Categories
antifeminism creepy evil women grandiosity I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny playing the victim

MGTOWer: Wearing makeup turns women into Darth Vader

You're not fooling anyone, evil makeup-wearing girl!
You’re not fooling anyone, evil makeup-wearing girl!

On MGTOWforums.com, Marcus20 offers a dire warning for all of his fellow Men Going Their Own Way who may not yet be Going Their Own Way thoroughly enough.

This is a gender war. Some men don’t know there’s a war. But almost every man feels something is wrong.

Some men who know there’s a gender war haven’t identified all of the weapons that are being arrayed against them.

One of these weapons is a wyman’s make-up.

Make-up is an unconventional weapon, and it’s often unrecognized as a threat.

That’s right, fellas. These women will stop at nothing to deceive and control you. Even if that means resorting to (gasp!) eye shadow.

WAKE UP to the MAKEUP!

[I]magine, if you please, a man with his face covered in war paint. Consider the men at the end of Apocalypse Now. Consider the warriors of the Sioux, the warriors in African tribes. Consider modern American soldiers.

Why do warriors wear face paint? The reason isn’t only camouflage. There is a psychological component to the mask.

You see paint on a man’s face– and you immediately and correctly identify him as a threat. But put the same paint on a woman’s face, and your reaction is quite different.

We are so accustomed to seeing women wearing paint that it never strikes us as odd.

Actually, I’m pretty sure if I saw a woman painted up like the dudes in Apocalypse Now I might give her a second look.

But there used to be widespread opposition to women wearing make-up. In Oliver Goldsmith’s Vicar of Wakefield, published in 1766, the vicar vigorously disapproves of his wife and daughters preparing various washes and powders for their faces. The Bible mentions “painted Jezebels.” At one time, make-up on a woman’s face signaled to all that she was a prostitute.

Today, make-up is accepted. Ho hum. Nothing to see here . . . The best weapon is one your enemy doesn’t see.

They call it “concealer” for a reason! For it conceals the dark and evil heart of the modern woman! Or something.

Imagine an average-looking girl, just reaching adolescence. She puts on make-up– and she is attracting the attention of boys, when she wasn’t before. It takes her but a moment to realize they are attracted not to her–whoever she is, she doesn’t know herself– but to her paint.

She concludes that men are attracted by paint. It immediately, and from the beginning of her sexual interactions with men, makes her relations with the opposite sex less real. She is always aware that the paint on her face is manipulating him.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that “paint” doesn’t have much to do with any of this. I think it might just happen to have something to do with the flood of hormones coursing through the bodies of adolescent boys.

Day after day, for years, for decades, she paints herself as if she is a thing: and she becomes soulless.

That also happens if she puts on cute outfits. If you stare too long at a cute outfit, the cute outfit stares back at you!

The more you think about this, the more you realize that this is terrifying. Imagine if you — a man — painted your face everyday and presented that face to the world as if it’s yours. Immediately, you will feel disassociated from yourself. Immediately: scheming, lying, deceit become easier. Even murder becomes easier.

Er, what?

Roughly 90% of murders are committed by men, and I’m pretty sure very few of them are wearing makeup at the time.

Villains wear masks. Wearing a mask makes it easier to do evil. Darth Vader and even your typical bank robber . . .

The mask allows a woman to act out her evil impulses while telling herself the lie that she herself isn’t doing it.

That’s right. You start by putting on a little lipstick and mascara, and the next thing you know you’re destroying peaceful planets with your Death Star.

It is absurd for a man to allow himself to be attracted by paint.

Better to be repulsed by women who wear make-up. To see them as clowns. To see them as strange masks. To see the mask as the truth of what she has become, after a decade of painting her face: a lie that she wears everyday. Because after years of wearing a mask, you become it.

The same thing happens with other things you wear. After years of wearing underwear, you become underwear! After years of wearing socks, you become a sock! After years of wearing hats, you become a hat!

My niece, age five, recently attended a make-up party for children her age. She now owns a make-up collection. She is five years old and already wears a mask.

Isn’t there something disturbing about that?

Well, yeah, but not for the reason you think.

Look at youtube. There are videos that have millions of views — all about eleven year old girls who use massive amounts of make-up (and time) to make themselves look like Barbie or a doll or a cartoon character.

(And women still tell me: “Just wait — you’ll find someone who shares your interests.” What?)

