/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

[Anonymous No.7856394]

Dream Sky is not lolita. Nor are the Cosmic print or Horoscope or any other dress with this type of cut. Salopettes aren't lolita either. Just because it's AP doesn't mean it's automatically lolita.

[Anonymous No.7856400]

>>7856394

[Anonymous No.7856402]

>ablublu stop wearing things that i don't like.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean people are going to stop wearing it or tagging it as such to appease you. Sorry that lolita has changed from cotton and specific bodice and skirt styles.

For that matter, long skirt lengths shouldn't be lolita either even if it's put out by Baby because it's different than what was defined as lolita 8 years ago.

[Anonymous No.7856408]

>>7856402
This.

While I would agree that super long dresses (like longer than tea length) are sort of borderline, a dress that falls mid calf is absolutely fine as long as it still has the right shape.

Salopettes I would mostly agree, since they're usually pretty short, but a babydoll style dress doesn't mean it's not lolita.

[Anonymous No.7856409]

>>7856394
I agree about the salopettes but...what's your point? Even if it's not lolita, its definitely of interest to lolita wearers so I don't mind it showing up on COF or instagram tags or whatever. I wanna see!

[Anonymous No.7856410]

>>7856402
First of all, I never said that I don't like Dream Sky. I plan to get it some day, actually. Secondly, those long skirts you're referring to have always been considered lolita, I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that they weren't eight years ago.

Dream Sky is well above mid-thigh. For anyone taller than 5'5, it barely covers their crotch. If the cut wasn't by AP there would be no question that it wasn't lolita.

[Anonymous No.7856411]

>>7856409
I don't really care about it ending up on tags as much as the fact that many people have this idea that anything brand=automatically lolita.

[Anonymous No.7856420]

>>7856394
You mad OP?

[Anonymous No.7856421]

>>7856411
I was under the impression that everyone knew this but posts because it's brand and so it's relevant.

[Anonymous No.7856424]

>>7856394
>wah wah empire-waist dresses are not lolita

[Anonymous No.7856425]

>>7856421
With this in mind, how taboo is it to tag shit with lolitafashion on instagram even though it's not lolita but you're using brand? I wear a lot of...period recreationish clothes, only it's not period clothes or historical recreation because I use brand most of the time and would it be wrong of me to tag it lolita?

[Anonymous No.7856459]

>>7856394
I really want to agree with you, because those kind of prints didn't exist in the victorian era, nor are they inspired by old fashion. However neither I or you invented the lolita style, so we can't really decide for others what is correct or not. But I agree that not everything that is Brand looks well or even lolita.

[Anonymous No.7856468]

>>7856459
Good chunk of sweet prints aren't inspired by old fashion, if you think about it. Donuts? Teddy bear carnivals? Pancake mix and shit?

>>7856394
I agree on the salopettes, just because they look childish IMO and can't be dressed up to look elegant/they're super short on most people. For the prints, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree simply because the rules of the fashion are about the silhouette, the blouse, etc. Doesn't say anything about space-themed prints lol.

I've never even seen pictures of these dresses tagged as "lolita" unless in a proper lolita coord? I guess I've overlooked a lot of pictures!

[Anonymous No.7856484]

>>7856425

As long as it isn't an eyesore I wouldn't mind looking at it.

Although... lolita isn't meant to be historical recreation, so anon, I'm a bit afraid as to what you've got going on there. Unless you're this chick, then carry on.

[Anonymous No.7856502]

>>7856484
I'm obviosly not talking about ott sweet or angelic pretty here. It's ridiculously easy to find period inspired pieces, and I tend to just wear it in a period way, sometimes mixing periods. It would probably classify as an "Eye sore" to the typical pastel puke girl though.

[Anonymous No.7856515]

>>7856502

I just tend to roll my eyes at "historical recreation" because a lot of the details aren't really historically accurate. It would be a safe bet to say historical costumers probably cringe to hear Marie Antoinette OP associated with actual period Rococo, but whatever floats your boat.

Also whoa there. I'm fairly classical myself, bordering on basic bitch, but hey, the sweet lolitas have their gems.

[Anonymous No.7856535]

>>7856515
I already pointed out its not historical recreation at all though. It comes off quite "old school" I'm told. Mostly florals, very "basic" and not OTT twenty bows on my hair sort of thing. Nice bonnet, or hat, plain non-toddler pointed strappy shoes, minimal accessories. Mostly do Edwardian. Only got into lolita because it's like comfier short period wear lol

[Anonymous No.7856545]

>>7856535
So you dress in plain classic ? Needed to make a fuss about it ?

[Anonymous No.7856546]

>>7856468
Well, I know. Donuts looks awful in lolita as well. Looks like Homer designed the dresses.

[Anonymous No.7856565]

>>7856545
Yes and....no? The silluette of these styles is diffrent and I buy mostly 'sweet classic' dresses, really in to IW. I've tried mingling with lolis but they whine about me being ita, not big enough Petti (they don't understand I'm not going for a cupcacke shape) not Lolita shoes. Needs more accessories. Last meet up, I wore BABYs sugar bouquet empire waist OP with no Petti, pointed shoes and regency bonnet. ObviouslyThey didn't understand what I was going for (regency!), complained about my bonnet not being embellished enough/being too big and my shoe color not 'matching' the outfit (this is a recurring complain)

[Anonymous No.7856586]

Lolita is just inspired by the look of specific things. It's not historical, it's not supposed to be historical either.

