Japan's 'Lolita' style: cutesy and disturbing

Well, for some I guess it could be used in a sexual manner. Though, when I see Lolita I don't even start to think of anything that relates to sexual fetishism, though I'm sure it is used for that purpose by some people; though, I'd rather not think about that. I will admit that Japan has a more openly sexual culture than most-->now, that doesn't mean you're going to be raped on the spot or anything. But from what I remember, I had sexual education in primary school and I think Japan is a bit more open about it than many cultures. We have love hotels here, Enjo Kosai, etc..But I digress, I think this article is a bit misinformed about the premise of the lolita style.

:/........

I wouldn't say I'm offended as I've gotten used to hearing those misconceptions. It does tick me off that the author didn't do any research at all so I pointed it out in the comments.

I suppose for some the innocent appeal is sexually attractive? But isn't that a bit of pedophilia? The subject of it really is sort of up in the air. I don't think the highly modest, looking like your grandmother's porcelain doll is very sexualized.

i think it variess...maybe for one person its sexual, but to someone else it coudent be farther from sexual. but grouping in everybodys ideals into one is very insensitive

That is the most amount of crap I've ever read. As you all say, she is definitely misinformed. Lolita's aren't related to the book at all; on the contrary they're the opposite of Vladmir Nabokov's book. ¬¬ Tch.

Oh my goodness =_=

http://aramatheydidnt.livejournal.com/3180027.html

Even worse, it was posted on LJ, not on the egl comm, and you should see people's mean comments! D:

I didn't bother reading. But I wish lolitas would admit that there is a big sexual aspect to how they are dressing. That's pretty much the point of fashion in general.

The comment I left on the article does not show up for some reason. Even though I was being very civil and pointing out where their info was wrong. Seems like someone doesn't want to be told they are wrong...

i dont wanna read this....ill get mad...

I really wish the author hadn't played up the sexuality thing, and the time they tried to explain sweet lolita was.... sad.

It wasn't that horrible actually. Typical response from a westerner sadly. But we have to admit, certain styles of Lolita could be perceived as having a certain sexual undertone in them. People are ALWAYS looking for sexual undertones in alternative fashion.

I don't even consider Ero an actual sub-lolita category... because it's generally always done really badly and not actually loltia. Most who pass off saying "ero ero ero lolita" they are just wearing some frilly lingerie. and at least half lingerie is frilly, doesn't mean it is suddenly ero lolita. May be wrong of me! But I don't consider ero to be lolita...( in most cases. I've seen it done right a few times )

is there any way to shut that author's erroneous thoughts? Lolita is pure and innocent, this author just grabbed onto the wrong sub-lolita style... the article concentrates on Gothloli, and then the author missinforms it! IDIOT!! Gothloli is not about sexiness!! Thats what Erololi is for! Where's the erotic in a Himeloli or Shirololi?!!! HOW is that cute AND "disturbing"(besids us big girls dressing colorfully matching with bell skirts and pettycoats)?? I find that a work of MODEST art and etiquette.

Wow... the author is just stuipd, plain and simple.

He only looked at it from one side. He only looked at it from the Ero lolita style, which is sexual. But not all lolita is for sexuality hints. This author is very misinformed. Didn't get enough background.....

it was "One thing all Lolita styles have in common is the distinct hint of sexuality and burlesque" that upset me. We all know that is not true.

Wow... There's not really much to say to that... -_-'

Well that's...depressing.

I guess people are entitled to their opinions, but I found this very annoying. I feel like the author is very mis-informed and is claiming to know so much about the fashion, but in fact has only done minimal research. How ignorant and stupid. But what bothers me is that people outside of the fashion will see it and take it as fact.

sorry for this but how fu**ng reatarded can you get? before you actually deside anything you should actualy reaserch about it befote do anything! it´s the same as calling manga "cartoons" -.- sponge bob square pants higurashi ..... sure, let a 5 year old watch higurashi -.- and what´s wrong with all the "sexualety" and "youngsters" ? are the writers 80 years ore what? and just becouse that frigin book just hapens to have the same name as the style dont mean that we are all perverted raipists ore some whores ore something like they make it look like >.< geez, im not jirya or france D: and whats up with that daipers coment? DX

*sigh* And they´re trying to pass this off as if they actually researched their lolita..... =.= How irritating.

How annoying. SO MUCH MISINFORMATION. I just posted a very long comment on the article.

I agree with Lumiina. They are seriously misinformed. They are confused about what lolita fashion even refers to and saying that it's related to the book is completely insulting. IT's a modest innocent look and yes the older you are the more out of the ordinary it seems, but that doesn't make a difference either if it makes you happy.

.... The photo with the sheer frilly outfit. That isn't Lolita, that looks like Sissy or just "cute" Styled lingerie... With that alone I'm highly insulted. Upon reading, I don't ever recall it being considered offical that the name Lolita for the style was linked with the book. I could be wrong, but most loltias I know throw that book under the bus, out right denying any relation... Sissy fetish =/= Lolita fashion. Lolita =/= Costume. Oh lord.