NAYRT not gonna lie, "lolita-inspired" as a specific inclusion does confuse me, since the only things i can think to attribute to that type of fashion are things that are both pretty benign and also things i can definitely see people wanting to include on cutesy baby accents. like frilly bows or a purse that looks like a teddy bear.
i'm not sure if that's what they're trying to ban or if it's just the literal dresses themselves. considering they said "lolita-inspired apparel" and not just "lolita dresses" i'm inclined to think it's the former, but that also feels like it doesn't make sense.
i'm not really bothered by it since it's not something i was planning to make myself, but it's a weird thing to list as being "adult" without other clarification. i understand why people are confused or upset.
I'm pretty sure they mean the book "Lolita", as in a narrative where a man sexualizes a 12 yr old girl. It's unfortunate/poor taste that a fashion style decided to take it's name from that.
But here's the thing: given the fashion style exists as a separate entity known by many people that are on the internet, and referring to something as "Lolita-inspired" to refer to clothes is only ever used in the context of the fashion. What sort of clothes are "Lolita-inspired" in the context of the book? I don't think there's any sexualised clothing that anyone thinks of as pedophilic thanks to the book, but especially not anything someone would try to draw on a dragon.
DA the only thing I can think of is the use of red/pink heart glasses and a lollipop which is on a lot of covers of the book. I've never read it so I wouldn't know if that's like something actually in the book but in the surface level research I've done it's not an uncommon visual shorthand for the book and the character.
Yeah I'm kind of confused by this as well. For those who might not know, Lolita fashion is a Japanese fashion subculture that was known in the US when I was a teen in the mid-2000's. The unfortunate name is just because Japanese young people in the 90's when it was invented didn't have the same negative/sexual associations with the term as we do in the West; at its core it's literally just frilly dresses inspired by young women's clothing in the Victorian and Rococo periods. (Think Alice from Disney's original Alice in Wonderland.) I'm kind of astonished we're still having these conversations nearly 20 years later. Then again, people nowadays are paranoid that anything seemingly innocent could be a kink or fetish (sometimes with good reason, sometimes not so much) so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Re:
(Anonymous) 2024-05-17 05:40 am (UTC)(link)not gonna lie, "lolita-inspired" as a specific inclusion does confuse me, since the only things i can think to attribute to that type of fashion are things that are both pretty benign and also things i can definitely see people wanting to include on cutesy baby accents. like frilly bows or a purse that looks like a teddy bear.
i'm not sure if that's what they're trying to ban or if it's just the literal dresses themselves. considering they said "lolita-inspired apparel" and not just "lolita dresses" i'm inclined to think it's the former, but that also feels like it doesn't make sense.
i'm not really bothered by it since it's not something i was planning to make myself, but it's a weird thing to list as being "adult" without other clarification. i understand why people are confused or upset.
Re:
(Anonymous) 2024-05-17 12:43 pm (UTC)(link)Re:
(Anonymous) 2024-05-17 02:17 pm (UTC)(link)Re:
(Anonymous) 2024-05-17 04:05 pm (UTC)(link)Re:
(Anonymous) 2024-05-17 05:20 pm (UTC)(link)the only thing I can think of is the use of red/pink heart glasses and a lollipop which is on a lot of covers of the book. I've never read it so I wouldn't know if that's like something actually in the book but in the surface level research I've done it's not an uncommon visual shorthand for the book and the character.
Re:
(Anonymous) 2024-05-17 05:42 pm (UTC)(link)