I agree that salopettes aren't lolita though.

[Anonymous No.7856591]

>>7856468
It's not the print that keeps Dream Sky from being lolita, it's the silhouette. It's way too short for lolita. You'll notice that it's mid-thigh or shorter on everyone who wears it.

[Anonymous No.7856593]

>>7856565
>Last part of my post was magically eaten. And how do spelling?

*(this is a reoccurring complaint) as most of my shoes are black or brown while my closet is mostly pink, white, ivory.

[Anonymous No.7856605]

someone butthurt that they missed out on dream sky and cosmic series

[Anonymous No.7856616]

Speaking of Cosmic.. is anyone interested in selling the White OP? Please? T.T I need it so bad.

[Anonymous No.7856627]

>>7856565
>>7856593
uh. honestly anon, what you're describing looks pretty bad in my mind, and not because it's classic either.

i'd be happy to be proved wrong though. would you mind posting a pic? or even just a collage of one of your coods.

[Anonymous No.7856634]

>>7856591
Not on me because I'm petite. Cosmic is the perfect length on me lol. But I guess it could be too short on girls who are 5'2" and above.

[Anonymous No.7856665]

>>7856634
Same here, I'm 5'2" and petite so I don't have any issues with length regarding Cosmic, Dream Sky, Sweetie Violet, etc.
I am definitely of the opinion that the length of a piece can make or break a coordinate though...and even if a piece is considered lolita, if it's worn in a way that skews the ideal silhouette too much an outfit can be pushed out of lolita territory pretty easily. For example, even though Chokelate's proportions are beautiful, but she wears a lot of pieces that are really short on her and therefore don't exactly qualify as lolita in my opinion. On the other hand, long cuts of pretty much any main piece usually end up being tea-length on me because I'm so short (and I don't consider tea-length to be lolita either), but would still look really nice and still fall within the lolita spectrum on someone tall like Chokelate. I know fashion is fluid and change can be a great thing, but I really like having some rigidity when it comes to certain rules (like silhouette and skin coverage) because it sets the fashion apart from other defined substyles like otome-kei.

Echoing the sentiment about salopettes being too short to call lolita too, I think they're cute as hell but they're just not the right length or shape.

[Anonymous No.7856678]

I'm curious as to why salopettes are automatically not considered lolita?

I understand the silhouette and length don't fit the guidelines, but is that it? Aren't they used for casual lolita? I own a couple and I love them because while they are still cute and fancy compared to normal clothes, it's not too OTT and I feel is acceptable for school/work environments?

[Anonymous No.7856691]

>>7856678
I think so. Granted, normalfags will still stare and such but I do consider salos/miniskirts to be casual lolita (or fairy kei depending on the coord).

[Anonymous No.7856746]

>>7856678
>>7856691
>casual lolita
this is a blanket term used by itas and lazy newfags to try and excuse half-assed, boring, and straight up bad outfits. casual lolita is not actually a thing.

[Anonymous No.7856763]

>>7856746
So what do you call someone wearing a Baby cutsew, AP miniskirt, OTKs and tea parties?

[Anonymous No.7856766]

>>7856746
simple =/= half-assed and boring. I dunno about you but I wouldn't wear a $400 outfit with tons of accessories to some places because of some snot nosed people that will try and ruin it.

[Anonymous No.7856773]

>>7856746
casual lolita IS a thing. A lot of itas and newfags use it because they just put on lolita inspired outfits, but that doesn't make it any less of a style. Its like bodyline, a lot of itas wear it but it can be pulled off well.

[Anonymous No.7856774]

>>7856763
Not lolita? Brand isn't automatically make it lolita.

[Anonymous No.7856777]

>>7856763
Wearing brand =/= lolita, dipshit.

>>7856766
Simple is fine, but there's a difference between simple and just fucking lazy. Pic related is a good example of simple without being half-assed.

[Anonymous No.7856790]

>>7856773
It seems like people only feel the need to differentiate "casual lolita" when they're trying to avoid criticism for cutting corners somewhere in their coordinate. Why not just stick to saying "here's a casual/simple classic/sweet/gothic coordinate" as opposed to saying "casual lolita" as if it's a substyle all its own? The difference is kinda subtle but saying it the first way implies that you're still focused on the aesthetic as opposed to focused on dumbing down the fashion. Saying "casual lolita" is way too vague and gives itas too much freedom to run with.

[Anonymous No.7856818]

>>7856790
now you're just nitpicking at the terms

[Anonymous No.7856819]

>>7856774
>>7856777
That's...that's the exact reason why it's categorized as casual. Are you actually being serious right now?

[Anonymous No.7856853]

>>7856819
So by your definition, bathing suits and yukata are also substyles of loita simply because brands make them. Either troll harder or lurk harder, depending on whether or not -you're- actually being serious right now. Either way, get out.

