Subject
Re: Fwd: Re: Re: JO Morgan & Michael Maar's evidence/ J-1
From
Date
Body
Jo Morgan wrote:
"Misreadings of Lolita have contributed significantly to the unethical sexual
exploitation of under-aged girls by
the market. In SNLR I have attempted to trace signs of Lolita's socio-cultural
impact within fashion, films, teenzines starting in the 1950s."
I suspect that the market was reacting not to misreadings of Lolita but to the
sheer numbers of young people. Lolita appeared just as the first of the
baby-boomers were approaching their teens. Combine these numbers with general
affluence and you get an attractive target for anybody with something to sell
-- Davy Crocket caps earlier in the decade, Elvis records later on. Even
without Lolita, sex was breaking out (which sold more-- Lolita or Peyton Place
and all those Harold Robbinsy novels?). Lolita just provided a convenient
shorthand term for something that was going on anyway.
As for the idea that "The market exploitation of young American girls cannot be
divorced from social
indicators that attest to their poor general health and well being," why can't
it? What evidence do we have of the causal connection between market
exploitation of girls and their poor health? Isn't it possible that these
aggregate health indicators are much more influenced by the availability of
good medical care, education, and other public services -- especially for the
poor-- than by the ads in Seventeen?
Jay Livingston
----- End forwarded message -----
"Misreadings of Lolita have contributed significantly to the unethical sexual
exploitation of under-aged girls by
the market. In SNLR I have attempted to trace signs of Lolita's socio-cultural
impact within fashion, films, teenzines starting in the 1950s."
I suspect that the market was reacting not to misreadings of Lolita but to the
sheer numbers of young people. Lolita appeared just as the first of the
baby-boomers were approaching their teens. Combine these numbers with general
affluence and you get an attractive target for anybody with something to sell
-- Davy Crocket caps earlier in the decade, Elvis records later on. Even
without Lolita, sex was breaking out (which sold more-- Lolita or Peyton Place
and all those Harold Robbinsy novels?). Lolita just provided a convenient
shorthand term for something that was going on anyway.
As for the idea that "The market exploitation of young American girls cannot be
divorced from social
indicators that attest to their poor general health and well being," why can't
it? What evidence do we have of the causal connection between market
exploitation of girls and their poor health? Isn't it possible that these
aggregate health indicators are much more influenced by the availability of
good medical care, education, and other public services -- especially for the
poor-- than by the ads in Seventeen?
Jay Livingston
----- End forwarded message -----