'>>10897307
>Do you wear classic lolita? If not, are you planning to? If yes, do you wear other substyles?

I wear classic almost exclusively these days.

>Did you start out lolita by wearing classic?

No, but mostly due to lack of availability.

>What drawn you to classic lolita?

The mature vibe. Sweet makes me feel like an ageplayer, gothic makes me feel like an edgy teen again.

>What are your thoughts about OTT classic? (pic related) Do you think it will get trendy again?

I like it, but I think it's probably dead. These days classic releases are more understated than ever, and it's very difficult to get older OTT classic pieces secondhand, especially accessories.

>Are you a daily lolita and/or a lifestyler?

I wear daily, but I don't know if I would qualify as a "lifestyler" or what that entails.

>What is your favourite brand for classic lolita?

Mary Magdalene

>What do you think about sweetfags?

Beyond vague annoyance about getting OTT sweet concrit on old school classic coords, I don't really think about them at all.
>Would you enjoy classic only lolita spaces?

I have some private ones, they're all fantastic. Most public classic spaces wind up flooded with sweets who think florals and solids are classic by default.';

'I'll start by replying myself


>Do you wear classic lolita? If not, are you planning to? If yes, do you wear other substyles?
Yes I do occasionally, but I mostly wear classic-sweet. I wear classic mostly casually for toned down coords.

>Did you start out lolita by wearing classic?
Mary Magdalene is the brand that made me want to start lolita, but the sizing wasn't for me. I was an APfag for years, now that their classic-sweet era is over I'm wearing more Meta and IW.

>What drawn you to classic lolita?
It's easier to wear daily and more elegant. Sweet prints feel too OTT and a bit costumey sometimes. I also enjoy tea-lenght dresses.

>What are your thoughts about OTT classic? (pic related) Do you think it will get trendy again?
I love it on Marlessa or other russian lolitas... I can't pull it off sadly. I don't want it to come back into fashion because if it does, it will be taobao princess lacemonster costumes, considering the state of the (western) lolita community.

>Are you a daily lolita and/or a lifestyler?
I wear lolita almost everytime when I go out, but I work from home so it's not everyday. I also find lifestylers weird.

>What is your favourite brand for classic lolita?
IW! I love their recent releases but I always miss them lol. I found nice dresses from them for cheap secondhand but it's not the same style.

>What do you think about sweetfags?
I don't understand why OTT sweet attracts so much loud annoying gendies. Probably the childish vibe? I'm probably biased because I don't wear this style at all, and only wear regular sweet.

>Would you enjoy classic only lolita spaces?
I wear several substyles so I don't really care honestly.';

'>>10897307
I’d argue that none of the cords in this picture are really classic Lolita…';

'>Do you wear classic lolita? If not, are you planning to? If yes, do you wear other substyles?

I wear old school sweet as my main style. I have 1 gothic lolita main piece and 2 classic main pieces. I really love old school classic (and some more modern classic) but for practicality sake I choose to focus on old school sweet for the time being. When my old school sweet wardrobe is where I want it to be I'm considering branching out more and getting more classic into my wardrobe.

>Did you start out lolita by wearing classic?

No.

>What drew you to classic lolita?

It has its own charm. I like the different color palette, the more structured tailored look of some pieces, the elegance, the way it reminds me of certain historical fashion elements. Back in the day I started out really appreciating the aesthetics of btssb, VM and IW, but ended up only buying btssb for a long time.

>What are your thoughts about OTT classic? (pic related) Do you think it will get trendy again?

I never cared for it. But if it would come back again I wouldn't mind, as long as it means seeing less nu-sweet.

>Are you a daily lolita and/or a lifestyler?

I have been a daily lolita in the past (way before covid), but right now my wardrobe isn't at the level where I would want to be a daily lolita again. There are also practical considerations.

>What is your favourite brand for classic lolita?

VM and IW, don't tell me to choose.

>What do you think about sweetfags?

Any sweet other than old school sweet is the wrong kind of sweet imo. Most of the 2010s sweet enjoyers are nice enough to be around, but nu-sweets (especially beginners, and people who enjoy chinese nu sweet pieces) are not my kind of people.

>Would you enjoy classic only lolita spaces?

I think these should exist if people want them to be there, and should not have to include room within these spaces for other substyles. If I have more classic in my wardrobe I would very much enjoy classic only spaces.';

'>Do you wear classic lolita? If not, are you planning to? If yes, do you wear other substyles?
I wear classic and gothic.

>Did you start out lolita by wearing classic?
No, gothic.

