate costumes. Almost every costume in that category is just a smaller sized version of costumes that when marketed for grown women are placed in the "Sexy" category. I mean really, what preteen girl needs a French Maid miniskirt costume? Maybe I'm just old fashioned at the ripe old age of 36, but I wouldn't let my daughters (7 & 9) wear those costumes.

---

Well, it's no surprise to me that the company that sold the Pimp and Ho costumes has other inappropriate costumes. One could give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're simply allowing all sorts of roleplay, allowing girls to dress up like a lot of careers. But the cop and firefighter outfits feature short shorts, leading an objective observer to wonder whether the object is roleplay, or blatant sexuality.... -rc