Writes Yukari Iwatani Kane, "Some hime girls spend more than $1,000 for an outfit including a satin dress, parasol and rhinestone-studded handbag." So, in a floundering economy, isn't it fun to dress like money is no object? The paper speaks to Mayumi Yamamoto, a shopper at Jesus Diamante, a store that sells princess fashions. Clearly, her reality is different from many of ours:

"When they come out with a new item, I can't sleep at night because that's all I can think about," says Ms. Yamamoto of the Diamante dresses. The 36-year-old housewife has amassed a collection of 20 princess dresses in the past eight months and even decked out her bedroom with imitation rococo furniture. […] After losing about 33 pounds in recent years, she got hooked on Diamante's tight-waisted dresses adorned with huge rose patterns, and estimates she may be spending $2,000 or $3,000 a month. Her husband, an architect who loves Europe, pays for most of her purchases. Her parents, who live nearby, send the couple food so they have more money for Ms. Yamamoto's shopping sprees.

I get that playing with fashion can be escapist, and that a woman who likes petticoats and pearls, just as a chick who likes combat boots and plaid — has the right to revel in her choice of adornment. And I get wanting to look pretty! Bring on the flowers, pile on the pearls! But the priorities here — clothes before food — give me pause. Where does dressing like a princess cross the line into wanting to be treated like a princess, in wanting to be taken care of, in not taking responsibility for your life and actions, in not living an active life in the here and now?

Here's the last word from Ms. Yamamoto on her shopping sprees: "I figure it's OK as long as what I'm buying is pretty."

Here's a clip of Ms. Yamamoto in action:

Japan's Latest Fashion Has Women Playing Princess For A Day [WSJ]

Earlier: Gothic Lolita Style: Rebellious? Or Regressive?
In Her Own Words
The Gothic & Lolita Bible: Japanese Girls Are Living Dolls

Hey Dodai,

I'm the girl on the left of the picture. Your post was very thoughtful and well-written. Thanks for that; very few intelligent pieces on Lolita fashion exist, and as such, I felt the need to respond to the question you posed, and to the commentors below.

Lolita culture in the US is most definitely feminist. I would not be part of it if it were regressive. Lolita is incredibly female-positive in that it takes these traditionally female signifiers like lace and bows and makes them ultra-visible in a deliberately subversive way. Simply daring to be visible and loud while female is rebellious in and of itself, but daring to be visible in a way that celebrates femalehood (in a non-Pussycat Dolls way) is very feminist. I've noticed a trend of denigration of traditionally female things—pink is for idiot girls like Paris Hilton, fashion is for stupid girls, etc. Lolita celebrates these things with dresses titled "Poodle Parade," "Magical Etoile," & "Dreaming Macaron" and brands called Metamorphose Temps de Fille (the transforming time of the girl), Angelic Pretty, and BABY, the Stars Shine Bright. There are so many food and sweets-based prints in Lolita, and in a pro-ana world it's personally pretty refreshing to see people celebrate foods that are not celery and Diet Coke.

We certainly do not do this for the attention of men. In fact, the fashion frequently alienates them. Frequently, female sexuality is portrayed in a way that is palatable and accessible to men, and anything outside of that is intimidating. Something so unabashedly female is ultimately kind of scary—in fact, I consider it to be pretty confrontational. Dressing this way takes a certain kind of ownership of one's own sexuality that wearing expected or regular things just does not. It doesn't take a lot of moxie to put on a pencil skirt and flats. It's not, as some commentors have suggested, some sort of appeal to men's expectation that women should be childlike, or an attempt to pander to pedophiles. Pedophiles like little girls. They don't like grown women who happen to like dresses with cakes on them. I've never been hit on by a pedophile while in Lolita. We don't get into it because it is some sort of misplaced pedo complex or anything, and the objective isn't simply to emulate little girls, despite the name Lolita. "Lolita," I'm guessing, is another example of Japanized English—as in, "picking English words without regard to their connotation and putting them in insane contexts"—since the little girl of the novel was really a tomboy. Either way, to have the fetishes of an incredibly small portion of men dictate what I wear is ridiculous! To do so is to misunderstand the objective of Lolita, which is really a harmless subculture that does not infringe on anyone else, or infantilize women in general. It is not a symptom of any cultural ill just because its aesthetic inspiration comes from a period when women were subordinate to men. Why should I be worried about sending the 'wrong messages' to men? Why is that my personal responsibility? Isn't that like saying "she was asking for it"? Is the state of feminism that precarious that my wearing a bow on my head is threatening and regressive? Where is the philosophical debate about men who wear short-shorts or sandals and how they make their gender look bad?