[Anonymous No.7856856]

>>7856853
>was using brands to give people an example of a coord

[Anonymous No.7856860]

>>7856856
A cutsew or a miniskirt is about as lolita as a yukata though. Shit's cute, just not lolita.

[Anonymous No.7856868]

>>7856860
I completely understand your point. But I see pic related it as casual lolita since it has some lolita aspects but isn't as complex as a full lolita coord.

DISCLAIMER: BRAND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS COORD

[Anonymous No.7856871]

I do agree that salopettes are not strictly Lolita but I do feel they are still related to it. I mean like there must be reason why so many lolita brands make them: AP, Btssb, Aatp and I think I remember that IW put out some too.

[Anonymous No.7856874]

>>7856868
>>7856868
Having "some aspects" of a lolita coord doesn't make a thing lolita though, no matter how hard you want it to. That skirt is way too short unless you're a dwarf and that alone is enough to disqualify it. Why do you want to classify this kind of thing as lolita so badly? It's a cute outfit, what's wrong with leaving it at that?

[Anonymous No.7856876]

>>7856868
>>7856871

I think that the rules of lolita make it hard to consider certain things lolita. IMO casual lolita isn't lolita, its lolita inspired coords. You can have a casual coord which is different, but the sub style of casual lolita just takes inspiration from the fashion and uses things like salopettes and themes/motifs from the fashion.

[Anonymous No.7856878]

>>7856874
Relax, anon. All I want to know is what to call this.

[Anonymous No.7856899]

>>7856878
Why call it anything though? That's my point. Are you that desperate to abuse tags or something?

[Anonymous No.7856903]

>>7856899
>Why call it anything though?
So let's just have a style not have a name, cool.

[Anonymous No.7856918]

>>7856903
Well...yeah? What do you call it when you go out in a t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers? American-kei? Oh wait, you probably don't call it anything because it's unremarkable and doesn't actually need a name. The only thing that makes the posted outfit special is the fact that the motifs are rare in Western fashion and the items were made by brands that cater to lolitas; if I went to Kohl's and picked up a similar outfit that consisted of a collared long-sleeved shirt, tiered skirt, OTK socks, and close-toed shoes, nobody would be running around in a panic to come up with a name for this revolutionary new style because it's actually basic as fuck. It's gotta be unique before it can earn a name, anon.

[Anonymous No.7856922]

>>7856918
Grudge?

[Anonymous No.7856925]

>>7856918
>It's gotta be unique before it can earn a name

[Anonymous No.7856938]

>>7856878
It's called age play clothing

[Anonymous No.7856942]

>>7856938
holy shit i have never heard that joke made about this type of clothing ever in my life holy shit stop the presses

[Anonymous No.7856953]

>>7856425
I don't wear lolita but do like AP skirts and salopettes a lot so I just tag it with the brand name. But I don't want the Lolita community to see my average-tier coords so I don't exactly know how to help you if you want a lot of people to see your outfit.

I love otome, though, I wish there were more in the otome tags. Or in other JFashion subsets, for that matter

[Anonymous No.7856954]

>>7856918
>tshirt, jeans and sneakers
>what is normcore

[Anonymous No.7856955]

>>7856954
back to /fa/ with you.

[Anonymous No.7856961]

>>7856535
I'm so done with old school, though, even though I'm old as shit. I respect it. When I was a teenager I bolted to Kinokuniya just to look through GLB. But improvement comes with time and brands have DEFINITELY improved. I'm glad I waited to get into the fashion because there are some old school dresses I loved that I'd be mortified in now.

Sure, brand minis or salopettes are definitely NOT lolita, but I'd hate to use old school as a marker for what lolita should look like now and I get tired of nostalgia lensed posts--not that yours is, just in general.

[Anonymous No.7856962]

>>7856876
Huh, casual lolita is just lolita with a tee/cutsew/hoodie worn as top.

[Anonymous No.7856966]

>>7856962
...er...no...
Maybe some people wear that and call it casual lolita, but the second you throw a hoodie or a tee in there, I guarantee that's not a lolita coord. Pretty sure casual lolita is just toned down, really basic--e.g. OP with plain tights/shoes/simple head accessory if any, minimal accessories, etc. But you still incorporate the silhouette and the basic rules of the fashion--you just don't go OTT or maybe you wear a cardigan/bolero over a JSK without a blouse. You definitely don't wear a t-shirt...

[Anonymous No.7856968]

Not every salopette is short like a mini skirt tho, they are only suspender dresses after all and they can have pretty much every lenght.

[Anonymous No.7856970]

>>7856591
>>7856634
>>7856665
Aww, no. This is completely OT but I'm 5'0", not lolita, and was hoping it would be a little shorter. I would adore wearing that as a casual/non-lolita dress.

And I love lolita, but I can't wear it without being self-conscious about how stubby and big my legs look because it hits right at the knee or lower. I'm thin but...these muscle legs. Pic related hits me perfectly because I'm shorter than her. Does anyone do shorter pieces besides AP? I have the high waisted MRC skirt and it's a dream. I coo over it every single time I put it on.