Actually, I’m pretty sure you won’t find a woman who shares your interests, dude, given that one of your interests is writing posts about how wearing makeup turns women into Darth Vader.

Today we have girls, age five, wearing make-up … I therefore predict an even more soulless horde of wymen in our future.  …

I submit that women would be much less evil if they never wore masks. I submit that women would be much more humble as to their true attractiveness and therefore, less entitled, if they never wore masks. I submit that men would be better able to judge who is really beautiful if women never wore masks. …

The first step is to stop being manipulated by paint. Look behind the mask — and the face isn’t there.

Uh, no. That’s not reality you’re talking about here. That’s the movie Eyes Without a Face.

Naturally, the eminently sensible fellows at MGTOWforums.com applaud Marcus20’s lucid analysis of how makeup turns girls and women into Sith Lords.

“Since everything within a woman is a motherfucking lie, it makes sense that the outside would be as well,” writes the aptly-named Womanhater.

ANY twat who claims to be ‘equal’ and yet wears make-up is a fucking hypocrite! The ENTIRE purpose of makeup is to feign sexual arousal and attraction – red lips, blushed cheeks, etc. all signal men on a subconscious level that the twat is sexually attracted to you. This in turn makes the uninitiated blue-pillers in our ranks turn into putty in their hands. The ONLY reason a twat wears make-up is to have an easier time manipulating you or extracting resources from you. Period. Full stop.

MrWombat, perhaps inspired by neo-Nazi nonsense about “blood in the face,” suggests that clever use of concealer can indeed conceal women’s essential dishonesty:

Makeup is crucial to being able to lie face-to-face to someone. Normal people blush when they lie, blanch when they have taken an emotional hit. Foundation conceals that, and women consciously feel foundation to be a mask, a disguise, a defense.

I eagerly await Marcus20’s analysis of the Big Lie that is the Wonderbra.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

358 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Karak
Karak
7 years ago

Isn’t this the same group of people who say women who don’t wear makeup are ugly and displeasing?

BlackBloc (@XBlackBlocX)

>>>Villains wear masks. Wearing a mask makes it easier to do evil.

It also makes it easier to do good. Superheroes wear masks too. So do (intelligent) people who fight against oppressive regimes.

Used to be if you were in a crowd for a march or protest, anonymity was granted by default. Now because of the surveillance state, the presence of cameras everywhere that can record you presence, you need to wear a mask to attain a state that was (in ancient times, technologically speaking) automatically granted to you when you used your right to free speech. No surprise then that authorities try to ban masks!

The Stepford Knife
The Stepford Knife
7 years ago

I wear makeup every day. In a personal observation, I’ve found that people who wear foundation every day have skin that ages better (maybe they are more likely to moisturise but foundation provides sun protection which is one of the major ageing causations, especially when you live in Australia).

I’m in a similar situation- living in the UK but travelling quite a bit and being very pale thanks to Irish and Danish ancestry. As well as foundation, I wear SPF 12 moisturiser in the winter and SPF 50 sunblock in the summer!

Changing between foundation brands I’ve also noticed that some brands are just better for your skin, due to the oil content, added moisturisers, etc. The SPF is the main one though- women whose faces don’t age much often find they still get wrinkles and age spots on their hands and necks, and it’s probably because these areas aren’t covered up with make-up or clothing.

Those MRAs who are obsessed with how well or badly a woman ages may want to consider this- MRAs, maybe your woman isn’t wearing make-up because she’s an evil deceiver, but just to make sure you don’t leave her for a hot 12-year-old the minute she looks past her prime at 17.

elodieunderglass
7 years ago

Of course makeup crosses over and between the usual functions of beauty, practically and personal presentation, and plenty of modern men can – and do – wear makeup. But can any of the history buffs here remember a time or culture where men wore makeup for fashion, beauty or social reasons? (As an everyday cosmetic; I’m not really thinking about lip balm, moisturizer, etc, or performative makeup.) Of course there’s various characters in history who presented as women and wore makeup, and there’s the functional aspect of kohl to protect the eyes from sun, as well…

But I believe that there are some historical examples of men wearing makeup for beauty in Egypt/ Greek/ Rome? Unless I’m misremembering and it was for functional purposes. Of course there’s the gentlemen of the French Revolution, who wore face powder, but I don’t know how much of that is exaggeration after the fact. And I think there’s a mention in the Arabian Nights of boys wearing makeup, but that’s hardly a reliable primary source.

