New from Innocent World: Fairy Tale,19th Century France

Innocent World Fairy Tale Series
575_1 574_1 573_1 576_1

Innocent world just introduced a new series, Fairy Tale. It’s currently up for reservation. The OP in this series is a little different from some of their others in that they have really branched out and taken influence from an almost medieval dress pattern. We have a bodice which can be on or off the shoulders, paired with a wide belt-like portion at the waist which looks rather like a waist cincher.  The end result is something that looks a little like a fairy tale dress that was inspired by a medieval fantasy bar maid costume. Now, while a part of me is laughing at this a little, I do think it’s different and interesting, and I comend IW for thinking outside the box.

My favorite pieces from this series is the Fairy Tale Square Jumperskirt, I really like the square neck and the balance of the contrasting colors in the green x chocolate and the beige x red colorways.

08_004 08_003

As for the print itself, I’m still puzzling over what fairy tale (or tales) it is. We clearly have snow white accepting the apple from the disguised witch in one of the three frames, and then, in another we have a sleeping princess, which could be snow white as well. Granted, it could also be sleeping beauty, or some other sleeping princess. The last frame (far left above) is what puzzles me. It has a wolf, wearing a red cloak, chasing a bunch of animals. It brings to mind Little Red Ridding Hood, except, the wold never wore her hood. It also brings to mind Snow-White and Rose-Red, in which Rose-Red sometimes wears a red hood, but they met a bear, not a wold. It could be the three little pigs, but that doesn’t explain the red hood either. So really, I’m wondering if it was just a made-up scene that doesn’t go to any story.

19th Century France
06_008 579_1
578_1 580_1 13 05_010

This is Innocent World’s other new “print” that is up for reserve right now was well. I use the term print somewhat loosely here, because, as you can see, other than the socks, the print is pretty much limited to just a little oval.

It features a little girl in a striped dress with what looks like a basket of grapes (or plums?) walking arm in arm with a little boy, and a circle of roses. I don’t really have any strong feelings about this one, personally. I think it’s a little odd, and slightly frumpy, but, not really bad or really good. I am, however, surprised by the thigh-highs. These are Innocent World’s normal knit socks; they are printed thigh-high tights! I assume it’s because you can get a more detailed print when it’s printed then you can when it’s knit, but I really hope Innocent World doesn’t abandon OTK socks all together (not that I think they would!) in favor of these or anything like that, because I much prefer the socks (or full tights).

04 05

On that note, they have introduced two pairs of ankle socks as well in this material this past week. I’m not sure how these are exactly supposed to be worn. If they are expecting people to wear them with nothing else on their leg, then honestly, I think it’s going to look a bit tacky. Trouser socks like that are usually not worn with skirts unless they cover the top of the sock.

On Homophobia, Complexities of Language, and Degrees of Dissention

I got into a bit of a debate this past weekend on BtB over an issue that is, in my opinion, very complex and very touchy to a lot of people (myself included), and in the course of that debate, because of the nature of debate, the direction of the conversation was sort of forced by the way things unfolded. While I don’t have anything against that (that is how debate works) there are a lot of things rattling around in my head still, despite it being a week later, that I really just wanted to decompress, and maybe, in the process clear up a few things. That issue was homophobia, and when someone is considered to be homophobic.

alanis morissette

First and foremost, I want to make a point; words in the English language can simultaneously have multiple meanings, and they often do. Irony, in the eyes of the generation who grew up with Alanis Morissette, and Irony to a scholar of classical Greek literature are entirely different things. So who is right? Well, the scholar, technically, is correct, and the song is technically wrong (who would have thought; it figures…). However, just because the definition in the song isn’t academically correct, doesn’t mean it has no value. There is an intrinsic value in definitions of words as they are used within a society. I listened to a fascinating Ted Talk by John McWhorter the other day which touched on this as well; it talked to the concept of “LOL”, and how, in most instances, LOL no longer requires that one be laughing. Instead, it’s transformed into an empathetic response “I know how that is, I understand how you feel, it’s happened to me too, or I can imagine it. I support you.”.  We unconsciously store many meanings to many different words, and we interchange the meaning based on the context frequently. Ask any kid what LOL means, and they will tell you “Laugh Out Loud” or “Laughing Out Loud” or “I’m Laughing Out Loud”. Then ask if they have to actually be laughing; they will look at you like you are from Mars for a moment, because they don’t even have to think about it when they use it; it’s not a conscious thing.