[Anonymous No.7856973]

>>7856966
But there are things like hoodies and tees made by brands that DO fit the silhouette.

[Anonymous No.7856977]

>>7856973
Now listen here you little shit
Stop spewing this bile and fuck off

[Anonymous No.7856980]

>>7856966
So this must be total ita because the usage of tees.

[Anonymous No.7856981]

>>7856777
Holy crap, I wish I saw this before I posted >>7856970 . This fits her like Liz Lisa fits me! I love how this looks so much

[Anonymous No.7856984]

>>7856977
Sure is still summer in here.

[Anonymous No.7856989]

>>7856980
Not ita, just a nitpick. Don't be so dramatic.
At least most of the cutsews are covered up, faux collars would also probably make these passable.

[Anonymous No.7857103]

>>7856790
>why not just saying casual lolita instead of casual lolita

this is what you basically said.

[Anonymous No.7857110]

>>7857103
lol did you even read that post
because it makes a fair amount of sense.
don't call it "casual lolita" and leave out the actual substyle you're going for (sweet, classic, gothic, etc). that way newbies don't get confused about "casual lolita" being its own thing.

[Anonymous No.7857116]

>>7856980
This is not even nitpick.

Y'all need to stop being so anal retentive about the rules of lolita. Cutsews aren't t-shirts, they look fine with the fashion. A baggy normalfag t shirt isn't ok, but the fitted types that are aimed at this fashion look fine. They may not be lolita specifically, but no one item can make a good lolita coord, you need other items to go with it. Even with an OP you need a petti. A brand dress isn't what makes something lolita. Itas will look bad, wether they are in CDC or in the laciest thing milanoo has to offer. Its all about the final presentation. Casual lolita isn't defined by any specific element, its just a toned down coord.

[Anonymous No.7857117]

>>7856984
It's always summer, they'll never get cold.
They'll never get hungry, they'll never get old and gray

[Anonymous No.7857126]

>>7857110
I read it, and it sounds retarded, because the only thing you and that anon are arguing is semantics.

[Anonymous No.7857141]

>>7857126
Semantics are kind of a big deal when you're trying to define something that's vague as fuck, anon.

[Anonymous No.7857311]

>>7856616
>out i
I'm sure I saw someone on LM selling it.

[Anonymous No.7857315]

>>7856868
Just got to say, those shoes with that outfit...

[Anonymous No.7857317]

>>7856984
It's always summer somewhere.

[Anonymous No.7857355]

>>7857141
Not really, no. There's seriously no need to try to be specific about shit like "oh it's casual sweet/casual gothic [?]/casual classic" because the silhouette and motifs should be a given on what substyle you're wearing. Saying casual lolita is just a generalization that avoids you the hassle of being overly specific and sounding pretentious.

[Anonymous No.7857476]

>>7856627
It's NOT classic, or even lolita at all. I'm not sure why it:s so hard to imagine? It's literally period coords with lolita dresses.

I just wanted to know how taboo it would be to tag shit with lolita just because you're wearing a lolita garment. I thought it might interest the wearers, but after witnessing this thread I am reminded why I don't have anything to do with Lolita's besides a meet up or two a year.

Pic very related.

[Anonymous No.7857616]

>>7857476
>tag shit with lolitafashion on instagram
>It comes off quite "old school"
>got into lolita
>Last meet up
you don't seem to realize this but you're being very ambiguous about this anon. yeah, if you tag your stuff lolita and go to lolita meet ups, people are going to assume you're trying to be a lolita. don't be surprised if you get misunderstandings, or annoyed because people react to you in the logical way before you have the time to explain your approach.
even if i'd be interested in seeing your outfits and a bunch of lolitas probably would too, i don't think it's a good enough reason to tag lolita something that isn't. you can still tag the brands, like >>7856953. but i guess it's a matter of opinion.

that said, i myself didn't assume you were classic at all, i just implied you were a cunt for shitting on sweet just because it's not something you like and that you dressed like shit eitherway. my bad, that probably wasn't clear enough.

[Anonymous No.7857683]

>>7856665
>the length of a piece can make or break a coordinate
This. This so hard.

[Anonymous No.7857714]

I don't really know where to put this Q, but let's say I have a lolita dress but I wish to shorten it. i do not consider myself lolita, but I would style myself similarly in every other aspect of the coord , despite the skirt length. Would you still consider it lolita? Also, how to shorten?

[Anonymous No.7857716]

>>7857714
>Would you still consider it lolita?
nope.

[Anonymous No.7857767]

>>7857714
Depends on how short you want it to be.
If it's way above the knee, forget about it.

[Anonymous No.7857785]

>>7857714

There's no shortage of dresses from other fashion styles that copy lolita-style dresses, though. It doesn't make them any more lolita even if they get most of the stylings right but miss some of the really major points, such as length or poof.

Pic related. DreamV version of a bustle back OP.

[Anonymous No.7857788]

>>7857785

And this one is a morigirl version from Japanese morigirl store Favorite One.

It still doesn't look quite like lolita, the proportions, shapes and overall feeling is still more morigirl than lolita, imho

[Anonymous No.7857794]

>>7856591

No it's not? It's knee length on me.