Tina
Tina
7 years ago

OT but related to a comment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/kevin-jones-softball-coach-sex-assault_n_2573115.html?show_comment_id=226082485#comment_226082485

A 35 year old man had a “relationship” with a 14 year old girl. I read through the comments and one or two commenters are trying to turn this girl into Lolita. “This poor man was tempted by this hot, sexy, needy, insecure teen girl and he was defenseless against her wiles.” Or something. My old thinking says that there may be some truth to that. Some teen girls are mature and knowing beyond their years. My new and more realistic/rational thinking says this is bullshit. This man is not a victim. Even if this girl tempted him he is still the adult in the situation and should not be having any kind of relationship with a teen girl. He is a married father of 2 (I think) girls. I don’t give a damn if this teen girl stripped in front of him. He is not a victim.

Rant over. And that Mimic Octopus is kinda creepy. He freaked me out a little.

Myoo
Myoo
7 years ago

The more you think about this, the more you realize that this is terrifying. Imagine if you — a man — painted your face everyday and presented that face to the world as if it’s yours. Immediately, you will feel disassociated from yourself. Immediately: scheming, lying, deceit become easier. Even murder becomes easier.

Villains wear masks. Wearing a mask makes it easier to do evil. Darth Vader and even your typical bank robber . . .

The mask allows a woman to act out her evil impulses while telling herself the lie that she herself isn’t doing it.

Shitty Evo-Psych Time? Shitty Evo-Psych time!

*Puts on Evo-Psych make-up*

As we know, make-up serves to hide a person’s face, and in that sense it is similar in function to a mask. People who are forced by society to wear make-up are forced to always conceal their true selves behind a mask, leading to feelings of insecurity because they aren’t acknowledged for who they really are, but merely for the “mask” they wear. [1]

Another factor to take into account is, of course, the dehumanization factor of wearing a mask. When one’s face is covered, other people are less likely to view you as fully human, therefore the person wearing the mask is at a greater risk of being discriminated against. [2]

[1] Ass, My. Make-up works like masks, Vol. 33, 2013.

[2] TV Tropes. Faceless Goons, 2010

Science is fun!

The Stepford Knife
The Stepford Knife
7 years ago

Tina- we had a similar case in the UK with Jeremy Forrest, a married teacher who abducted a 15-year-old girl in his class with whom he had been having an affair. Reading Yahoo News (yeah, I know…) I got sick of seeing comments saying things like “she was a temptress who knew what she was doing” and treating him as if he was the true victim. Meanwhile we’ve had another case with a group of Asian men in Rochdale who have been described as “a Muslim paedophile gang” and accused of “grooming” teenage girls- comments on Yahoo’s articles here seem to blame the perpetrators and treat the victims as “real” victims rather than evil temptresses.

Both cases seem to be examples of grooming but it seems some people only see if that way if the perpetrator isn’t a white male. Never mind that Mr Forrest abused his position of responsibility and cheated on his wife, the poor little white man is a VICTIM of an evil 15-year-old Jezebel.

Of course being Yahoo News UK part of this is down to the rampant racism and Islamophobia on there, but there still seems to be this attitude of white men being victims in any case. Every rape case I see reported on there and on other sites seems to draw comments accusing the victim of lying, calling for her to be named and calling for the suspect to be granted anonymity- unless the suspect is non-white, when the comments call for him to be named, shamed and deported (even if he’s British).

I really should stop reading “the bottom half of the internet”. It’s too depressing.

Jen
Jen
7 years ago

Wow. I’m one trip to Sephora away from becoming a murderer? I guess my hubby should count his lucky stars that my foundation, blush and eyebrow pencil haven’t driven me to kill him in his sleep…

howardbann1ster
7 years ago

I don’t think we can conclusively say Darth Vader was not wearing that mask to troll for hot guys.

He totally had a thing or bounty hunters. Why won’t Sithlords ever go for the nice guys?

