/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

is it because she's supagenki?

i bet her nii-nii wants to do fun things while she's in those socks

>>7857368
Ugh. Reading that made me want to hurl.

I want to see what her face looks like and laugh.

>tagging it "Loli"

This is why we can't have nice things

I'm ashamed but I think this kind of stuff is really cute. She probably doesn't own a lot of other brando and is super excited to get a gift from her boyfriend (I presume?).

>>7857413
I think so too.

>>7857368
Uh, why can't you just be happy that she received new socks? Why do you have to shit all over someone else's happiness?
>inb4 ironic shitpost etc

>>7857413
I think people being excited about brand is adorable, but I can't stand the
>nii chan rabu rabu kyun cutie patootie niiiii~
bullshit. It's so exaggerated and I'm pretty damn sure it's part of a sex thing. Reading this post I can just hear her squealing at her "big brother" as he's fucking her while she's wearing those socks and I really don't need that mental image.
I really hope I'm mistaken and it's really just an obnoxious weeby young teenager but I've known more than enough girls like this to be skeptical.

>>7857395

This picture bugs me. Just her face in this.

>>7857368
I'm sorry people don't buy you brand presents OP.

>>7857454
Its not that, its the whole loli and nii chan thing. i could care less about receiving brand presents, my wardrobe is comprised of it baby.

>>7857444
Ugh this, its so cringey.

>>7857448
I just see a selfie
vendetta

>>7857444
>I'm pretty damn sure it's part of a sex thing
Somebody might be having fun with their sex? Alert the reverend!

>>7857368
It's impossible to not cringe when someone says 'cutie patootie'.

>>7857491
I don't care if they have a sex thing going or whatever, I care when I have to see it on a public forum

>>7857495
>Implying that you're being forced o see it and then continue to dwell on it after the fact.

k so what I get from this thread is
> age play? gtfo of lolita plz
> pretending to be brother-sister while fucking? sure and stay for a cup of tea

Are people going to post things that are actually cringey? The only thing is OP's post

>>7857491

reenforcing the misconception lolita is some kind of age play thing like she is on a public forum is my issue.

>>7857491
>someone trying to publicly validate their sexuality
Juvenile.
>well um it has nothing to do with you?
Except, as other people have said, it reenforces the stereotype that all girls who wear poofy dresses are some manner of sissys or whores.

>>7857515
>pretending to be brother-sister while fucking? sure and stay for a cup of tea
>don't like this? LOL U JELLY

She misses lolita sooo much u guise but she can't go back because the community is full of fat shaming and slut shaming ;-;

>>7857536
You can't really run around getting angry because of the way people who wear the same fashion as you have sex and worry about how that reflects on you that's... ridiculous. But whatever stay mad, I'm sure weeb-chan will stop having fun sex in order to not reflect badly on random stranger on the internet.

>>7857541
Maybe she should stop being such a fat slut.

>>7857534
>>7857536

Personally, I'm worried about the stereotype that lolitas are prude princesses. Please shut up, stop posting your opinion on this puplic forum it reenforces it.

>>7857545
It's making us CRINGE, hence cringe thread.

>>7857550
Stay mad

>>7857545

it's not about her having sex, it's that she's using the fashion in her little-sister fantasy and (like i said and you chose to ignore) reenforcing the stereotype lolitas are ageplayers.

>>7857547
>not liking when people bring their incest fetish into public makes you a prude

>>7857545
I don't give a fuck what she does in the bedroom but keep that shit private. There are people who don't want to see you act out your fetish and not respecting that is a very shitty thing to do. At least tag it so people can filter it out.

>>7857556
>>7857554
>>7857555

Stay mad

>>7857545
>run around getting angry
Stop right there.
Nobody is "angry." We're just cringing at some immature girl who thinks she's special for posting her whored out loot on tumblr.
>because of the way people who wear the same fashion as you have sex
I have sex too. The difference is I don't make indirect references on my personal blog that others find cringey.

Why are you upset that people find this behavior distasteful and juvenile?