[Anonymous No.7857807]

>>7857794
Same. It sounds like another case of taller girls getting miffed that they can't wear certain cute prints (remember that chick who threw a FIT on FB because Cosmic is so short?)

>I firmly believe that anyone and everyone can wear lolita fashion
>But people who act like it's not designed with petite Japanese girls in mind are delusional
>That's why a lot of dresses are "short" and why busts/waists only stretch so much

[Anonymous No.7857811]

>>7857807
>>7857794
I'm a pretty tall loli and it's not even that short on me, I think it's mostly chubsters complaining since the length shortens due to the amount of fabric the rest of their body uses up.

[Anonymous No.7857834]

>>7856394

[Anonymous No.7857838]

>>7857811

[Anonymous No.7857842]

>>7857716
>>7857767
>>7857785
Alright, good to know. I sort of figured as much, but it's good to have confirmation. Does anyone have a good tutorial for shortening skirts/dresses? I'll probably play around with some cheap bodyline or something.

[Anonymous No.7858092]

>>7856394
I know what to piss you off with then haha

[Anonymous No.7858125]

>>7857116
Thank you for bringing some goddamn sense into the discussion

[Anonymous No.7858317]

>>7858125
thank you

[Anonymous No.7858379]

>>7857842

You're buying a lolita dress specifically to shorten? With no particular aim in mind? That seems a bit pointless, it's not like you can't get lolita-style short dresses from Dreamv or Axes Femme, or even taobao stores, if that's all you want.

The easiest skirts to shorten are the ones that don't have a border print and have a plain hem. Fold the hem upwards as much as you want and re-hem it.

If there is a trim on the hem, eg- ruffles, lace, ric rac, you'll need to carefully remove it without damaging it so that you can sew it back on once you've shortened it. Hence why you need to be careful removing it, don't just rip it off.

If the skirt has a border print, the only way to shorten it is to undo the stitching at the waist, remove the excess length from the waist end of the skirt, then re-gather the whole skirt and re-sew it back.

If it's a more intricately constructed skirt, eg one of Baby's $1000 dresses, it's better if you leave it alone. There's no way to shorten it without losing a layer of ruffle or some other detail somewhere.

In short, much easier to just buy a short dress from the start. The gyaru ones are especially good, because they often take some of the poof out of the dress, so you don't look like you have a super fat ass (lolita skirts end at the knees so it's obvious that a good deal of it is poof. When you shorten it to thigh high or shorter, the poofiness can end up implying the skirt is poofy because your ass is big).

If you do want a super poofy super short skirt, you can get them from cmloli on taobao, their older skirts are mid thigh as they're a cos loli shop.

[Anonymous No.7858409]

>>7856961
I believe there are some very beautiful old school dresses especially those made of velveteen/velour. I also like a lot of old school Moitie due to the length and plain design. However I do agree lolita has definetly progresseed. I personally prefer early ap prints to most current prints though.

[Anonymous No.7858412]

>>7857811
How tall are you anon are we talking 5'5 or 5'9'?

[Anonymous No.7858420]

>>7858412
5'7 or so.

[Anonymous No.7858427]

>>7857785
>>7857788
>thinking a bustle back is copied from lolita
?????????

[Anonymous No.7858468]

>>7858379
Oh no, I have an aim in mind. Something like pic related. The patterns for lolita and colorways are more interesting to work with than patterns and colorways you'll find in gyaru or liz lisa. Which is why I'm particularly interested in shortening the lolita-type jsks or skirts. Thank you for the information . It's been noted and I appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.7858489]

>>7858468
So you want to make ageplay shit.

[Anonymous No.7858527]

>>7858489
No. I don't want sweet prints/patterns, even if I did want sweeter prints, what's the difference between that dress length and this gyaru dress from princess melody? Not a fan of the top of the dress in my last picture, which is why I figured I should aim for jsk and/or skirts. I'm also aiming for richer/darker colours. It's in no way related to lolita outside of the item itself, pre modifications.

[Anonymous No.7858533]

>>7858527
Uh, the first example you posted has a girl wearing something with an obvious lolita cut to it, but extremely short, exposing her garters (fetishy), she's wearing her hair in low pigtails (typical ageplay), and she's wearing a collar with a lock. It screams fetish/ageplay.

If you want dresses to mod, buy stuff off of Bodyline or Taobao.

[Anonymous No.7858593]

Pastel fucking disgusting bullshit with your age play ponies and your angelic mint fairy kei salami everyones throwing their sugary carnivals in the GARBAGE why don't you take a hint bitches fucking disgusting check out my instagram

[Anonymous No.7858610]

>>7858593
i love you

[Anonymous No.7858628]

>>7858533
Collars & garters are pretty prevalent in pastelbutt style tumblr fashion

[Anonymous No.7858633]

Salopettes and dream sky and so on are lolita if coorded a lolita way - you wear the same shoes, same blouses, same accessories. End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.7858639]

>>7858633
Salopettes are not because they don't look like lolita. Also, it seems you missed all the discussion ITT.