Bounty hunters can’t be nice guys?

whataboutthemoonz
7 years ago

“I get away with gold eyeliner”

WeeBoy = Cinna

Kakanian
Kakanian
7 years ago

[quote] “This poor man was tempted by this hot, sexy, needy, insecure teen girl and he was defenseless against her wiles.” Or something.[/quote] It’s always fun that people forget that the character Humbert Humbert is a Pedophile. Dolores did not actually lure a “good man” away from the straight path.

pecunium
7 years ago

Cassie: You have a lot of unfinished business/unanswered questions starting here

pecunium
7 years ago

Hi Jen. 🙂 Welcome to the party!

pecunium
7 years ago

Oh, and if you want to smack Cassie Around, hit that link and scroll up a bit. Take your blood pressure meds, and arrange a date with doggies for later.

pecunium
7 years ago

Now I’ll go touch up the kitchen knives, and make some onions sauce for tonight’s curry.

pecunium
7 years ago

Purple Star: Kamilla: Diamonds are completely worthless and dirt fucking cheap. Another example of consumer demand created for a product which, given its abundance, is pretty much a dime a dozen.

Because men wanted to make money exploiting other men.

Tina
Tina
7 years ago

Stepford: I don’t have any..intelligent insight or comment. Just a bunch of garbled thoughts. (stares at keyboard waiting for..)

Molly Moon
Molly Moon
7 years ago

Argenti:

….But no, you pulled out something about telepathy and “your kind” and made me (and it seems others here as well) go WHUUT?

Then again, human females? As opposed to what sort of females? Martian ones? You aren’t ABNOY are you?

Don’t disagree with your main point, but I believe the answer to your last paragraph is “as opposed to female flying spaghetti monsters.” The vibe I got from fsm’s post is that zie was not only using fsm as a screen name, but also a character.

danielleparadis
7 years ago

@bengalcatmum OMG you are public enemy number one! I can’t make fun of this guy I feel like he honestly must be in a lot of pain to write something like this. It’s pretty easy to dismiss as angry ranting. Isn’t posting this on a MGTOW site like preaching to the choir?

Neurite
Neurite
7 years ago

TW: discussion of sexual abuse of a child in the context of a fictional work

Podkayne: “…piss me off on the same level as people who think ‘Lolita’ is about a precociously sexual girl”

Oh lord, this. I cannot believe “Lolita” has entered the cultural consciousness as a synonym for “precociously sexual preteen seductress”. I used to use it that way, and then I read the book. Sure, the narrator wraps it all in convoluted, intentionally oblique language, with lots of Latin and French and hints and subclauses and self-excusing (and self-pitying!) BS. (Which I consider to be a conscious, and brilliant, choice of the author, taking us into the mind of a perpetrator trying to make himself look like the victim.) But the fact remains that he still:

– explicitly talks about how Lolita cries herself to sleep every night from the day he starts raping her

– talks about how much he enjoys withholding food from her in the morning until she lets him rape her

– complains about how much longer it takes him every day to scare her enough with stories about orphanages and reform schools to talk her out of going to the police

– complains about how unfair it is that certain “favors” that he “needs” can’t easily be taken by force (it’s pretty clear he’s talking about blowjobs), so he’s “forced” to let her “extort” him by paying her for it (and she eventually bargains him up to a whole $2!)

– makes it clear that the only reason she’s so desperate for the money is that she’s trying to save up to run away from him (though he still insults her for being “materialistic”), and talks about how much fun it is to steal it all back from her out of her hiding places, or better yet, just wrestle it out of her hand after she’s given him what he wanted (because after all, he’s stronger! he actually talks about how funny that is)

…and so on and so on. How do people read this book and get “precocious temptress” out of it?!

Sure, she “starts it” by initiating sex with him the first time – after he drugs her, with his initial intent being to knock her unconscious and rape her! And she does it by saying she’ll show him something she learned from another kid at summer camp (implying she’s been abused before), and he jokes about how she clearly didn’t realize what she was getting into with a full-grown man this time and how she only didn’t stop out of embarrassment/stubbornness/inexperience (not, say, because he didn’t stop as soon as she showed signs of discomfort… or, y’know, never started). His flowery, metaphorical description of their “first time” might be a bit hard to decode, but he makes it pretty clear she’s in pain during it. And afterwards, she locks herself in a bathroom for a long time and then yells at him and is obviously distraught. How do people not see this for what it is?

Some people tell me it’s because folks see the movies instead of reading the book. I don’t know, I haven’t seen them… I suppose they put a different spin on it?

Kakanian, and yes, there’s the part where the book goes on at length about how he is an admitted pedophile actively looking for victims long before he meets Lolita.