>What drawn you to classic lolita?
I like the historical aspect to it and how simple it is compared to the other styles. I also really love the super tailored dresses of old VM and MM, I think they're super elegant and flattering.

>What are your thoughts about OTT classic? (pic related) Do you think it will get trendy again?
I don't mind the more historical looking OTT classic, but I don't like most of it. A lot of it feels like what sweet lolitas think is classic, and a lot of it is just sweet in darker colours. It lacks the elegance that more "true" classic has and is kinda ugly to me.

>Are you a daily lolita and/or a lifestyler?
No. I try to wear lolita once or twice a week.

>What is your favourite brand for classic lolita?
Mary Magdalene.

>What do you think about sweetfags?
They're fine. A lot of my friends are sweetfags. Even if it's not what I personally wear I do still have an appreciation for it and I try to keep up with some new releases and print names so I can talk to them about their fashion. Most of my friends are more experienced in lolita so they generally don't do this, but it annoys me when sweet newbies in online spaces try to apply OTT sweet rules and conventions to other styles. No I don't want to put some giant thing on my head, I want to look elegant.

It makes me a bit sad how much a lot of online spaces and content are really sweet specific, but my comm has a pretty even mix of all the styles so it doesn't bother me too much. It's more likely that sweet being more eye catching does better with social media algorithms and also that sweet lolitas are generally more social media types whereas gothic and classic lolitas seem to be more private.

>Would you enjoy classic only lolita spaces?
For sales purposes yes. Otherwise I don't really care.';

'>>10897307
>What do you think about sweetfags?
No shade to anyone participating in classic lolita, but is this really necessary? Stop beating a dead horse. Trying to bring other threads drama into new threads never ends well.';

'>Do you wear classic lolita? If not, are you planning to? If yes, do you wear other substyles?
Yes, it's my main style. I also like some old school sweet but it's not my priority.
>Did you start out lolita by wearing classic?
Yes, actually. Then I left for modern AP and came back around eventually.
>What draws you to classic lolita?
I was a weeb in my childhood and always associated lolita fashion in anime and manga with either gothic lolita or something close to classic. I love the antique, mature styling and motifs!
>What are your thoughts about OTT classic? (pic related) Do you think it will get trendy again?
I am way more into simple classic coordinates. I wouldn't wear OTT, but if it got popular again, I wouldn't be upset or anything. It just isn't my style. It's a bit nostalgic, though, for sure.
>Are you a daily lolita and/or a lifestyler?
Nah. I wear it when I can. Some of my items I wear daily (IW's plain collared OPs, for instance), but I prefer to wear other j-fashion in my normie life.
>What is your favourite brand for classic lolita?
Innocent Word all the way.
>What do you think about sweetfags?
They're fine.
>Would you enjoy classic only lolita spaces?
I don't care. There isn't much to talk about anyway, unless we get another MM reservation...';

'>Do you wear classic lolita? If not, are you planning to? If yes, do you wear other substyles?
Mainly classic but I own a couple of sweet pieces.
>Did you start out lolita by wearing classic?
Started with sweet
>What drawn you to classic lolita?
Mainly necessity. I'm 4'9 and IW was the first brand I bought that I didn't have to alter. I'm also really into sewing, knitting and vintage shopping and classic just lends itself better to DIY/thrifted pieces. On top of that, I just prefer the way I'm treated when I'm wearing classic, y'know?
>What are your thoughts about OTT classic? (pic related) Do you think it will get trendy again?
It's a bit costumey for my tastes but it looks fun for Halloween or conventions.
>Are you a daily lolita and/or a lifestyler?
I don't leave the house much but I usually dress up when I do.
>What is your favourite brand for classic lolita?
MM but I don't own any
>What do you think about sweetfags?
All lolitas have potential to be cool or completely retarded
>Would you enjoy classic only lolita spaces?
Eh. It's not something I'd seek out specifically.';

'>>10897307
>I think it's time to give classic lolita a thread of its own.
Newfag. At least search the archives and link the last Classic lolita general.';

'>>10897307
I'm a guy so I can't wear Lolita outfit but ever since I was a teenager I found girls in lolita style super cute in a stylish way.
I wish it was more popular. Then again, it normified would be against what it stand.';

