I just hate it when a joke backfires on me.

~

Coat

~

Coat

The movement doesn’t seem to dictate who you should date, like, or what kind of job you should have. I’m sure some people could extend it to a kind of lifestyle, but people do that with or without this sort of fashion-as-commentary. The people who dress this way are still individuals with individual preferences. People do often date those with similar aesthetics…but I’d say it’s as likely they’d date someone with an affinity for costuming and fashion, and possibly also gender exploration.

Also, I took the time to write up explanations on this as way to explain (for those interested) why it can be considered more than just creepy or weird or superficial. I know it’s the internet, but a response like yours was just disrespectful. I don’t comment on threads if I don’t have anything constructive to add.

Also, replace “boring” with “dull.” For cadence purposes.

Lastly, just because I think something is ridiculous doesn’t mean it doesn’t interest me.

Who’s stressing? It’s called a discussion. You don’t have to participate or even read it if it doesn’t interest you.

It’s like the whole boys like guns, girls like dolls thing. Okay, but not every boy likes guns, and not every girl likes dolls. But some do. And we’ve taken to making that a negative (ie. things that are “girly” are “superficial”). And there are reasons for that, because gender stereotypes can create a lot of problems. Usually because you don’t conform to it…but sometimes because you do. So this takes it to a certain extreme to, in some cases, make a point and confront us with our own assumptions about that. I personally think some of it is framed as a: what is feminine? question, with no set or easy answer.

Also, it’s important to note, lots of people dress this way sometimes…others all the time. A certain sub-culture has been established with it, but it’s not that different than people who decide to dress in certain retro of vintage fashions all the time. In fact, it has a lot of cross over.

And I’m not sure what you mean by calling a man a boy. Generally calling a grown person a child suggests immaturity. “Girly” means something else, though it does contain the diminutive idea that it’s silly, frilly, and childish. A way that women have been defined for years. Which is why I can see where this is deliberately re-appropriated that idea via fashion, and confronting us with our preconceptions about what that means.

That said, I will henceforth avoid commenting on fashion-related posts as the subject is clearly beyond my ken. And Barbie.

Mariah Says: And it’s rather clear that this style is mostly for the appeal of those wearing it, since the most common reaction I’m seeing is confusion or being “creeped” out. (Which is fine, btw. Be as creeped out as you like.)

I think that if we think that things that are considered culturally “girly” are negative, then we need to explore why. Most things that are gendered as female are not considered desirable or strong. And we often categorize women who like makeup or fashion as “superficial”. And yet women who act in ways that are gendered as male are considered to be strident and “bitchy”. Culturally, we can’t win. Because we aren’t allowed to be individuals. And men, by the way, suffer from this same problem of the way we define masculine and feminine. It assumes certain “roles” and doesn’t really do anyone any favors.

It’s not about proving anything, actually. It’s just expressing it. I doubt that women who prefer jeans and a t-shirt are interested in Lolita fashion. But if you like dresses and lace and the like, you might attracted to this particular fashion. With more of an emphasis on the costume aspect of it, because, again, I think it’s an exaggeration rather than a representation of what we consider “girly”. And it’s rather clear that this style is mostly for the appeal of those wearing it, since the most common reaction I’m seeing is confusion or being “creeped” out. (Which is fine, btw. Be as creeped out as you like.)

I just think it’s valuable to look at our reactions to this, what we assume it means, why we might like or dislike it. The fact that it’s provocative at all means that, if you believe fashion can be a form of art, it’s doing something right.

I don’ts think it’s as simple as just “dressing up like little girls”. Fashion has never been that simplistic. Especially for women. Fashion, for us, has a lot to do with body control. With the way we’re sexualized and objectified in the culture. Fashion can do all kinds of things and is often an outward reflection of what we want to convey. Whether it’s conformity, creativity, subversiveness, etc. What women wear has everything to do with how we feel about ourselves. What you see, who sees it, our body shapes, how we alter, conceal, or flatter it.

So, yes, it does go beyond dress up. Just like makeup goes beyond face painting.

In certain ways, Gothic & Lolita fashions are a reaction to the fashions we see that are most mainstream. Whether it’s short skirts, belly shirts, cleavage revealing, etc…many grown women don’t feel comfortable in those clothes. Nor do they feel comfortable in those that are supposedly more “adult”, which again, unless we’re talking business attire (which since the 80’s tends to try and make women look more androgynous), tends to push our sexuality as it appeals to men. Not what we may personally feel attractive or comfortable as.