So Tina, when they are “trying to turn this girl into Lolita”, they may be more spot-on than they realize. Shudder.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Wow. I’m one trip to Sephora away from becoming a murderer? I guess my hubby should count his lucky stars that my foundation, blush and eyebrow pencil haven’t driven me to kill him in his sleep…

Hi jen! What else did you think Sephora’s VIB program was about? A few more points, and I get the weapon of my choice. Decision, decisions…

Kitteh’s: My little rantlet at DLColvin was the product of clicking through her name to her blog. Not sure why I did, but there’s a gem there. I won’t link though.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Ah. I scrolled up here and wondered if something had been deleted before I saw it. Thanks for the heads-up, I’ll leave it at that, I think.

“rantlet” – I like. 🙂

La Strega
7 years ago

It has been estimated that about 20% of men secretly cross dress. I expect some of these guys are just envious because they are afraid to wear their make up in public.

Some Gal Not Bored at All
Some Gal Not Bored at All
7 years ago

@Neurite

I’ve only seen the Jeremy Irons film, but if people get “she wanted it” from the film, then they misunderstood it. It isn’t as clear as with the book that she is repeatedly hurt (as opposed to being young and not understanding sex, which has it’s own problems, but doesn’t end up with her being in the wrong, asking for it, or emerging from the abuse unscathed), but it is pretty damn clear. At the very least, it is beyond obvious that the narrator is lying about shit.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
7 years ago

Hi jen! What else did you think Sephora’s VIB program was about? A few more points, and I get the weapon of my choice. Decision, decisions…

I’m going for the dual purpose eye-liner/eye-brow powder brush. I like my weapons to be efficient. And I need to re-up on my Too Faced, Drop Dead Red. That’s a weapon of mass destruction, right there.

All kidding aside, someone above wrote about how for this particular type of misogynist they’re always imagining themselves at the protagonist in other people’s lives. In reality, they rarely rise above the level of “day player” and are more often “background extras.” And part of me wants to rail against this stupidity, and point out the reasons that I enjoy and wear makeup. I want to link to studies done on perceptiond of attractiveness and professionalism and how makeup plays in to all of that. But there’s no point.

You can’t reason with people who are upset that they notice women and are attracted to them. Remember how NWO used to get all worked up about women using lotion and wearing silky blouses? That’s all this whining boils down to:

How dare women walk around being attractive and forcing me to notice them!

Tina
Tina
7 years ago
Reply to  Neurite

I’ve not read the book but have seen the movies. This one had the most impact on me: http://mubi.com/films/lolita

The main male character was not sympathetic in this version. He became obssessed with this teen girl and did everything wrong. If I remember right, the opening credits is a pair of male hands painting female toenails. (shrug) I thought it was shocking for the time period. The girl was more sympathetic to me. Her life was not easy and was made more difficult because others exploited her.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

I just looked up Drop dead Red, I think I have to get that. Hourglass’ Icon is a great too, and that shit does not budge.

Neurite
Neurite
7 years ago

Some Gal – yeah, I figure most people have seen the Kubrick one. I hear the Jeremy Irons one is a bit truer to the book (for one thing, it apparently keeps her age as 12-13, while the Kubrick one apparently ages her up to 16). I haven’t seen either, so I can’t say much.

But even if the Kubrick movie is 100% “precocious seductress” (thus excusing why people who have watched it take that away from it), that still means that Kubrick looked at the book and made it into… that. It just makes me feel that there is something deeply f*cked up in our culture if anyone – including the moviemaker! – can look at this book and instead of seeing “brilliant and deeply chilling portrayal of child sexual abuse and the self-justifications of a predator” sees “tempting underage minx luring good man to his doom”.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
7 years ago

Hellkell, is its undertone blue-y or orange-y? I am currently in the market for another go-to red lipstick. Red lipstick -provided it’s the right red lipstick- can be fabulous on dark brown skin but… the undertones have to be just right.

This is going to be like that bra-sizing discussion, right? The trolls will naturally stay away?

Neurite
Neurite
7 years ago

Ninja’ed by Tina! Seems like even watching the Kubrick version and walking away with “Lolita is the predator” would take some wtf-ness.

katz
7 years ago

At the very least, it is beyond obvious that the narrator is lying about shit.

This ties into abuse narratives and the idea of joking about abuse, doesn’t it? A normal person’s “that’s obviously not true” is an abuser’s “see, this is normal behavior!”

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Hellkell, is its undertone blue-y or orange-y? I am currently in the market for another go-to red lipstick. Red lipstick -provided it’s the right red lipstick- can be fabulous on dark brown skin but… the undertones have to be just right.