This week on BtB, we ran into this. Except we ran into it in the form of an unresolvable debate where people were so in tune with a particular form of usage of a word, that when the academic definition was used, it was refuted, and further arguments on the validity of the Academic definition were also refuted (and of course, since all arguments have two sides, one can also say that people were bringing forward the academic definition to weaken an argument on the true meaning of the word). Now, before anyone jumps down my throat and says that itsn’t what happened; please keep in mind that I am writing this in hindsight, based on observation, and it is not the argument I was making at the time. Quite frankly, I hadn’t explored the topic enough prior to this to realize how drastic of a split there was in the commonly held definitions of the word, and so my arguments were based on my own beliefs on the subject, which I hadn’t realized were at all controversial.


Which, in turn brings up another point. Motivation. I have a vested interest in maintaining certain relationships in my life. I have a vested interest in keeping them stable, and respectful. Other people have a vested interest in disrupting certain relationships in their life, in the effort to remove people who aren’t 100% supportive of them, or to force those people into adopting other viewpoints. In both cases there are risks, and people’s personalities and the sort of relationships they are challenging, and what someone values all come into play. I believe that both stances are absolutely valid. You can, and some people do, live your life without compromising on things you feel strongly about. That is ok, it’s even admirable sometimes, and there is an acceptance, to a degree, for that in our social structure. However, in doing so, you shape certain aspects of your life. One can not simultaneously rebel against injustice without any compromise and hold a position where one is required to compromise at the same time. One usually must chose one or the other. It’s not a matter of being true to one’s self or not, or respecting one’s self or not… it’s a matter of choosing the path of one’s life, and deciding what is most important. To some people, full and total acceptance is most important, and that’s perfectly fine. To me, it’s not. I am ok with people having different beliefs than I do on this subject (and many other subjects). I can respect people who believe many things, even things in direct conflict of what I believe, as long as those people do so in a certain format. When one dissents in a respectful, academic manner, then I can respect them back.

To label those people as being phobic, is to label them as irrational, to reject their rational arguments, to reject their respect, and to say “I do not accept that we disagree”. I can do that; at times I do. (I take issue with people who reject vaccinations for their children, and subject their children to life threatening illness, and weaken the bubble of protection that a mostly vaccinated public affords to those who have compromised immune systems, for example) But, on this issue, I understand that it’s a very big thing for people to make a change. I understand that when people are respectful of me, that when people don’t outright reject me, they are taking a risk. They are stepping away from a group which is also looking at this as an all or nothing argument. They are turning their back on the “safe” option, and taking a risk for me. A risk they don’t have to take, a risk that quite frankly, they usually haven’t been pushed into. If someone, who has no reason other than their own conscious, or their own respect for me, is willing to take a step like that, then I am absolutely willing to meet them half way. Not only because I respect them for taking that step, but because I understand that change takes time. Change takes generations of time, usually. Those people who are in that grey area right now, are the people who’s children won’t grow up being taught to hate. By the next generation, those children will have brought to us a more understanding world. By the generation after that, maybe those people will be 100% understanding.

But if I reject someone who is standing there, trying to meet me half way. If I turn my back and say “that’s not enough”, are they more willing to keep standing there with their hand out waiting, or are they more likely to regress back to where they came from, or are they more likely to move forward? It’s my opinion that those people are more likely to move backwards, than to move forwards. I think in rejecting someone who is at least trying, you are more likely to cause a regression than progress as a whole. However, that’s not to say that the world doesn’t need people who are rebelling, who are saying that it’s not enough; because we do need those people. We need them to be loud, and strong, and proud, and to step forward and to keep pushing at the edge, because if they do not, it becomes easy for us to slip into complacency and say that what we have is good enough. We need both types of people. We need the people who are willing to compromise, and we need the people who are not. We need the people who are bold and willing to fight, and those who can overlook a disagreement. It takes a different kind of courage to take each stance, and a different kind of person. It is not easy to fight for what you believe in. However, it is also not easy to not fight, when the situation calls for diplomacy.

