« It's not the -ography that upsets him. | Main | Ink Exchange -- Melissa Marr »

01 February 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Are you SURE about the headline on your post?

I'm so totally horrified.


Also, I totally call bullshit on Woolworths. What? They just picked "Lolita" out of the air without having any idea of what it's connotations might be? I almost buy that they missed the "sick, filthy, pedophilia" angle but not the "young, attractive, desirable girl" angle. Which is a comment on the ad industry in itself. (See: Barbie; most Disney movies; most toy commercials aimed at girls; repeat ad nauseum.)

Levi Stahl

Stephanie at Crooked House earlier today called for ideas for other inappropriate product names. There were some solid suggestions.


Good Lord. What were these people thinking? They named a new type of bed (designed for six- year- olds) Lolita... why? It's almost funny, in a very depressing way.


I find everyone in that article ridiculous. No one at the bed company or the store or the website had ever heard of Lolita? On the other hand, the way to object to a product, or even its name, is to NOT BUY THE PRODUCT. There are many more serious things to get riled up about than what some ignorant company names its bed.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad