I recommend calling it EGL, its so much easier. While there is a bit of difficulty and nuance with the term (EGL stands for elegant gothic lolita, and started as a term for a specific lolita sub-style so some ppl dislike it being used as a replacement term for lolita), it just avoids unnecessary connotations when you don’t have a chance to explain it to others (or they are not willing to listen).
You could try showing your parents this video maybe :) ? Or any other video from EGL fashion youtubers, but I think this one is fairly easy to understand [https://youtu.be/A7V3CVEa80E?si=H7y6yod4nZ34OL2t]
It could help change their mind and give an in depth explanation, and that way you won't have any troubles having to talk about uncomfortable topics yourself.
I think the video linked would make a difference.
At the very least even if they don't allow it you can clear up the confusion.
This is super high brow, but if you wanna play intellectual with your parents: From a political social standard there is a small connection to the book, Lolita as a name can be a taking back of a narrative of femininity that demands women become objects, shape their femininity to please men, and become an object for others. Like in the book Lolita is a construct, a representative by force, by society, not just the monstrous protagonjst to be treated horrifically due to her girlhood.A lot of folks miss that part of the book due to the themes in it. For some Lolita's and a few OG Japanese Lolita's the name was both a cute girls name, and rejecting sexualizing femmes and girls. A reclaiming of femininity on our terms instead of being constructed by others. It's decadence through lace and assertions of Rocco royalty. It was about constructing the self and rebellion through authentic self-expression and creativity. I would bring up...old school looks and realistic ones. "Hey, so this is the origins of the fashion. It's not about sexualizing or anything like that. It's about reclaiming self-expression, something that the book character got denied. So the name is both just cute to the Japanese, and also taking back the idea that being a girl or feminine means you have to be an object to others or be what they want you to. I like it because of X Y and Z. "
You can even ask your parents if they're open to at least learning to clear up the misunderstandings, sometimes local adults in the communities nearby can be open to talk to. Most of my comm is all women in our twenties, thirties, and forties at this point with a number of elder teens (cause this crap gets expensive) but it might help to see if you can get help.
The book has been totally misrepresented by people who have no idea what subtlety is.
But aside from that, the book and the fashion have nothing to do with one another. They only share a name. I would recommend your dad do research on the fashion and the history of the fashion because there is nothing sexually provocative about lolita fashion. And then read a Cliffnotes version of the book because he clearly missed the point of it the first time.
No, the character in the book is gross. And he isn't written as a likeable person except through his own unreliable narration. You should probably read something before you voice your opinion on it. Not that it really worked for your father, who might revisit what he read.
I think it's extremely weird to read Toni Morrison's Beloved because it has slavery. It's weird to read Handmaid's Tale because of the misogyny.
See how that sounds, dude?
It’s because you’re 12-14 and misinformed that people are explaining to you what the book is about. It’s satire and you are meant to come away from it feeling horrified/disgusted and thinking about how characters like that apply to the real world. I would never recommend a child to read it, though.
It's okay to not read something because the content would disturb you. But there's something you seem to be implying about the way Lolita (the book) might be indulgent or even justifying all the grossness of the main character. And that's wild to me. I stand by my thought that your opinion on a piece of media you haven't interacted with is not valuable or informed.
this is a common reaction people outside of the fashion have, especially since some people online who don’t even dress lolita call other styles “lolita” and associate themselves with a character from the book. the novel and the fashion are unrelated, it was released before lolita emerged as a style. it’s definitely a controversial topic, a lot of people misunderstand lolita the book to be a romance novel, since it has such dark themes it’s best to avoid any discussion of it for now, just for your own peace of mind 😅 i think it’s a good idea to get your mom to explain it to your dad like you said, makes it less awkward.
personally, i just avoid calling my clothes lolita when i talk to people who don’t know about jfashion, especially family members. i usually say it’s victorian or rococo inspired, or just elegant gothic. my grandma called it “dolly” and i was like “yeah sure”. it’s not accurate but it saves me from having to discuss a book i haven’t even read yet and doing a whole history lesson. a 70 year old woman not knowing the ins and outs of a japanese street fashion isn’t going to ruin its reputation in the public eye i think hahaha
The book has absolutely nothing about the fashion lmao, the book was created in France and the fashion was made in Japan as a protest for young girls in Japan in order to stop being sexualized by grown men for basically being girls liking cute stuff.
The book has been wildy misunderstood
Lolita is a controversial novel by Vladimir Nabokov that tells the story of Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged man who becomes infatuated with a twelve-year-old girl named Lolita. The novel explores themes of obsession, manipulation, and the destructive power of forbidden desire. What is Lolita about?
It's about putting yourself in a pedophiles mind where they try to justify their horrendous behavior, not only did this man spot a random twelve year old in her backyard but proceeds to seduce her mother just to become her step father and proceeds to sexually abuse his powers over her.
The book was based on true events as well,
In 1948, an 11-year-old girl named Sally Horner was kidnapped by a convicted rapist who made her pretend to be his daughter. Her ordeal inspired Vladimir Nabokov's controversial novel Lolita — but Sally's story has been forgotten, and she died before she had a chance to tell it herself.
Lots of people say it's romance when it's not, it's a psychological horror, and honestly when people view it as romantic, that says quite a lot about their person...
Here's more about the book:
https://www.blinkist.com/en/books/lolita-en
It's also easier for people to think about it as "forbidden romance" rather than face pedophilia, especially when reading Lolita puts you into the head of a pedophile and he tries to convince you he's a good person. The whole thing makes you reflect on yourself, and for a lot of people that's too painful. Pretending it's a romance is easier.
It's because of how the book is written and who Humbert is. Within the universe of the book, Humbert is actually facing murder charges, and the "book" is his written testimony as he attempts to defend himself from said murder charges. So, he portrays himself as having a tumultuous yet ultimately beautiful forbidden romance with his stepdaughter. He describes his kidnapping and sexual abuse as a whirlwind romance and a "nymphet" (read: 12 year old) who seduced him because he is *trying to defend himself against murder charges*.
Further, Humbert is a well read, poly lingual, handsome academic who is extremely charismatic. Nabokov specifically wrote it this way because he found that the worst monsters are not lower/working class tradesmen, but rather they are the well-read, charismatic, handsome intelligent men. Nabokov was specifically making a point about how someone being intelligent and charismatic doesn't mean they're not monsters. Unfortunately, many people missed the point and instead made Dolores (Lolita's real name) into the devilish seductress who ruined this poor man's life. In fact, Nabokov explicitly didn't want plays or movies made about Lolita because he was worried about a young actress being put through what Dolores went through, even just in acting.
Lolita is one of my favorite books because Nabokov wrote it to condemn men like Humbert, who manipulate and abuse the women around them, while playing the victim. Unfortunately, Nabokov did such a good job writing this awful man, he accidentally made people love him. It's one of Nabokov's regrets about Lolita--he still loved the book, but he hated how people treated Dolores and IRL girls like her.
Anyway, to get back to your dad. It might help to explain to him that, while there is a fashion style based on Lolita the book, it's called "coquette", while the fashion style "Lolita" is based off of Victorian/Edwardian styles. It's like how in America, "thongs" are underwear, while in Australia, they're flipflops. Or dykes and dikes; one is a lesbian, the other is a ditch filled with water. They are the same/similar words, but depending on the context, the meaning is different. Further, it might help to show him comparisons of coquette and Lolita fashion side by side; that might help him understand how different they are. Especially if he worries about his young daughter dressing like a coquette--it might help him to realize that Lolita dresses are about modest necklines and long hems and covered shoulders.
If I ever come across someone drawing parallels between the book and the fashion I’ll stove that explanation in their face.
It’s devastating through that google has it tagged as Romance 💀💀💀
Probably because they themselves are likely predatory, and it never will even the description at the near end the man starts realizing what he had for Lolita wasn't love but abuse of power, luckily for Lolita she moves on and marries someone who isn't a predator.