>>7857554
It's not about her having she sex it's about her using whatever clothes she feels like it while she has sex and you being an idiot whining about how it reflects on you because you use the same clothes, like I said, but you choose it ignore.

>>7857566
Nigga, look at these post and tell me these hoes aren't angry.

What YOU do =/= what anyone else does.

By all means cringe away, get your panties in a wad ~

>>7857567
Not them, but they can have sex in whatever they like.

The problem is involving other people in your fetish/sexual things in a public social (media) environment.
Stay in specific websites, tag yourself appropriately so people can filter or out, or just don't make posts involving it

>>7857569
Stay mad.

You guys realize she's not actually into any fetish right? It's just speculation, anon said "its probably some fetish shit" and some people got mad...

>>7857568
NIgga, I'm looking at your defensive posts and I can tell that you're angry.
Or are you not?
Or is it the case that people can type their annoyances online without having to be stark raving mad about them? You know your argument is stupid, just drop it so we can laugh at these types of bitches some more.

>>7857574
Even if it was some fetish thing, saying "Nii chan" is hardly over-sharing-omg-keep-that-shit-in-fetish-sites-out-of-public-eyes-it-reflects-badly-on-us-all calm down.

>>7857578
But it does make us cringe and it does belong here. If you don't think that's infantile as shit then there's something wrong with you.

>>7857576
>>7857578
Thus reinforcing the stereotype that lolitas are prudes and that makes ME cringe, I ain't mad.

>>7857567

lolitas already have a bad rep, tagging your bizzare incest/ageplay kink posts as "j fashion" and "lolita" DOES reflect badly on other prople who also wear it. she's free to have whatever sex she wants, but acting like her kink = j fashion is wrong and DOES make lolitas look bad.

>>7857579
Yes of course it does, but the argument is ridiculously out of hand for just "Nii chan" which is the point I'm making.

>>7857581
Just because we don't gloat about our ~*~NIICHANZ~*~ on our blogs doesn't make us "prudes." Get over that, quickly.

>>7857582
Her kink IN j-fashion does warrant a j-fashion tag IMO //shrug//

>>7857368
Regardless of her word use she had no business using some of those tags.
Nobody cares about her socks that her niichan bought her, and just because she slapped them on for a photo doesn't make it fashion.

I suspect the whiteknight calling everyone prudes itt is her. Any regular person would find this shit obnoxious.

>>7857584
No but this shit fest over it does.
Stay mad.

>>7857588
>shit fest
>cringe thread
Post some other cringe then and stop acting like an upset brat not getting your way?

>>7857587
>Any regular person would find this shit obnoxious.
MTE.
Also the whole STAY MAD XD posts reek of someone underage.

>>7857585

just a pair of socks isn't even j fashion tho

>>7857589
The entire thread so far is just about this one topic which is the shit fest I'm referring to.

Also not all replies are by me.

I don't see what's so cringey about this.
Maybe I'm too much of a normalfag but all I see is a post about socks.
Why is everyone getting so worked over by this?

>>7857592
Oh I thought we where just talking in general not just this specific post that was already pointed out to have nothing to do with fetish.

>>7857595
Because you keep arguing that everyone who finds this stupid is a "prude." You're the retard who keeps perpetuating the argument and hence the extra posts.

>>7857585
>//shrug//

>>7857596
Seriously, she's just a weeb it could be her literal brother or some guy she's friend zoned. You girls have such dirty minds.

>>7857368
I can't believe those are actually baby socks - they look like ebay shit. But there they are on the website, well I'll be

>>7857598
I'm perpetuating the argument but not everyone else...sure.

Who gets this disturbed over "nii chan"?

>>7857602
>>7857597

i get the distinct feeling you don't realize just how many ageplayers and dady kink blogs there are on tumblr

Wow, /cgl/. I didn't know that you guys found it so normal to have sex for socks! I've never had a guy offer to buy me burando after sleeping with him, so what's the big secret?

>>7857602
It's all that repressed sexual energy from trying to protect lolita from being associated with any sex. They end up associating anything thats not drinking tea with sex and 'totally inappropriate how will it reflect on the community?'

>>7857605
Really? It hadn't occurred to you that someone defending this RUNs a kink blog on tumblr? Shame...

