A while ago, I procrastinated writing about defense for Lolita fashion. But this morning, I caught the beginning of What Not to Wear, and they totally attacked a Lolita. ;x; Now, I remember why I wanted to write a whole essay, defending Lolita. It was against people like that, like that stupid panel, at an anime convention this past January, who have nothing but misconceptions about why we love Lolita, and then get very vehemently confrontational about it.
There are so many misconceptions about Lolita, from just 2 incidents with Western people, that I'm really scared about how gutter-minded this country is. ~_~; Though I myself am American, my fairly sheltered social life has prevented me from acclimating to what is considered "Normal". So the contradiction of freaky and illogical things which are labelled as "Normal", has always seemed jarringly obvious to me, rather than being dismissed and simply accepted, as most "Normal" people do. Though, I always had an inkling of how strange "Normal" people are, I really had not believed it was this bad.
Why is Lolita fashion considered a purely sexual abnormality here?!? 0~0 The entire time that the hosts of What Not to Wear were throwing away the former Japanese-studies student's Lolita dresses, they kept peppering in comments that implied sexual kinkiness. They kept using the term "fetish". Then, as they picked through the Lolita wardrobe, they joked that they expected to find a whip in there, like sado-masicism. (Which is another thing that I understand is not always sexual, but I also understand has been greatly adopted by the sexual-props community.) It's true that the term "Lolita" originated from a novel about sexual interest in a young girl character, but that is not what current Lolita fashion is about. Otherwise, Lolita fashion would have become a movement after that novel's infamy, rather than after a completely different event. And that completely different event was the fad started by J-pop bands, in much the same way punk, heavy metal, and goth music bands started individual clothing styles in the West. But I guess the West has had more time knowing the term "Lolita" as a reference to that sexual perversion, rather than as the Japanese clothing trend. Still, with growing awareness for the global community, one would think that there would be more open-mindedness, to other meanings or reasons for an aesthetic---Especially if a person attends anime conventions and has been given the explainations that Lolita fashion is different from the Lolita perversion. Is sex the only thing that people in this country really think of, when they see poofy, frilly skirts and lace? ;~;!? This was a really ironic notion, since that episode of What Not to Wear, came immediately after a Say Yes to the Dress episode, in which the bride choose a very poofy dress, which she described it as making her feel like a "cupcake".
What's wrong with feeling pretty as a cupcake? Apparently Normals only allow that feeling for brides and little girls. The panelist at an anime convention last January, ranted and raved about how Lolita was wrong because it wasn't "Normal" for grown women to dress "like little girls". But since then, I've been thinking about the "Normally" accepted ways, in which women are expected to feel pretty: It's usually through sexuality. Clothing tightened at certain areas, emphasizing the figure, showing skin,...Even the clothing that Normals consider "sophisticated", is defined by points---pointed-out by fashionistas---which are all about showing off the figure's aspects gained through sexual maturation. Though I completely understand this aesthetic, the idea of accepting only this type of beauty as "pretty", while condemning other types of "pretty" is infuriating. There should be nothing wrong with wanting to feel "pretty" without using sexuality.
Ruffles, lace, and poofy skirts are the beauty of Lolita fashion, culminating in cuteness, and yet, it is considered inappropriate for women, after we've grown. It used to be allowed during ages like the Victorian Era. Though, back then, the skirts were longer, waists did sinch in, and some skirt bustles could have been considered to emphasize features of sexual maturity, like the hips. But current Lolita fashion, though owing a lot to Victorian styles, usually avoids even that amount of sexual innuendo. The current Lolita emphasizes the modesty of Victorian fashion, and the details of textile, like ruffles and lace, rather than the features of a biologically mature female form. (The Lolita-afficionado in What Not to Wear also defended her layering of long shirts with a sundress, for the sake of "modesty", specifically.) It allows girls, even women, to feel pretty, in the same way a teaset is adorable, or a piece of jewelry is beautiful, while omitting the beauty of sexual maturity. And sometimes, it is very nice to take a break from identifying with sexual maturity. Yet, the only demographic which Normals allow to be themselves, free of sexual aspects, are young girls. Moms dress their daughters up in frilly, poofy dresses, to an almost costume level, at times, and yet, only then, do the Normals allow the appreication of that non-sexual cute. They even join in on that appreciation. But personally, having experienced being my mom's living doll in the past, it is much more disturbing to dress one's child as a proxy for one's own fashion experiences. Treating a living being as a doll, to a certain degree of forcefulness, can feel demeaning, in an objectifying way (Ironically, almost similar to the objectification one can feel while dressed to sexually). But why live out your aesthetic wants, vicariously through another person? Why not wear that ruffly, lacy, puffy stuff yourself? I think that would be much more mentally sound and mature, to express one's self through one's self, rather than using other living beings. And if we find frilly objects cute, then what's wrong with wearing frilly things?
The goal of Lolita fashion is to be cute, and there's something wrong with being denied that option.
No comments:
Post a Comment