I decided to try re-reading my site and realized that I had left out a very important part about being lolita.

Some people, a sadly large number of them in fact, appear to be lolita because it gives them an opportunity to make fun of other, often - but not always - more sensitive or socially awkward, people. Some of them love the attention and power it gives them over others. Others may be attention-whores, and still others are just arrogant (which is why they chose a clothing style so focused on natural looks). For an example of this, I would direct you to the 2ch lolita message board translation in the research section. This itself is very Japanese. In fact, the Japanese government just discovered that schools have been mis-reporting the number of bullying-related deaths, which occur with enough frequency to warrant an emergency investigation, re-budgeting, and the nation-wide institutionalization of school councilors. Although it's mostly for higher grades, this will also include elementary schools it seems. If you need an example of this, please see Mihara Mitsukazu's Angel short in the Doll book series. "Kitto, tenshi ga iru..."

But something else was also recently brought to my attention. I received a guestbook entry a while ago that, although in somewhat poor manner (when people have problems with my site they just about always email me or leave private comments, as is befitting any serious complaints), it did bring up something important that I forgot to mention.

Coop & Noah
site: community.livejournal.com/lolita_fucks

Where to start? First off...we've never met an academic who'd start a sentence with 'and' - nor have we ever encountered an academic who didn't at least put forth the pretence of objectivity... but dear, that's the least of your worries.

We find it odd that you call yourself an anthropologist yet on numerous instances you contradict yourself, make biased observations, do not approach your subject matter with any impartiality and you make no use of references. Although you claim to have extensive communications with lolitas living in Japan, for your ‘work’ to be considered a serious academic study there would need to be thorough documentation and evidence to substantiate your claims.

While we understand that using such a conversational tone renders the material more accessible for the casual reader, it comes across as pretentious and lacking in academic credibility. When you flout your credentials (anthropologist, economist, etc.) as often as you have, it seems incongruent to not at least represent your material in a way befitting a serious researcher. Also, from our experiences your conjecture does not ring true, with much of what you say coming across as ill-informed and juvenile.

-- Noah & Coop.

PS: You can’t spell very well. It’s called spell check. Srsly.

Obviously Im not very worrid ^_^
I automatically distrust anyone who would list lolita_***** as their website, truthfully.
But after weeding through the complaints over grammar and whatnot, I realized that they had some valid points to contest.

Had they really been familiar with the academic world, they would have known that in anthropology everything is highly regulated. In order to use human research subjects, you need to go through the entire legal process of proposing your project, having it accepted, getting your informants to sign forms saying that you can use them, etc, etc, etc....which I did not have in Japan. I cannot quote my informants and call my work anthropologically legal without doing so.
Now I do not plan to continue my research.
So rather than deal with this problem and waste my time receiving permission, I've been sticking to generalizations and avoiding using the interviews that I am referencing. I do apologize for not explaining this earlier. That aside, putting forth my work with references and the like when it has not been approved or published leaves it open for anybody to take credit for discovering.

Thus I have presented this web site as my personal site (meaning that I also chose my writing style and internet persona), and as a record of my own field-note like thoughts. Since I have been writing and learning new things for the past 5 years, sometimes I will say different things. If you note any discrepencies in my writing, check the dates. Everything on this site is dated I believe.
As far as academic training is concerned, I only point it out once or twice as a way to discourage people from trying to start petty arguments with me (and because that's who I am and, as I said, this it my personal site). Oh gosh~yes I know it's horribly grumpy of me and I apologize, but I really don't want people arguing particulars when they've not talked to a Japanese lolita but once in their lives and think vis kei is elite. When I've written something purely based on opinion, which does happen, I will state it as such.

Other than that, just a note. Never trust any modern anthropologist who claims complete objectivity, or puts forth the pretense of objectivity (the phrase in itself implying dishonesty). To claim such is to show that....

1) they cannot see their own biases, or are hiding them
2) they are trying to sound more knowlegeable than they really are
3) they are not familiar with current anthropological theory, which more or less recognizes that complete objectivity is impossible. This doesn't mean we don't aim for it, but that we recognize that we have been culturally conditioned to see, think, and recognize things in ways that others have not. Many will address this when they write formal anthropological works.

This site is over 5 years old, some of the content is over 5 years old. It is one of the original english sites on gothic and lolita, and I am happy to leave it as it is for now. Somehow, it is still accurate. So please, just learn from it, question it, and use it for your own studies if you so please....don't argue with me or insult me. And read the entire site before you write negative comments in my guestbook; you've probably missed some important info if you haven't. That's all really.

Back to Diary