The babydoll dress Olivia Rodrigo got criticized for has a name. It is called kinderwhore, and it was built in the early 1990s to make the exact argument she just made.
The term was coined in 1993 by music journalist Everett True, combining the German word for child with the English word for whore. The look is specific: childlike babydoll dresses, Peter Pan collars, Mary Janes, paired with smeared red lipstick and dark eye makeup. Innocence and adult sexuality forced into the same frame on purpose.
Kat Bjelland of Babes in Toyland and Courtney Love of Hole pioneered it. They shared an apartment and a wardrobe in the 1980s before either was famous. In a 1994 Rolling Stone interview, Love was explicit that the look was built to read as ironic rather than seductive.
The irony was the entire point. A grown woman dressed as a doll, screaming into a microphone, daring the audience to decide whether they were looking at a child or a threat. The discomfort that produced was the art. It made the viewer's own gaze visible to them.
Which is what makes the criticism of Rodrigo so clarifying. Her actual complaint is that a revealing stage outfit was called fine and a fully-covered babydoll dress was called inappropriate, and that the gap between those two reactions says something about who is doing the looking.
That gap is the thesis kinderwhore was built on three decades ago.
When Rodrigo says she felt like Kathleen Hanna or Courtney Love, she is not reaching for a vague aesthetic. Hanna led the riot grrrl movement and Love built the look beside it, and both spent the early 1990s being told the same things Rodrigo is being told now, by people who thought they were delivering a fresh objection.
The replies calling the dress inappropriate think they are critiquing the aesthetic. They are completing it.
must feel so good as a baseball player to be intentionally walked. like omg you’re scared of me? you’re scared i’m going to hit an rbi? are we about to kiss?