Lolita, a fashion subculture that comes from Japan, is a basic fashion that draws influence from Victorian and Rococo era fashion. The basic rules simply include a knee length dress, a blouse, a petticoat, and knee/thigh length socks or tights. The fashion was started to rebel against sexualization of fashion for women. There are many substyles of Lolita, but what we're going to primarily focus on is called Sweet. This substyle of the fashion is heavy on pastels, and more prints than tiny details (like the classic substyle would include).

There are too many misconceptions about this particular part of Lolita fashion. Any place you see people who are outside of the fashion discussing it, you're likely to hear a few things. "It's a fetish," you'll hear. "They're ageplayers." "They want to appeal to pedophiles." "The name is referring to the book and that means it's about sex." These misconceptions are the most frightening things to read when you're a Lolita, like myself. I've never honestly met anyone, who, being honest about the fashion, was any of these things. The sexualization of enjoying pastels is distressing. We don't want to be seen as creepy by the general public.

This conception is often aided by popular culture. One such instance is the documentary "Are All Men Pedophiles," released this year. The cover of such a thing included a picture of a Lolita, dressed in the Sweet substyle. There's nothing explicitly sexual about the young woman- she's fully clothed, head to toe. Why this image? Is the idea of something different too much for some people? Is there a need to lash out against it?

There is a certain amount of unfairness to ageplayers as well in these accusations. It’s the assumption that ageplayers do what they do in a sexual environment- which is (of course) not at all true. There’s the assumption that ageplayers wish to drop $200-500 on a dress in a Japanese fashion that doesn’t even resemble children’s clothing.
There is nothing more frustrating than misunderstanding of your subculture. Most subcultures understand. They're "violent," they're "suicidal," and they’re any number of things.

Lolita is supposed to be non-sexual. (This doesn't include personal lives of Lolitas themselves, but just the fashion itself.) I've always had a hard time believing that anyone could consider this fashion sexual, considering how difficult it is to even heft my petticoats up to use the restroom. Ageplayers aren’t inherently sexual either, and the assumption that one is essentially the other, and both are fetishes, is downright insulting.

Lolita has never meant a "promiscuous young girl." No one is sure how the fashion received that name, actually. It is not actually a direct reference to Vladimir Nabokov's book by the same name, despite public understanding of the very opposite.

Consider this the next time you see such nonsense being spouted in a public place. Consider the girls that have to deal with being told often that they're ageplayers, intent on appealing to pedophiles. Really, we just want to wear cute dresses.