It’s a very blue-red. I’m so pale with blue tones I almost glow in the dark, so I can’t do orange reds.

Hourglass lipsticks are refillable, too.

I hope this keeps the trolls at bay. I’ll start talking eyeshadow if it doesn’t.

Some Gal Not Bored at All
Some Gal Not Bored at All
7 years ago

@Neurite

It really seems like people have to already believe some fucked up things about little girls to see the movies (or read the book) and walk away thinking that they demonstrate that little girls are seductresses. At this point, I think it is a bit of a vicious circle where people hear that Lolita means temptress, see the movie (or read the book) expecting to see that, and ignore everything that doesn’t confirm what they already thought. Then, the perpetuate that Lolita means temptress. Basically, the Lolita issue is rape culture in miniature, which feeds from and into the larger rape culture. Grr.

I recommend the Jeremy Irons film, though, if you are ever interested in seeing a film version. I think unreliable narrators always come off as more reliable in film, which is a problem for a work like Lolita, but watching the film grapple with it is interesting in its own right.

Tina
Tina
7 years ago

Did somebody just say that Lolita was 12 or 13 in the book?!? Ugh and Arggg. Even the 1962 version she was upped to at least 15 or 16. The actress had to be in her 20’s because her figure was quite well formed and lovely. Of course, all 16 year olds look like that. (thanks, hollywood) If this is “normal human behavior” then, again, I’m glad I’m going to be dead in a few decades.

Red lipstick is tricky. I found testing is best. However, this testing was done at Macy’s and the cosmetics there are expensive. I had bought many drugstore reds that were nice but not suitable. After adding up the cost of those reds I realized I could have bought one good quality red and been much happier. Lancome’s newest lipstick (Rouge in Love, I think) has a very light feel. Chanel always has rich, creamy colors. MAC has a good selection, sweet scent and different finishes. I’ve read that Tom Ford’s colors and textures for lips are amazing but they aren’t sold in my area and are way too far out of my price range anyway. That’s not to say that if they were sold around here that I wouldn’t be testing. Oh, heck, I’d be purchasing…who am I kidding. It’s the ultimate pampering for me: luxury lippies.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
7 years ago

The search for the perfect red lipstick can be both time consuming and expensive. But, if you’re the sort of person who enjoys lipstick, it can also be completely worth it. Contrary to the delusional dumb-fuckery of the OP, red lipstick looks completely and delightfully unnatural. It isn’t trying to trick anyone into anything.

But it can be charming and sweet, and evocative and provocative, and it says unequivocally “I made an effort.”

katz
7 years ago

I can never forgive Lolita for all the other stuff it has spawned. Lolicon, supid lolita fashion, stupid lolita hentai…

Neurite
Neurite
7 years ago

Tina, yes, Lolita is 12 when the narrator first meets her in the book and his abuse of her goes on for around a year. He also explicitly states right at the beginning of the book that his target range of “nymphets” he finds sexually attractive is 9-14, and that once girls hit puberty and get a womanly shape they become repulsive to him. He actually worries that Lolita is already so close to his upper age range and will likely get too old for him soon. In one especially troubling passage, he daydreams about getting her pregnant to ensure another young girl for him to abuse later, and even fantasizes about having a “happy family” of three generations of victims, with grandpa Humbert now abusing the preteen granddaughter.

Again, it’s not subtle, not something where you can go “okay, with some societal preconceived notions I can understand how someone might read that as a young seductress story”. The fact that it’s a pedophile abuser is very clear, which is why I’m so shocked about people actually managing to misread it anyways. How???

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
7 years ago

Lolita is only possible to misread if you are very stupid, have never read a book in your life, or possess some deeply fucked up “morals.” The narrator is unreliable but the events of the books are undeniable; sobbing, pain, avoidance, escape attempts… that little girl was seducing no one, unless you find a miserable, desperate child seductive.

katz
7 years ago

Oh my God, Humbert Humbert is NWOslave.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
7 years ago

I have to say I absolutely loved the book, though; it was a quicker read than I thought it would be, and I occasionally had the most bizarre cognitive dissonance between “oh no, they’ll be caught!” and “please, please let him get caught!” It was really compelling, and sickening, and brilliantly done.