It’s also about the individual. Some people dye their hair pink because they like the color. And other people dye their hair pink because they see no reason to look like everyone else and like to use their body or hair as a canvas for expression. Tattoo’s and body modification fits here as well.

With Lolita, there’s a emphasis on details, certain qualities of doll or very “dressed up” costumes, etc. I honestly don’t know too many actual little girls who dress this way. It’s far more ornate and “over the top”. Which is deliberate. Much like corsets force the natural, curved female shape into a more exaggerated form…this is a much more exaggerated version of “girly”. Hence all the Victorian influence. I think it’s possible to take things that are from a more repressive time, reappropriate them, and make them represent something else. Something more positive.

But I can’t give you a mission statement about it any more than what Ellie stated. I’m sure plenty of people just like the way it looks. But I’m sure plenty of others do it consciously and with a deliberate eye on what it means in a larger cultural context. Partially for themselves, but partially to explore what is and is not an “acceptable” level of the things we generalize as “girly”…like, pink, lace, dresses, etc. In that way it is confronting us with our own preconceived notions. And that definitely has a purpose.

Reading that, are you saying: that this movement is a zeitgeist of women reclaiming “girly” -that women don’t have to be masculine, or have masculine qualities, or penis envy:) in order to be considered strong: that it is ok to be girly and with that there are inherent strenghts, albeit different strengths. Or are you just sayng that lace and poofy skirts are cool, too, fashionwise. You did add how it spoke “VOLUMES”…. kinda cryptic -I just want to make sure I know what that is.
I think saying men are like boys is considered in society a weakess as well. And if it’s so gender-bending than why is proving you are “girly” so important?
Richard:
It would be kinda fun if people came to work dressed up as wookies:) Just playing.

I don’t care whether people are dressing up for their amusement, mine, yours or none of the above.

I’m still entitled to find it … creepy.

Ditto with dressing up as a Wookie, Doctor Who or Red Sonja unless you’re ten years old.

But what ever floats your boat, y’know?

Who gets to determine what is and is not “owning your sexuality” for a woman? The woman herself? The culture? Men? I think we need to look at that a bit more closely given some of the responses here.

Also, and I think this is really important, there’s a big difference between something being inherently sexual and having a sexual connotation placed on it. We have sexualized schoolgirls, not the other way around. The schoolgirl fetish is an indication of a problem with adults, not teenage girls. And I would put this in the same category. The fashion is not inherently sexual. It’s far less provocative than most stuff actually aimed at little and teen girls, with bare midriffs and low cut tops and low slung jeans. And I think there’s a very valuable cultural commentary involved in women wanting to express with what they wear things are generally thought of as very “girly” or “cute” as an adult. It’s usually interpreted as being regressive, but I think that’s short-sighted. Because “girly” isn’t seen as a positive thing by our culture so I find it interesting anyone thinks this is for men, or some kind pandering to “weakness”. If we think things like lace and poofy skirts indicate that, that says VOLUMES about what we think about certain aspects of femaleness.

I think a huge part of the issue here is the term “Lolita” is misused and not at all representing the same thing here as it does in Japan. It’s a word that was used for the sound, not the meaning we give it. And anyway, our interpretation of Lolita tends to focus on the idea of the “female teenage temptress” which isn’t the point of the book either. That’s, again, us sexualizing a child and missing the point. And because of that we misinterpret a lot of the fashion that uses that term.

Plus, a lot of Gothic Lolita stuff is very gender bending and inspired by different fashion movements and times. It takes skill, since it a lot of it is handmade, and certainly encourages creativity and DIY. I don’t think it should be dismisses so quickly.

Don’t anyone tell me that I’m 51 years young…I’ll hit you with my cane!

I know people here are saying that’s a well-written response, but really we all think that because look at her! She is “owning her sexuality”, not sure what that means -but ok… then further she states pedos don’t hit on her -how would she know?
News flash: men by the way aren’t intimidated -they are maybe weirded out: maybe don’t want to appear as if they are pedos.
Is this a throwback to being able to be cute, gentle, and submissive, but you know do it in a fun way? Is that the current zeitgeist?
Do we have a date for Dave Sim to break him out of his celibacy?:)

Okay, so I’m lying to make a point. I don’t speak a word of Klingon.