So, while I absolutely do see a case for the word homophobia be applied to anyone who dissents in any form (if one looks at the word as simply being a catch all for dissension, that is) I do not think that definition is the most valuable to me in my situation, and so it isn’t the one I’m most likely to use, nor the one I’m most likely to think of. That doesn’t mean that I’m nit-picking at the meaning of words for the sake of an argument; it means that society doesn’t agree on a definition, and that society doesn’t feel that it can talk about that meaning. Which is a different issue in and of itself. If a word is so charged and so controversial that debate on it’s definition is not possible, then it goes to follow, that debate on the subject is going to often be riddled with misunderstanding.

I think, of all the arguments pointed back at me, the one I had the hardest time with, was one which basically said that as a lesbian, I shouldn’t be defending people who dissagree, and drew a parallel to hating racism while defending racists. I have a hard time with it for a number of reasons, but mostly because they aren’t entirely wrong at the end, and when I read it, a part of me wanted to step up on a chair and yell back that yes, of course I realize that. How could I not realize that? Of course I realize it’s damaging, of course I realize it’s unhealthy to me. Do you have any idea how hard it is not to fight? Because it is hard. Because I do have to work at it. Because entertaining other people’s points of view when I vehemently disagree requires patience and work, and it does scar me. But I do it because I believe in a future when people won’t have to, and that means accepting, today, what people can offer today, when they are trying their best. It means silently showing that I am normal, and rational, and worth of other people’s respect, even though they vehemently disagree with me. It means sometimes upsetting people who I absolutely respect because I am compromising where they are not. And it’s hard. And it hurts. And it often terrifies me. But it’s life, and it’s messy, and complicated, and I don’t have all the answers, and I have to be ok with that. At the end of the day, I am who I am, and while I can change what I believe, and how I act, and whom I interact with, I cannot change the core of who I am, so I must accept it, and I must be strong enough in my conviction, that even when other people can not accept it, my faith in myself cannot waver.

That said, the wonder of it all, is that those people who I was debating with, do not have to agree with me. In a way, I’m glad they don’t, because it shows how fierce their dedication is, and like I said before, the world needs people with that sort of passion.

I stopped arguing the points on BtB, because I realized that I really didn’t want to win the argument, that it wasn’t a debate that could be resolved, and even if it is… I think it’s better not to be.

I’d apologize for this being so long and so far off track of what normally write, except, I’m not particularly sorry for having said it. So I hope, you will pardon my rambling. I’ll be back to frilly posts quite soon; and I apologize for the quiet here lately; I’ve been really worn out.

Comming Soon From AP: Dreamy Baby Room

Angelic Pretty apparently just released this in the latest issue of Kera today, but I haven’t a copy in hand yet, so I’m going by what is on the various shop blogs / tumblr, sorry.

Dreamy Baby Room Dreamy Baby Room Dreamy Baby Room Dreamy Baby Room

This is Dreamyベビールーム or “Dreamy Baby Room”. It comes in pink, sax, yellow, and black. The cuts are listed below:

Dreamyベビールームワンピース (Dreamy Baby Room One Piece) – ¥ 27,090
Dreamyベビールームジャンパースカート (Dreamy Baby Room Jumper Skirt) – ¥ 26,040
Dreamyベビールームサロペット (Dreamy Baby Room Salopette) – ¥ 19,740
Dreamyベビールームスカート (Dreamy Baby Room Skirt) – ¥ 17,640
Dreamyベビールームハーフボンネット (Dreamy Baby Room Half bonnet) – ¥ 8,295
Dreamyベビールームカチューシャ (Dreamy Baby Room Headbow) – ¥ 3,570
Dreamyベビールームタイツ (Dreamy Baby Room Tights) – ¥ 4,200 – White, pink, black
Dreamyバニーリュック (Dreamy Bunny Backpack) -¥ 13,440 – Pink
Dreamy Dotクルー丈ソックス (Dreamy Dot Crew length socks) – ¥ 2,625