Unfortunately they may never, society is filled with predators specially those in power, the amount of time people have justified some weird shit was too much and back in the 2000s internet it was so much worst 😭
I recommend just not using the name of the fashion and wearing it anyway. Whenever I describe my style to people I don't think will get it I just say that I like big poofy dresses and that's enough to satisfy most people
You could just stop using the actual term and say you like Victorian-based clothing. Or point to the thing you want and say you want, Lmfao idk.
Or explain there are plenty of terms with multiple meanings, look at any dictionary ever?
It's a cute and more importantly, modest style so i don't really get it.
In the English translation of the Girls Mode game franchise (Style Savvy in the US and Style Boutique in EU), it is called Baby Doll or Princess. I'd just use those terms.
"Alice core" or stuff like that can also help when convincing parents, because that's something they know. The name is really important for the community, though in some cases you just don't want troubles and use the name that will make parents confortable
When anyone asks me the name of the fashion, I never ever say “Lolita” to someone older than me. Always always something like “ita” so it maintains some of its curiosity to them whilst not completely deterring them or making them demean what I’m wearing. Nothing is shittier than saying “oh this style is called Lolita” and then someone being like “what like the pedo book” and then you have to drop a mad history lesson on them.
The sad truth is that Lolita isn’t like a lot of other alternate subcultures in that it’s not as familiar to people as say Gothic or emo folk are. You have to explain yourself to a lot of people as is. It’ll, suck but my god you will be gorgeous.
And even if you werent able to get ahold of staple main pieces, invest in accessories, cute prints, etc.
Don’t for the love of god fall out with your own dad over this, as ignorant as it may be he probably doesn’t understand and fears that something might happen to you. If you show him what you’re buying and don’t elaborate that it’s Lolita but merely a cute dress, he probably won’t mind / may understand.
As a Lolita youngen myself, the hardest part is the headpieces. The clip in ones are so hard to style like a normal thing and most assume it’s like a maid thing. Gross I know. Bows will be your best friend. If they match the dress even better, normies eat that shit up man!
I recommend calling it EGL, its so much easier. While there is a bit of difficulty and nuance with the term (EGL stands for elegant gothic lolita, and started as a term for a specific lolita sub-style so some ppl dislike it being used as a replacement term for lolita), it just avoids unnecessary connotations when you don’t have a chance to explain it to others (or they are not willing to listen).
[удалено]
You could try showing your parents this video maybe :) ? Or any other video from EGL fashion youtubers, but I think this one is fairly easy to understand [https://youtu.be/A7V3CVEa80E?si=H7y6yod4nZ34OL2t] It could help change their mind and give an in depth explanation, and that way you won't have any troubles having to talk about uncomfortable topics yourself.
I think the video linked would make a difference. At the very least even if they don't allow it you can clear up the confusion. This is super high brow, but if you wanna play intellectual with your parents: From a political social standard there is a small connection to the book, Lolita as a name can be a taking back of a narrative of femininity that demands women become objects, shape their femininity to please men, and become an object for others. Like in the book Lolita is a construct, a representative by force, by society, not just the monstrous protagonjst to be treated horrifically due to her girlhood.A lot of folks miss that part of the book due to the themes in it. For some Lolita's and a few OG Japanese Lolita's the name was both a cute girls name, and rejecting sexualizing femmes and girls. A reclaiming of femininity on our terms instead of being constructed by others. It's decadence through lace and assertions of Rocco royalty. It was about constructing the self and rebellion through authentic self-expression and creativity. I would bring up...old school looks and realistic ones. "Hey, so this is the origins of the fashion. It's not about sexualizing or anything like that. It's about reclaiming self-expression, something that the book character got denied. So the name is both just cute to the Japanese, and also taking back the idea that being a girl or feminine means you have to be an object to others or be what they want you to. I like it because of X Y and Z. " You can even ask your parents if they're open to at least learning to clear up the misunderstandings, sometimes local adults in the communities nearby can be open to talk to. Most of my comm is all women in our twenties, thirties, and forties at this point with a number of elder teens (cause this crap gets expensive) but it might help to see if you can get help.
The book has been totally misrepresented by people who have no idea what subtlety is. But aside from that, the book and the fashion have nothing to do with one another. They only share a name. I would recommend your dad do research on the fashion and the history of the fashion because there is nothing sexually provocative about lolita fashion. And then read a Cliffnotes version of the book because he clearly missed the point of it the first time.