>>7857604
>Who gets this disturbed over "nii chan"?
It's a cringe thread you dumbass.
If you heard a white girl irl say NII CHAN you wouldn't cringe? Right.

>>7857368
>itt cheesecakenagelicprincess whiteknighting herself

You sound like an infantile skank. Your replies are making me cringe.

>>7857597
>pointed out to have nothing to do with fetish.
When did this happen?

>>7857568
Yeah, they're mad at you because they try to explain to you why anyone but you finds this pic cringeworthy and you reply with stupid shitposting. Are you 12?

>>7857622

---->
>>7857574


>>7857626
And I explained to them why I think they're overreacting and they just teply with their reply so I said, they could stay mad but they're still not happy. What do?

>>7857618
I'd cringe because embarrassing levels of weeb, but not because I assume it's some fetish she is partaking in and will reflect badly on me. That's damn stupid.

>>7857484
> ...could care less...

I'm thinking maybe you should.

>>7857632
We get it.
Now how about you shut up and get out?

This thread is more cringe-worthy than the original post. They're just socks. This entire thread is about a pair of socks. Really cgl?

>>7857641
It's obviously not about the socks, though. The image would have been just as cringeworthy without the pictures.

>>7857448
Into the trash she goes

>>7857651
is it wrong that i think she's cute?

>>7857529
This whole board is cringey anon.

>>7857660
she's 14 btw

>>7857667
wait what?

>>7857413
Seconding >>7857444 here. Sure, be excited by presents from boyfriends by all means but the moment you say 'nii chan' you need to take it the fuck out of the lolita tags.

>>7857545
>>7857554
Littles and sissies have a huge crossover with us, it can't be argued, but it's like half of them don't even try to respect how we want lolita to stay unsexualised.
Heck, I'm sure most lolitas fuck in their brand but it's just not a thing you talk about in connection with the fashion.

Maybe we need a SJW term for it so we can be 'Oh stop sexualising our subculture' in a way tumblr will understand.

>>7857546

Might as well delete this thread and try again later.
Stay mad prude-chan has fucked it all up.

>>7857554
they're not?

God, I had no idea lolitas are such prudes. There will always be people who find something erotic starting from fursuits to "sexy nun" costumes and there's nothing you can do about it. If she was wearing normal over-knee socks no one would care but I guess that when you wear BURANDO you really need to roleplay as some kind of virgin doll.

>>7857534
>lolita is literally called lolita
>worried people will think it's about ageplay or sex
what the fuck am I reading

>>7857660
question of taste. I find those nose rings to be instant anti cute, it's like a tramp stamp to me.

>>7857681
>people itt are cringing more about the use of 'niichan' and inappropriate tags
>you decide to focus on one poster who implied it was a fetish
>HURDURR ALL LOLITAS ARE PRUDES DERP
Plain idiocy.

>>7857695
Not to mention that when this particular Anon is out of words replies with "Le stay mad XD am i rite?"

I think this is actually more retarded and cringe worthy.

This entire thread is now cringe. Who cares if people are worried that lolita is a fetish, it's not being prude or w/e, people have a bad enough image of the fashion already. Also, calling someone niichan or w/e is pretty fucking cringy.

>>7857695
>>7857698
>>7857700
damage control

people who don't know about it will always think that lolita is about ageplay and fetishism. it's called lolita for fuck's sake

if you really think that this picture will change anyone's opinion on lolita at all you're braindead

stop being a prude

>>7857487
someone was asking what the girl in >>7857368 looked like. please pay closer attention before crying vendetta.

>"vendetta!!!" is my pet peeve

>>7857569
>public social environment
>her personal tumblr

Fuck off and Stay mad.

>>7857711
do you even tumblr?

>>7857704
>All this protecting

Jesus fuck, I personally don't relate that nii-chan shit with fetish or anything you are trying to imply.

I think writing and talking like that is cringey and really weeby. Oh and also your replies.