Lolitas are usually into the fashion because they are into fashion in general: if I have a sewing or fabric question, I ask a Lolita, because she knows raschel from cluny and broadcloth from poplin from ten yards away. More than half of my loli-friends go to fashion school. We appreciate the clothing on a very technical level. The brand names do not exploit workers. The people who sew the clothing are usually lolitas. Japanese brands do not outsource the sewing work to China, which is part of why it is so expensive. If you look at a dress closely, the craftsmanship is immaculate.

The nytimes article, while it did justice to the clothing itself, didn't have the space to really represent what the Lolita 'culture' is like. It is about female community! Lolitas dress up mostly for one another—for other women. The girls group together, go out on meetups, and have close bonds. Some of my closest friendships have been formed through the fashion; last weekend I spent more than eighteen hours helping with another girl's fashion show, and housed other girls who were helping out too. We are a very diverse group. No one is excluded on the basis of race or size or even gender (there are boys who dress in lolita: "brolitas"). It is refreshing to be part of a fashion that connects and unites rather than divides. We do, however, tend to shun those who insist on being 'ladylike,' because clothing should not change who you are or how you act—besides, if you're going to dress this ridiculous, it's pretty necessary to have a sense of humor about the whole thing.

Really, if you want to know where to 'place' Lolita in the continuum of progressive or regressive, my answer is—Why does it need to be placed at all?

Sorry that this is so wordy! I had a lot on my mind.

-Ellie

Because New York is machine, an environment that's all hard steel and concrete — where even the simplest tasks, like crossing the street or buying coffee, are complicated, expensive, death-defying acts of bravery. Add to this the pervasive sexual harassment on the street and a flaccid economy and dressing like a Victorian schoolgirl makes perfect sense. There's a sense of protection in those full skirts and high-necked blouses, some safety in choosing flat Mary Janes over spiky stilettos. It's also not surprising that the "Sweet Lolitas," the ones with childlike fruit prints and cute animals on their dresses, are "especially popular" here, according to the Times. In a hectic town, who doesn't want some happiness, some innocence? (At a Gothic-Lolita fashion event in Tokyo this week, one long-time Victorian dress enthusiast said, "I would like all Gothic-Lolita girls to refine their inner beauty first. I see a lot of girls smoking and sitting down on the floor in their outfits. I don't want them doing this.")

Of course, one could argue that the subtext here is that by wearing girlish clothes, these young women are telegraphing the weakness or helplessness of a child. Is it the equivalent of wearing a sign that says, "Please take care of me?" On the other hand, fashion should be fun. The Lolitas interviewed in a Times slideshow speak of just loving the clothes. Kelsey Hine, 21, swears that even though she wears knee socks, "It's not intended to be sexual."

Here's the question: Is it only about the clothes (see: Betsey Johnson's spring 2009 collection)? Or is it a form of rebellion for a grown woman to dress like a little girl? And: By embracing Doll's House-style, are Lolitas a setback for women who want to be taken seriously?

A New Generation of Lolitas Makes a Fashion Statement
New York Lolitas
More Lolita Fashion [NY Times]
Lolita Goes Victorian, Goth In Japan Cosplay Trend [Reuters]
Earlier: The Gothic & Lolita Bible: Japanese Girls Are Living Dolls
Fashion Show: Betsey Johnson

This little "Lolita" is terrifying, yet sweet. Blue contacts? Check. Orangey-yellow hair? Check. Childlike innocence? Sure.

This is the "gothic" look, obviously. The point is to resemble the doll — right down to the contact lenses!

Here are some contact lens options. The bat design seems perfect for making your parents sigh, "I just don't understand."

The kids hit the street dressed to kill play.

Don't you applaud their ability to commit? Aren't you amazed by the time and effort they put in to getting dressed? I feel really really lazy in comparison. I am wearing elastic-waist track pants.

What, what??????

Imagine a conversation that goes like this: "Honey, I bought you some pants with a ruffled loin cloth attached." "Aw, sweetie, you're the best."

LOL at his pant cuffs.

At least he has the decency to look embarrassed about those shoes.

I could maybe get behind the dresses, and possibly consider the tights, but honestly? They lost me at the bonnets.

Related: Gothic Lolita ]]> Jezebel-367519 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:40:00 EDT Dodai http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=367519&view=rss&microfeed=true