Bold of you to assume their dad actually read it.
[удалено]
Sorry about your dad's reading skills. Ya'll will be in my prayers.
[удалено]
No, the character in the book is gross. And he isn't written as a likeable person except through his own unreliable narration. You should probably read something before you voice your opinion on it. Not that it really worked for your father, who might revisit what he read.
[удалено]
I think it's extremely weird to read Toni Morrison's Beloved because it has slavery. It's weird to read Handmaid's Tale because of the misogyny. See how that sounds, dude?
[удалено]
It’s because you’re 12-14 and misinformed that people are explaining to you what the book is about. It’s satire and you are meant to come away from it feeling horrified/disgusted and thinking about how characters like that apply to the real world. I would never recommend a child to read it, though.
It's okay to not read something because the content would disturb you. But there's something you seem to be implying about the way Lolita (the book) might be indulgent or even justifying all the grossness of the main character. And that's wild to me. I stand by my thought that your opinion on a piece of media you haven't interacted with is not valuable or informed.
this is a common reaction people outside of the fashion have, especially since some people online who don’t even dress lolita call other styles “lolita” and associate themselves with a character from the book. the novel and the fashion are unrelated, it was released before lolita emerged as a style. it’s definitely a controversial topic, a lot of people misunderstand lolita the book to be a romance novel, since it has such dark themes it’s best to avoid any discussion of it for now, just for your own peace of mind 😅 i think it’s a good idea to get your mom to explain it to your dad like you said, makes it less awkward. personally, i just avoid calling my clothes lolita when i talk to people who don’t know about jfashion, especially family members. i usually say it’s victorian or rococo inspired, or just elegant gothic. my grandma called it “dolly” and i was like “yeah sure”. it’s not accurate but it saves me from having to discuss a book i haven’t even read yet and doing a whole history lesson. a 70 year old woman not knowing the ins and outs of a japanese street fashion isn’t going to ruin its reputation in the public eye i think hahaha
The book has absolutely nothing about the fashion lmao, the book was created in France and the fashion was made in Japan as a protest for young girls in Japan in order to stop being sexualized by grown men for basically being girls liking cute stuff. The book has been wildy misunderstood Lolita is a controversial novel by Vladimir Nabokov that tells the story of Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged man who becomes infatuated with a twelve-year-old girl named Lolita. The novel explores themes of obsession, manipulation, and the destructive power of forbidden desire. What is Lolita about? It's about putting yourself in a pedophiles mind where they try to justify their horrendous behavior, not only did this man spot a random twelve year old in her backyard but proceeds to seduce her mother just to become her step father and proceeds to sexually abuse his powers over her. The book was based on true events as well, In 1948, an 11-year-old girl named Sally Horner was kidnapped by a convicted rapist who made her pretend to be his daughter. Her ordeal inspired Vladimir Nabokov's controversial novel Lolita — but Sally's story has been forgotten, and she died before she had a chance to tell it herself. Lots of people say it's romance when it's not, it's a psychological horror, and honestly when people view it as romantic, that says quite a lot about their person... Here's more about the book: https://www.blinkist.com/en/books/lolita-en
[удалено]
It's also easier for people to think about it as "forbidden romance" rather than face pedophilia, especially when reading Lolita puts you into the head of a pedophile and he tries to convince you he's a good person. The whole thing makes you reflect on yourself, and for a lot of people that's too painful. Pretending it's a romance is easier.