[Anonymous No.7858677]

>>7858639
what is with this "salopettes aren't lolita because they're not a dress" argument lately? it's only cropped up recently idgi

[Anonymous No.7858684]

>>7858677
It's been like that for years. Salopettes were originally made by AP starting during the fairykei phase and they sold well, so they started making them more often.

I don't consider them lolita the same way I don't consider APs cutsew dresses like pic related or mini skirts lolita.

[Anonymous No.7858739]

>>7858677
I've been interested in the fashion for about a year and I always thought salopettes were not lolita because of the silhouette.

>>7858633
The accessories don't make an outfit a certain style but rather the silhouette.
Salopettes, even if coordinated with the same accessories you'd use in Lolita, doesn't make them inherently Lolita, simply because it's an entirely different garment.

[Anonymous No.7858971]

>>7858427

Feel free to provide an example that predates lolita.

[Anonymous No.7859114]

>>7857476
So let me get this straight, you're showing up to lolita meetups and wearing things associated with lolita in a way that's just similar enough to a lolita coordinate for people to make the (frankly, logical) assumption that you're trying to wear lolita... and you're mad that people don't magically realize you're not trying to wear lolita even though you're dressed this way at a lolita meetup?

If you aren't intending to wear lolita then don't tag it as lolita. If I wear an item associated with Western goth but I don't wear it as part of a gothic coordinate, why would I tag it that way? This concept really isn't as complex as you're making it out to be.

[Anonymous No.7859125]

>>7857116
But those aren't cutsews, they are tees like pic related.

[Anonymous No.7859128]

>>7859125
Yeah I don't feel like these are lolita at all.

[Anonymous No.7859133]

>>7856868
>dat pic
It's so ageplay it hurts

[Anonymous No.7859135]

>>7858639
But they do? See ones like >>7856968 , not every salopette is a miniskirt dress.

[Anonymous No.7859139]

>>7856968
>>7859135
That one is still short, just because it vaguely looks longer, it only goes to mid thigh, they're generally 5 inches shorter or more than other items in the set.


Also, the silhouette isn't even sort of lolita.

[Anonymous No.7859145]

>>7857476
Congrats, you're a special snowflake.
See >>7857616.

[Anonymous No.7859147]

>>7856394

[Anonymous No.7859158]

>>7858971
Are you stupid? Bustle backs have existed for centuries,

[Anonymous No.7859172]

>>7859139
So according to you JSKs aren't lolitas
as well.

[Anonymous No.7859177]

>>7859172
Do you not know how to read? The salopette of the same series will be 5+ inches shorter than the JSK, and go up to mid thigh while the JSK is at proper length. This shit isn't lolita.

[Anonymous No.7859188]

>>7859177
It is so short, it even goes to the knees at the models, not everybody here is a fat american.

[Anonymous No.7859196]

>>7859188
No anon, I don't think you get what the other anon is saying. Salopettes are generally made shorter than JSKs. There is no way they'd be the same length as the JSK if they are cut shorter.

[Anonymous No.7859197]

>>7858468
Is that Kota? She did that a couple of times. It looked cute on her.

>>7857116
>baggy normalfag t-shirt isn't ok
I know, not lolita, but Mila makes it look super cute. That's such a cute outfit for everyday wear.

[Anonymous No.7859208]

>>7859196
But that doesn't mean that they are miniskirts and therefore not lolita at everyone.

[Anonymous No.7859212]

>>7859197
you think that's cute wow.

[Anonymous No.7859218]

>>7859208
This still doesn't look like lolita.

[Anonymous No.7859221]

>>7859197
It's not Kota, it's that creepy girl that wants to live in her skin.
Pic related.

[Anonymous No.7859223]

>>7859221
high-waist shorts make everyone lose.

[Anonymous No.7859234]

>>7859212
What? She looks good.
You either have something against her?

[Sage No.7859235]

>>7859221
Fuck, anon, that'll give me nightmares. Those bruises... wtf

[Anonymous No.7859237]

>>7856691
>that wig
I'm in love

[Anonymous No.7859240]

>>7859234
Nah, I just don't like 80s style shit.

[Anonymous No.7859259]

>>7856394
You posted a JSK not a salopette, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.7859262]

>>7859259
Anon, she means the cut of JSKs like dream sky and dreamy horoscope, not that they are salopettes. If you look, dream sky and misty sky are cut differently than other jsks.

[Anonymous No.7859264]

>>7856616
There is a White JSK on lacemarket.

[Anonymous No.7859271]

>>7856394
>lolita brands make jumperskirts in these cuts and call it lolita
>western girls say it isn't lolita, evidence being... it's their feels and they disagree with the brands that fucking created it in the first place

Oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhkkkaaaaaaaaaay.

Also protip: Lolita brands have said themselves salopettes aren't lolita fashion, just inspired by it but more casual. Maybe try lurking more than 2 weeks after getting into the fashion before complaining on /cgl mmm?

[Anonymous No.7859293]

>ITT exclusive fashion trying to make itself more exclusive

What even.

It is hilarious how people are arguing that lolita pieces are not lolita. Are we really doing this? This coord >>7859208 is fucking lolita, even if salopettes don't fit the completely traditional lolita silhouette. What the hell else is it? Are we really going to start going THIS ISN'T LOLITA!!!!!!!!!111 If a girl went to a lolita meetup wearing this would she be kicked out for not wearing lolita?

