The truth about THAT 15-year-old human Barbie from South London who (with her mother's approval) has become a disturbing internet phenomenonWhich fifteenyearoldhumanBarbiefromSouthLondon? Oh THAT one, the one I don't know anything about.
Quote:
This trend, of course, could be seen as nothing more than a passing teenage fad — and one that is less worrying than most.
Hold on, you just said it was disturbing.
Quote:
In an age where many of the role models available to young girls are overtly crude and raunchy, Venus might be accused of nothing more sinister than peddling a heightened version of fancy dress.
Crude
and raunchy. Words that go together like fish and chips, Dacre and cunt.
Quote:
However, another description hovers in the background alongside ‘living doll’. It also begins with ‘L’ but has rather more sinister connotations.
Hold on, you just said it was no more sinister than fancy dress. Who is allowing this description to hover?
Quote:
Yet Venus’s mother will not hear of her daughter being called a Lolita.
Perhaps because Lolita wasn't trying to look like a doll. And because yet another journalist hasn't read the novel.
How exactly is a 15-year-old girl supposed to dress in order
not to look like "a Lolita", whatever that may be — or rather, not to have that description "hovering in the background"? What the Mail finds "disturbing" is the thought of 15-year-old girls playing with their image on their own terms, ie ones that the Mail doesn't understand. Is "looking like a Lolita" shorthand for "prickteasing" or "beginning to think of herself as a sexual being" or "asking for it"? In any case, the only thing that's disturbing about this phenomenon is how worthy of comment (and pictures) the Mail finds it.
The misuse of the term Lolita always shows far more about the journo than they realize, I dont often do this but, I blogged about it far better than I can manage with fighting kids about
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