'>>10897307
>Do you wear classic lolita? If not, are you planning to? If yes, do you wear other substyles?
Yes, I wear classic, gothic and sweet equally.
>Did you start out lolita by wearing classic?
No, I started out with gothic.
>What drawn you to classic lolita?
I just like how it looks.
>What are your thoughts about OTT classic? (pic related) Do you think it will get trendy again?
I don't really care about OTT classic as it isn't something I'd wear myself.
>Are you a daily lolita and/or a lifestyler?
I used to be a daily lolita but not anymore because I have to wear a uniform at work. I still consider myself a lifestyler though.
>What is your favourite brand for classic lolita?
Nowadays I'd say Innocent World because it's the only classic brand from which I like most new releases. I also like Juliette et Justine, Mary Magdalene and Victorian Maiden a lot but I'm not fond of the latest releases of the later.
>What do you think about sweetfags?
I don't interact with other lolitas apart from here so I don't really have an opinion on them.
>Would you enjoy classic only lolita spaces?
As I said above, I don't interact with other lolitas apart from here - I'm not a part of any lolita community be it IRL or online and I'm not on social medias either so I also don't care about classic only lolita spaces.';

'>>10897379
This. Ironically it lends itself perfectly to the stereotype people have about classic Lolita’s being pretty stuck up overall. Most of the classic Lolita’s I know started out sweet, and still wear it occasionally. One girl in my comm is super snobby about sweet like we don’t all remember that her first meet she was wearing sweet, and an ita TB mess at that.

It’s funny how quickly people forget how they dressed just a few years ago…';

'>>10897515
i think it proves a point that every actual reply answered the question with neutrality or positive views. if the worst thing anyone has to say is "don't give us OTT sweet advice" we can't be that snobby';

'>>10897515
Ayrt and I’m the anon that has created the sweet threads recently. And I hate people on here trying to blame everything on sweet lolitas, makes me wonder what gets people so butthurt about girls wanting to wear ice creams on their head.';

'>>10897545
This. Most of us are in comms with sweet lolitas that we consider friends, or wear a variety of styles ourselves. And even if we aren't into sweet aesthetically what reason is there to have beef with sweet lolitas as a whole outside of baseless, delusional drama? It only makes sense to act that way if you're a stuck up snob who has never spoken to another lolita outside of 4chan.';

'>>10897559
I don’t care about them but I just think it’s kinda ugly and wish sweet brands still made more old school sweet designs instead';

'>>10897564
exactly. i respect my sweet comm members, i just feel too old for it myself. lots of classics i know started as sweets and aged into classic. it can be annoying when everything is geared towards sweets by default, but that's mainly because it's just more popular. i'm sure if classic or gothic was the main style sweets would be in a similar position.';

'>>10897307
there's only one classic lolita in your pic, newfag.';

'>>10897860
>doesn't recognise JetJ
>calling anon a newfag';

'>>10897559
modern sweet looks really bad especially when you see them irl i'm sorry';

'>>10897874
I don’t get why modern sweet is the most popular style when literally every other variant of lolita looks so much better';

'>>10897924
there's a subset of millennials and zoomers have this dysfunctional "nostalgia" for the platonic ideal of childhood and modern sweet falls very neatly into the "pastel kidcore magical girl fairy" aesthetic they gravitate towards because it fuels their peter pan syndrome. you used to see them a lot back in the day, too, but they were usually sheltered wannabe momoko teenagers with rich parents and a reason to be immature and it isn't as big of an eyesore on younger girls.

these days it's women 30+ that are either ageplaying (or "sfw age regression" kek) or delusional. most of them are also poor/cheap and only buy the cheapest trash or shoehorn fairy kei/decora into the coord. i don't think lolita has an age limit, nor do i think ALL sweets are like this, but i do think there are certain substyles that make you look like picrel after a certain point, and modern sweet unfortunately attracts the most perverts out of any substyle. i'm sure attention seeking is also a factor since sweet is the flashiest style, but i don't have unlimited text to get into that.

classics skew older IME, and seems to be less appealing to perverts and less attention grabbing, so it kind of flies under the radar for anyone getting into lolita for sketchy reasons. which makes sweet look more "popular" by comparison.

i wonder how popular sweet would really be if you filtered out all the perverts and attention chasers?';

'>>10897927
Sweet lolitas aren't age players, wtf dude

Also your pic dropped';

'>>10897969
i explicitly said i don't think all sweets are like that, just that it happens to catch all the creepiest people in the hobby, which makes it look more popular than it would if you only counted actual dedicated lolitas. pic was how do you do fellow kids.';

'>>10897927
Thank you for proving my point that this question would start up drama, it’s actually disturbing that people that are educated in lolita think this way.';

'>>10897927
I think what you’re talking about is something that actually irritates the shit out of actual sweet Lolitas. These weird shoehorned pastel fairy kei “throw everything in with the kitchen sink” kind of coords aren’t actually sweet Lolita at all. Most of the coords described in criticism of sweet Lolita are really just one vaguely sweet dress with a crap ton of random other things, no proper shoes, and accessories from Claire’s. It’s not an accurate of the entire genre just because we attract the highest percentage of people who can’t dress themselves. That would be like cherry picking F+F fail coords and saying classic looks like shit.';