Way to go /cgl you have reached a whole new level of batshit. I guess there are two categories of lolita fashion now: lolita and anal-lolita.

[Anonymous No.7859294]

>>7859271
>I didn't read the thread!

[Anonymous No.7859296]

>>7859293
Even AP has said shit like salopettes aren't actually lolita.

[Anonymous No.7859438]

>>7858739
A fashion style isn't purely based on its silhouette. I don't see why lolita is only confined to one silhouette when no other fashion is. If it's coordinated like a lolita, feels lolita, it's lolita.

[Anonymous No.7859472]

>>7859125
I need this cutsew in my life!

[Anonymous No.7859490]

>>7859438
I bet you're an ita

[Anonymous No.7859518]

>>7856678
Because salopettes came along long after casual lolita had an already established definition. People are REALLY REALLY reluctant to change ANY substyle definitions, even when it's probably warranted.

[Anonymous No.7859528]

>>785929
The same brand that also said parcifers and rattles are lolita.

[Anonymous No.7859531]

>>7859528
*pacifiers, derp

[Anonymous No.7859538]

>>7859296
>>7859528
As reminder.

[Anonymous No.7859558]

So this is suddenly not lolita either?
Like I give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.7859566]

>>7856918
All of this. Why does every single outfit need a name? Are you really all that autistic? Most fashionistas and bloggers etc usually just say "oh, today I was inspired by JCrew" or "today I went for a punk-inspired prep look" they don't try to make up their own styles and shoehorn random things in because nobody gives a fuck. It's literally the least important thing.

[Anonymous No.7859572]

>>7857476
Just fucking tag it, seriously who the fuck cares? What's going to happen if you tag a tumblr post wrong? It's not like /cgl/ is going to come to your house and burn down your wardrobe and take your computer away, holy shit.

Also, you sound like a massive fucking snowflake who dresses like shit. And of course it's all the lolitas in the world fault for being mean and not "getting" your wonderfully unique style, it couldn't possibly be because you're just a poorly dressed pretentious douchebag.

[Anonymous No.7859626]

>>7859438
>I don't see why lolita is only confined to one silhouette when no other fashion is.
Because unlike other fashions, lolita has a set of rules it has to follow.
An accessory or a blouse doesn't make an outfit lolita. Besides, the fashion takes elements from the Victorian era, where do you find any of that in a salopette?

[Anonymous No.7859631]

>>7859293
Don't be so dramatic.

[Anonymous No.7859638]

>>7859197
That doesn't look cute and I don't even know her.

[Anonymous No.7859641]

>>7859626
And where do you find JSKs in victorian era fashion. Bingo, nowhere.

[Anonymous No.7859649]

>>7859438
Plenty of fashions have their hard rules, even if it's not based in silhouette, and if you break them, it's likely that it's going to look a bit off for that style. Lolita just happens to have a rule about silhouette.

[Anonymous No.7859657]

>>7859626
But hardly anything released by brands these days is derived from the Victorian era...Or at least sweet lolita isn't.

[Anonymous No.7859662]

>>7859626
Of course a singular accessory or blouse does not make a lolita outfit. But if you're wearing a salopette, a head accessory, jewelry, blouse, leg wear and shoes, all of which are lolita themed, how is it not lolita? It's not like wearing a JSK by itself somehow makes an outfit lolita, it's about how it's coordinated as I keep saying.

[Anonymous No.7859670]

>>7859558
iluv u
peple just need something to whine about

[Anonymous No.7859676]

>>7859649
Yeah but it doesn't have a rule about what exact silhouette an outfit should have since it even varies depending if you wear a cupcake or a-line petticoat, don't even get me started on the billion kinds of skirt shapes.

[Anonymous No.7859686]

>>7859662
You're right, one singular item does not make an outfit lolita. But one singular item can definitely make an outfit NOT lolita.
I can wear a lolita-appropriate blouse, legwear, head accessory, jewelry, and shoes with a pencil skirt and guess what? It's not going to be a lolita outfit because the silhouette is absolutely vital to defining this fashion.

Why do people have such a big problem with that? It's not like lolita has these rules because it's a big mean bully that likes to exclude people even though you're wearing brand head-to-toe or you can't afford brand or whatever other excuse you can come up with to try and break the rules...the rules that define it are what make this fashion so unique and attractive and for some reason people just realy want to muddy up the community with outfits that straight up don't work within these guidelines.

[Anonymous No.7859693]

>>7859626
Lolita takes very few inspirations from Victorian Era. Victorian Era inspired brands like Excentrique and Atelier Boz are more EGA than lolita. Lolita is ruffly and frivolous. Victorian era was very sombre. Lolita takes inspiration from Rococo and Baroque times. Recently I have seen some Regency inspired pieces as well. A lot of the silhouette of lolita comes from 50's fashion. Sweet lolita is inspired a lot by fairy kei, which was based on 80's fashion. Salopettes and overalls were popular in the 80's, which is where it comes from. So it takes inspiration from tons of different styles. Victorian is one of the lesser ones.