>>7857704
>people who don't know about it will always think that lolita is about ageplay and fetishism
Source?
Most normalfags think it's 'princess' wear or alice in wonderland aka they think people are in plays half the time. What about either of those labels scream ageplay or fetish to you?
>prude
There it is again! Stop samefagging.
Also, talking about damage control, at least you're finally giving more than two letter replies like U MAD XD STAY MAD XD

>>7857448
Fetal alcohol syndrome?

Ladies stop shooping out your undereye bags if you already have a flat face. It makes you look diseased.

>>7857741
Are you fucking retarded?
Ever read the fucking book Lolita?
Guess what lolita mean in japan. Yes i mad, bunch of morbidly obese wymin whining over nothing

>MUH CRINGE THREAD

There is ONE pic, if anything it's bullying.

Opie-chan wanted a cringe thread, she got it, but for the wrong reasons.

>>7857368
Is "nii-chan" the new "daddy" in terms of creepy things to call your boyfriend?

>>7857741
>Source?
It's called lolita, do you even know where this term came from?

>>7857618
I remember trying to outdo each other's "Welcome home Onii-chan" voices during a language festival for French/Spanish in some vacant lot between language sets. Mmyself and another girl in the same language level (French 4) were trying to outdo each other chiefly when the lanky dudenerd in our class who had a cold and hadn't talked all day busted out the most kawaii "welcome home onii-chan" I've ever heard in my life. It was like one of those teen movies that teach you not to believe in stereotypes, but for weebs. It was amazing, he was probably a magical girl in disguise.

So I can't get mad at white girls (or people) who say nii-chan because it just reminds me of that. I hope he's happy with his onii-chan.

>>7857787
What are you even doing here? Lurk more.

>>7857606

>>7857787
Lol it sounds like you haven't read the book Lolita if you still think the "nymphet" is the sexual one. It's literally about how fucking creepy Humbert is, not about how uber sexual the little girl is.
I agree that this thread has gone far enough but seriously, don't try to drag that book in here when you've made it painfully obvious that you've only watched the film.

>>7857587
This
WTH CGL, since when did you tolerate this type of fetish weeb behavior

>>7857833
To be fair anon, you really think your average normalfag knows that much about the book?

>>7857521
Holy fucking shit. If your waist is larger than the front of the salopette, you are too big. She's not even that fat, but being too big for salo and wearing it anyways is a peeve of mine.

>>7857570
>u mad u mad u mad u mad

Come on, /cgl/, you're better than this. Sage, reported, hidden etc. etc.

>>7857618
I call my brother nii chan, but that's only because he's trans and I called him sissy before he came out. I also call him bro more often though, it's just because I've never really used his actual name in my entire life and it's always been a diminutive. It doesn't make it any less weaboo.

>>7857879
Yeah, aren't salos meant to be loose?

>>7857833
I tried to read it nice because I heard the prose was god tier, but I couldn't make it past the scene where she's frotting on his lap before I had to quit because I felt like I had to wash my hands.

This is coming from someone who wasn't phased at all by the novel clockwork orange. (The perennial edgy teen book)

>>7857901
but a clockwork orange wasn't even that edgy. most edgy teens I've seen usually worship orwell and salinger with some fedora tipping ayn rand's way

tbh lolita wasn't even that edgy, it just seems that way because it was written from a pov other than Dolores'.

>>7857906
Clockwork orange is the book of the choice for pseudo intellectuals who think Ray Bradbury is for plebs and haven't discovered PKD yet. It being nearly impossible to read without a nadsat dictionary adds to the draw because "oh anon, you couldn't read this gibberish anyway"

Lolita is more oily and gross than it is edgy. I was just comparing it to something equally fucked up in its own way. And Dolores really is a slut, she knows what she was doing and wanted ANYONE's "positive" attention. Even the filthy old man that smells her panties when he thinks nobody's looking because her mom is a raging bitch. The other girls were more or less pure, Humbert just happened to find someone as messed up and desperate as he needed to take advantage of.

>>7857920
Also don't forget, Lolita is written with an unreliable narrator. Was Dolores really such a slut? Or was that just Humbert's deluded mind perceiving her that way so he wouldn't feel guilty?