Dreamy Baby Room

I have to preface this with a confession. I don’t like Toy Parade or Dreamy Doll House… I don’t really like many room prints at all. Specifically, I don’t like modern nursery themed prints. It’s just like… why? I don’t even like modern nursery decorations in a nursery. Derpy little 3-legged blobby elephants? No. Make it cute, sure. But keep it an elephant. Don’t turn the giraffes into caterpillar and giraffe hybrid amoeba blobs. So, yeah, anyways…  I’m not a fan of things like these:

ap_2007_op_toyparade_color2 ap_2009_op_dreamydollhouse_color ap_op_toyfantasy_color3 baby_jsk_friendkumyajudy_color

I have friends who like these things, and that’s fine, that’s cool, you know, whatever you like doesn’t have to be what I like. If you think it’s cute, then that’s all good. I just.. don’t.

I do, however, like old fashioned toys and books in antique-y or Christmas-y prints. So I do like things like these where it looks Victorian or even better yet, a Victorian Christmas Circus, because that would be fantastic.

ap_op_holynightstory_color2 iw_jsk_antiquebook_color1ap_op_merrymakingparty_color2 ToyMarchOP-wine

I also like circus prints (that last one above there is more circus than anything else, IMHO), candy prints, fruit prints, fantasy (unicorn, rainbows) prints, star prints and party prints… and that’s what I like AP for. Their circuses and fruits and candies and fun pop stuff. It’s bright and fun and happy and innocent and cutesy in a way that would still work for stickers for a kid over the age of 2. It’s not nursery themed.

I feel like they must be doing a little throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks, because we have gotten so far this year; rainbows and ice cream in Dream Fantasy (a la Milky Planet), carousel horses in a more mature cut (Little Bird’s Symphonia meets Sugary Carnival), and a cake print that was so underwhelming no one cares what it was called… er.. I mean Whip Showcase, and now a print reminiscent of one of their first “big” prints; Toy Parade.

Dreamy Baby Room

That said, every time I look at that name. I’m going WHY AP, WHY!?!?! It’s just such a misstep for the international community where there is increasingly more popularity for classic pieces and increasingly more tension on the idea that there is a fetish appeal to AP sweet lolita. I don’t even want to remotely touch on the issue of what people do or don’t do in their private time, so I’m not even going to go there, but still. I know names of prints can be unfortunate (Cherish my Juicy Cherry, for example), but the baby rattles they posed with, the whole set up, just, it’s too much, IMHO. It’s like they tried to do OTT Toy Parade and ended up in a Baby Supply Store, and it just looks, off to me. The way the model is holding the rattle like she’s not quite sure what to do with it, the border print that has a really open print of pretty detailed stuff… I just don’t see this doing very well in the western market; the design isn’t strong, and it’s getting a lot of push back due to current debate. If they had marked it as just cute without touching on the whole baby room concept, it might have done reasonably ok. Weaker than any of their past nursery themed stuff, sure, but still, ok. As it stands, I think this is going to be much more popular in Japan than the US, and even in Japan, I don’t see it being as much of a hit as many other things. It reminds me of Strawberry Parlor, design wise. It just looks too sparse.

If we are going through the full gambit of AP themes, I hope there is another circus print soon. Either a re-release of a past one like Puppet Circus or Star Night Theater, or something new would be super. Maybe by the fall?

4055 4054

On a side note, I guess it does explain the bear socks that they put up a bit ago. I couldn’t figure out why they had re-released the shy bear socks, and then I had this wild hope that they would re-release every pair of socks they had ever made (and I would buy all the socks!), but now it makes sense.

On an even more unrelated side note, today I learned that Grover Cleveland (yes, the former US president) had a friend named Oscar Folsom, who had a daughter when Cleveland was 27. He bought the little girl a baby carriage and doted on her, and when her father died, he became executor of her estate. He then married her when she turned 21. Because I learned that today and because this print has a baby carriage, I will forever think of this as the Grover Cleavland Cradle Robber Print. I probably just cursed some of you with the same association. You are most welcome.