[Anonymous No.7859706]

>>7859676
Maybe because lolita isn't every other fucking fashion, nitwit. That's like fucking complaining that goths can't wear pastel pink and bows because "no OTHER fashion has a rule about pale pink and bows!" are you serious? wow just get out.

[Anonymous No.7859717]

>>7859706
You were the one claiming lolita got a rule based on the exact shillouette of dresses which it doesn't, not me.

[Anonymous No.7859721]

>>7857476

>wearing lolita in historical ways
>backpeddling and saying it comes off as old school
>backpeddling some more and going back to "I dress historically but with lolita without a petti"

Have the historical societies shunned you yet, out of curiosity?

[Anonymous No.7859731]

>>7859676
Almost all the skirt "shapes" on that image aren't even shapes. Pleated or bustled is not a skirt shape.

[Anonymous No.7859733]

>>7859717
Just fucking stop. You're not just wrong, you're stupid. Please lurk harder until you get over it.

[Anonymous No.7859748]

>>7859733
The newfag is strong in this one.

[Anonymous No.7859749]

>>7859686
The salopettes that brands release are still far more lolita in style than a pencil skirt though, it's got the right aesthetic. They don't even look like your typical normalfag salopette. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I don't even wear salopettes, I just think they still fit in with the current lolita aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.7859765]

>>7859748
Is that the first 4chan insult you learned and now want to use it all the time?

[Anonymous No.7859771]

>>7859686
Pencil skirts would look like shit with any of those options. Salopettes are loliable depending on how they are worn. So are cut sews.

[Anonymous No.7859992]

>>7859158

The specific "bustle back" I posted is a misnomed form consisting of tiers of lace instead of a true bustle back.

Can you provide actual examples or just insults?

[Anonymous No.7860178]

>>7859631
Shut up OP.

[Anonymous No.7860192]

>>7859717
I wasn't claiming anything because not every anon on cgl is the same person, newfag.

[Anonymous No.7860206]

Holy shit, since when are cutsews not lolita?!

[Anonymous No.7860212]

>>7860206
No one said that, but plain t-shirts that brands make aren't cutsews and they're not lolita.

[Anonymous No.7860217]

>>7860212
So the AP cutsew with the strawberry....that's a t-shirt and not lolita?

In my day it would have definitely been considered a cutsew, not a t-shirt.

[Anonymous No.7860223]

>>7860212
>>7860206
>>7860217
What are you talking about, brand tshirts are casual lolita and have always been. Literally, the ONE picture from ages ago everybody uses to illustrate casual lolita is a tshirt, not a cutsew.

[Anonymous No.7860227]

>>7860223
I'm talking about the AP cutsew in this thread. I'm not even going to link it, scroll up.

[Anonymous No.7860258]

>>7860227
But it's not a cutsew, it's a tee and if you consider this a cutsew, every slim fit tee by American Apparel must be one too.

[Anonymous No.7860262]

>>7860192
Then why do you answer things directed at certain anons like if you were them?

[Anonymous No.7860265]

>>7860262
What is a cutsew? Apparently what was considered cutsews when I started are not considered cutsews anymore. When did this change?

[Anonymous No.7860269]

>>7860265
Ugh I linked wrong.

>>7860258

[Anonymous No.7860271]

>>7860227
Please learn what a cutsew is first before throwing around with that term, thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutsew

[Anonymous No.7860285]

>>7860271
They aren't always made like blouses. A cutsew is just a t shirt with fancy details, they aren't only a lolita thing. Other j fashions have them as well. Westerners just call them shirts.
I personally think that a cute t shirt can fit well with a skirt in lolita. It really depends on the specific coord though.

[Anonymous No.7860316]

>>7860271
The Wikipedia is the same thing as what I thought. Apparently the definition hasn't changed, just /cgl/?.

[Anonymous No.7860323]

>>7860262
This isn't your private facebook chat, if you are being an idiot other people are going to call you out on it. Not just whoever you think you're talking to. Why are you so new?

[Anonymous No.7860329]

>>7860316
>>7860271
What are you talking about?
T-shirt = a t-shirt like the strawberry ap one. It's a simple cut with a design on it, or not.
Cutsew = a shirt that's embellished with lace, ruffles, princess sleeves, etc.
Cutsews have always been lolita and t-shirts have never been, except maybe casual.
I don't know if someone is claiming cutsews aren't lolita but if so they are wrong, not all of cgl and not the definition itself.
Really don't see what the problem is here

[Anonymous No.7860336]

>>7859693
"very sombre" Okay.

[Anonymous No.7860343]

>>7860323
>implying everyone responding is the same anon too
Oh you, talking about being new.

[Anonymous No.7860378]

>>7859717
Actually, I was the one stating that, not anyone who already replied to you, and I do still maintain that even if the silhouette is slightly altered in the styles in your chart, it isn't wildly, certainly not the same look as a too-short skirt or a salopette.

[Anonymous No.7860495]

>>7859641
>takes elements
do you even read?

[Anonymous No.7860625]

>>7859676
This is actually really informative. Thanks, anon!