>>7857920
>>7857906
At least when I was in high school, the pseudo intellectuals were the ones into Rand and Orwell and the like, and the Hot Topic goffs were the ones who loved Clockwork Orange along with shit like Devil's Rejects and whatnot.

>why no more sage

>>7857931
You do have a point there, but frotting on an old man's boner is beyond skeezy. At the same time, a guy who gets hot and bothered from kids playing in the park would interpret someone sitting on their stepdather's lap when it was pretty normal in that time period, as sexual.

>>7857940
My high school was out in the boonies and considered Orwell for plebs because it was required reading. They weren't really interesting enough to read something that actually made you think, just things that normalfags might consider a thinking book. If you actually tried to talk to them about it, they didn't know what they were talking about. We also didn't have more than four edgy goffs who were all stupid as fuck, so my data is skewed.

>>7857946
It's part of the reason that, while the novel's subject matter is disgusting, that novel is still a great novel in the fact of it's multiple interpretations.
All in all, my personal interpretation is that she was a growing girl, she was curious, and Humbert used this to his advantage to be a complete sleezeball.

>>7857960
They couldn't even get past the "hurr censorship" part of Fahrenheit 451, so the bar for the pseudo intellectuals was set pretty low. All the freaks hung out in a big group when I was in school, so because I was a complete sperg, I ended up trying to talk to talk to them about books a lot.

>mfw Bradbury actually walked out of a college lecture when someone tried to claim 451 was about censorship.

>>7857970
That sounds like a pretty fair interpretation, anon, considering in another one of Nabokov's works (Laughter in the Dark) the narrator is another icky older man who falls for a young girl and she completely plays him for money and exposure as an actress. But it shows his delusion throughout the entire novel, thinking she actually wants him and loves him and all of that. Based on that, I stick with my assertion that Humbert fabricated pretty much all of the sexual situations and read too much into everything because he was deluded.

>sage

>>7857970
Maybe I should try to pick it up again then. Like I said, I only got to the chair frotting before I quit in disgust.

>>7857920
but it wasn't impossible to read at all! Idk maybe I'm biased because I'm a slav so I understood most of the lingo but it didn't seem like he was plugging it that much into the book anyway.

is this thread still /cgl/-related

>>7857981
I should have specified, I also think Humbert was deluded and believed that by fabricating/assuring himself she wanted it too, when in reality she probably had no idea what the fuck was going on. I'm glad we both have similar interpretations, this was a good discussion.

>>7857984
Yeah, it's a bit hard to get through, but as long as you're not too uncomfortable, try to finish it!

>sage as well

>>7857990
Is anything ever?

>>7857989
I've read a few other Russian books (mostly about young pilgrims) and it isn't what bothers me, it's how disgusting Humbert is and how the prose romanticized his depravity. It read like a bodice ripper about pedophiles and that's what freaks me out so much.

>>7857894
They're super super loose on my and I'm nowhere near being a hungry skeleton

>>7858000
Y'know what's even freakier, anon? My favorite teacher back in HS was my English teacher and I always considered us to be friends. Two years after I graduate he gets fired for having an affair with one of his students. Know what he gave her for a Christmas present, at least one full month before her 18th birthday?
A fucking copy of Lolita.

I'm so sick of people romanticizing it, holy shit. It's MEANT to make readers like you and me uncomfortable but some people (fucking teacher included) completely miss the mark.

>sage for non cgl, blah blah blah

>>7858000
I was talking about nadsat, anon

how did this go from being about this one girl's weebiness and general cringe things to a debate/discussion about fucking books. take that shit to lit. i do not come here to read about interpretations of books. /cgl/ you make me cringe.

someone is trying to sell this on kijiji

>>7858000
I actually like the cultural outlook on life quite a bit. You guys have been through some serious shit and have a sort of cynical positivity I really love. (Just making a sweeping generalization here.)

>>7858007
how much

>>7858005
Oh okay, that makes more sense. I had to look up some slang while was trying to get through it and couldn't find the meaning from context.

>>7858007
>>7858011
both wands for $7

"Cardcaptor Sakura x 2 wands -$7 one is broken at the top but I believe can be fixed "