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
7 years ago

I can never forgive Lolita for all the other stuff it has spawned. Lolicon, supid lolita fashion, stupid lolita hentai…

I used to have a housemate into all the loli-dressing. Never got it myself but, whatever floats your boat. But I think there’s a divergence between ‘styles people would like even if Lolita never existed but use Lolita as a convenient shorthand’ and ‘borderline paedophilia which people think is legit because literature’?

howardbann1ster
7 years ago

Found the problem.

Lolita is only possible to misread if you are very stupid, have never read a book in your life, or possess some deeply fucked up “morals.”

Neurite
Neurite
7 years ago

Tina: ” Even if this girl tempted him he is still the adult in the situation and should not be having any kind of relationship with a teen girl. …I don’t give a damn if this teen girl stripped in front of him. He is not a victim.”

Amen. I wrote a comment in an earlier thread about how teenage me, being clueless and hormone-wracked, flirted with adult men, and how these men all managed to do the right thing and not take me up on my misguided attempts. Because that was the right thing to do, and they were adults and perfectly capable of doing it. It’s not rocket surgery.

Sorry to bring this around to Lolita yet again (I just agree with Some Gal, it’s such an iconic reflection of icky cultural stuff), but I know at least one person who read the book (no movie excuse here!) and yet walked away thinking that “she was partly at fault too” because she’d had a crush on Humbert and had flirted with him.

Which yes, she did. She originally had a crush on him. And the farthest she went with that (before, y’know, he drugged and raped her, after her mother had been brutally killed in an accident and he’d abducted her) was that she wrote his initials on a poster of a heartthrob actor who looked kinda like him. How could he possibly resist such devilish wiles?!

Some Gal Not Bored at All
Some Gal Not Bored at All
7 years ago

People really have issues with unreliable narrators, though. I don’t understand it how it can be so shocking to people because everyone has had at least one experience with being lied to IRL or how it can be so anger-inducing when only a handful of books/movies do it anyway. I haven’t read any of the reviews myself, but the boyfriend says that (spoiler alert, I guess) viewer reactions to the second Blair Witch movie seem to paint unreliable narration as something immoral and unforgiveable. I don’t know where people get ideas like that about fiction (which hello! is lying to you anyway), but I think that weirdness is part of it. They are definitely a bit dense, though.

For some reason people want to believe the narrator and so have to choose between believing what the narrator wants to believe in Lolita and believing what actually happens. Once you are at that point (which I don’t understand), I do kinda get choosing the less fucked up, “it isn’t really abuse” story. Those people certainly don’t deserve to be reading great literature in the first place (half-joking), but I do almost understand wanting to forget about the awful things Humbert does in favor of the ridiculous fantasy he tells himself. I don’t understand how they do it, but I can sortable understand why.

Some Gal Not Bored at All
Some Gal Not Bored at All
7 years ago

*sorta

katz
7 years ago

But I think there’s a divergence between ‘styles people would like even if Lolita never existed but use Lolita as a convenient shorthand’ and ‘borderline paedophilia which people think is legit because literature’?

Of course. It just seriously interferes with my ability to think about the book without an instant association of stupid Japanese subcultures.

pecunium
7 years ago

My. hellkell, I chased that comment down. Textbook passive aggressive; with a fair bit of self-valorisation. It got some external validation too.

Precious.

Neurite
Neurite
7 years ago

Bagelsan, totally agree. The book itself was brilliant. And yes, unambiguously about an abused child. The kind of spot-on details that the author includes can get really upsetting. (More TW below.)

And yet again, I’ve seen just those details twisted into rationalizations that she was somehow “into it” or “partially at fault”. For example, at one point the narrator complains about how later on in the abuse, when he rapes Lolita, she doesn’t even pay attention, she seems nonchalant and focuses on something completely different, and disregards his dick “as if it were something she had sat upon, a shoe, a doll, the handle of a tennis racket, and was too indolent to remove” (actual book quote) – and that hurts his precious feelings. And people point at that to say “see, she wasn’t that upset by it”. Not that, y’know, dissociating and removing yourself from what is happening is a textbook example of a survival behavior of a repeatedly abused child. Again, excellent observation by the author, headdesky misreading by readers.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Pecunium: isn’t it just? I saw that and thought that someone is seriously deluded to think that we’d go around the web trashing her. No, we’ll keep it right here, thanks. I hope she never goes to Pharyngula or another site with zero patience for nonsense. The pearl clutching would never end.

pecunium
7 years ago

We shall see if she stops following my blog. I left a comment about the nature of her post.