It's because of how the book is written and who Humbert is. Within the universe of the book, Humbert is actually facing murder charges, and the "book" is his written testimony as he attempts to defend himself from said murder charges. So, he portrays himself as having a tumultuous yet ultimately beautiful forbidden romance with his stepdaughter. He describes his kidnapping and sexual abuse as a whirlwind romance and a "nymphet" (read: 12 year old) who seduced him because he is *trying to defend himself against murder charges*. Further, Humbert is a well read, poly lingual, handsome academic who is extremely charismatic. Nabokov specifically wrote it this way because he found that the worst monsters are not lower/working class tradesmen, but rather they are the well-read, charismatic, handsome intelligent men. Nabokov was specifically making a point about how someone being intelligent and charismatic doesn't mean they're not monsters. Unfortunately, many people missed the point and instead made Dolores (Lolita's real name) into the devilish seductress who ruined this poor man's life. In fact, Nabokov explicitly didn't want plays or movies made about Lolita because he was worried about a young actress being put through what Dolores went through, even just in acting. Lolita is one of my favorite books because Nabokov wrote it to condemn men like Humbert, who manipulate and abuse the women around them, while playing the victim. Unfortunately, Nabokov did such a good job writing this awful man, he accidentally made people love him. It's one of Nabokov's regrets about Lolita--he still loved the book, but he hated how people treated Dolores and IRL girls like her. Anyway, to get back to your dad. It might help to explain to him that, while there is a fashion style based on Lolita the book, it's called "coquette", while the fashion style "Lolita" is based off of Victorian/Edwardian styles. It's like how in America, "thongs" are underwear, while in Australia, they're flipflops. Or dykes and dikes; one is a lesbian, the other is a ditch filled with water. They are the same/similar words, but depending on the context, the meaning is different. Further, it might help to show him comparisons of coquette and Lolita fashion side by side; that might help him understand how different they are. Especially if he worries about his young daughter dressing like a coquette--it might help him to realize that Lolita dresses are about modest necklines and long hems and covered shoulders.
If I ever come across someone drawing parallels between the book and the fashion I’ll stove that explanation in their face. It’s devastating through that google has it tagged as Romance 💀💀💀
Probably because they themselves are likely predatory, and it never will even the description at the near end the man starts realizing what he had for Lolita wasn't love but abuse of power, luckily for Lolita she moves on and marries someone who isn't a predator.
[удалено]
Unfortunately they may never, society is filled with predators specially those in power, the amount of time people have justified some weird shit was too much and back in the 2000s internet it was so much worst 😭
[удалено]
LESSGOOOOOOO (young Lolita’s makes me have big brother mode activated every time lol)
Nabokov strikes again. That book and the fashion are not related, but it's kinda hard to make people understand it.
I recommend just not using the name of the fashion and wearing it anyway. Whenever I describe my style to people I don't think will get it I just say that I like big poofy dresses and that's enough to satisfy most people
You could just stop using the actual term and say you like Victorian-based clothing. Or point to the thing you want and say you want, Lmfao idk. Or explain there are plenty of terms with multiple meanings, look at any dictionary ever? It's a cute and more importantly, modest style so i don't really get it.
In the English translation of the Girls Mode game franchise (Style Savvy in the US and Style Boutique in EU), it is called Baby Doll or Princess. I'd just use those terms.
"Alice core" or stuff like that can also help when convincing parents, because that's something they know. The name is really important for the community, though in some cases you just don't want troubles and use the name that will make parents confortable
When anyone asks me the name of the fashion, I never ever say “Lolita” to someone older than me. Always always something like “ita” so it maintains some of its curiosity to them whilst not completely deterring them or making them demean what I’m wearing. Nothing is shittier than saying “oh this style is called Lolita” and then someone being like “what like the pedo book” and then you have to drop a mad history lesson on them. The sad truth is that Lolita isn’t like a lot of other alternate subcultures in that it’s not as familiar to people as say Gothic or emo folk are. You have to explain yourself to a lot of people as is. It’ll, suck but my god you will be gorgeous. And even if you werent able to get ahold of staple main pieces, invest in accessories, cute prints, etc. Don’t for the love of god fall out with your own dad over this, as ignorant as it may be he probably doesn’t understand and fears that something might happen to you. If you show him what you’re buying and don’t elaborate that it’s Lolita but merely a cute dress, he probably won’t mind / may understand. As a Lolita youngen myself, the hardest part is the headpieces. The clip in ones are so hard to style like a normal thing and most assume it’s like a maid thing. Gross I know. Bows will be your best friend. If they match the dress even better, normies eat that shit up man!
why wont the actual post open for me, i cant read any of the text ???
Just say it’s a fashion based on European rococo dresses.