'>>10898047
AYRT: yes, exactly! sorry if my phrasing didn't make it clear, but i was trying to say that sweets popularity just seems hyper inflated because it ends up catching the most creeps, mentally ill, and other undesirables, making it hard to gauge how many real sweet lolitas actually exist, not that i think all sweet lolitas are freaks. the weirdo ratio makes the substyle seem both overpopular and disproportionately weird. i've even heard of longtime sweets switching substyles because they no longer feel safe in sweet centric communities.

it's not the first time this has happened to a hyperfeminine hobby or fashion, either.';

'First time I've ever been desperate for a taobao dress....';

'>>10898062
OT did you post this in your comm's discord? Because the same user has been reposting on other sites too. (tryna make friends, not snitch btw)';

'>>10898068
>did you post this in your comm's discord?
Yes :)';

'>>10897872
NTA but it's styled in a gothic way. it's not strictly classic.';

'>>10898062
what is that neckline? gold rickrack?';

'So what is classic lolita? Does anyone have guidelines about what defines the style?';

'>>10898082
Looks more beige to me.';

'>>10897307
I am so happy this era of lolita is over. The hat on the left needs a Viking funeral. Middle wore so many underskirts she made JetJ frumpy. And I can see Ms. Captain Hook's toes.';

'>>10898055
The same is true of ouji these days. The last defense of the genre is the fact that there’s still basically no plus size ouji options, but rest assured the moment taobao catches on to the market for xxxl ouji it’s gonna be just as bad as sweet. In some ways it’s already started to happen.';

'>>10898081
it's almost identical to the classic coord it's next to, just in a different colourway. nothing about that coord is gothic and actual gothic lolitas would laugh at you for saying so. not every black coord is gothic.';

'>>10898099
It actually reads more gothic to me as someone who wears both. You sound a bit new for thinking lolitas only wear one substyle. In fact, that sentiment across the entire thread sounds new, styles aren't as segregated as anyone ITT seems to think.';

'>>10898097
Nayrt, but I hate ouji these days. I merely tolerated it before the advent of sweet ouji. The fact that there are very few (or none at all) plus sized options for ouji hasn't deterred anyone from trying to wear it anyway. There are always people who try ouji by getting ill-fitting formal wear from the thrift store.';

'>>10898153
Sweet ouji isn’t a thing and people not realizing that drives me nuts. Even stuff that I don’t think looks objectively bad, which are few and far between, still isn’t what I’d call “ouji”. Ouji isn’t inherently gothic either, which makes the distinction “sweet ouji” a bit strange, and basically it turns into a hall pass for avoiding any concrit of the fact that so called sweet ouji coords don’t feature any of the hall marks of ouji aesthetic beyond having two leg holes. I think sweet ouji is even worse for the whole thrifted look issue, because at least an attempt at darker color palettes tends to be less tacky and somewhat color coordinated. If I see another repurposed cheap pink prom vest repurposed and called sweet ouji …';

'>>10898147
Nayrt but classic exists in darker colors lol. The overall motif and themes are classic leaning.';

'>>10898156
Ayrt and I used the term because everyone knows what it means, including you.';

'>>10898174
correct. a good litmus test: imagine the coord in white/ivory. do you still think it's gothic? if not, it's probably not gothic. motifs are way more important than color when distinguishing gothic vs classic.';

'>>10898062
Which brand is this?

What are your thoughts on the japanese indie brand Dreaming Drop (pic related)? Have you ever seen it worn? Is it good?';

'>>10898599
>Which brand is this?
Mukumuro
>What are your thoughts on the japanese indie brand Dreaming Drop
Never heard of them actually!';

'>>10898752
They make all kinds of cute realeases!';

'>>10898178
so are moitie florals like picrel technically classic?';

'>>10899093
They could be. Substyles are about styling more than what brand created the main piece, though it’s important too. Some pieces meant for sweet or gothic can be styled classic if they’re neutral enough';

'I've been saving this ita until right now';

'>>10899489
Saving for what';

'>>10899104
this goes the other way too. styling is everything and the OP that thinks the jetj coord is more goth is totally right. the accessories lean more goth but the shoes are sweet. it's a shit coord. all the OP pic coords are shit though. this entire thread is low quality as fuck though.';

'>>10899545
>shoes are sweet

since when are plain patent maryjanes sweet-only?

this whole thread is full of larpers.';

'>>10899578
they have a bow right at the front. get some glasses and look again.';

'>>10899630
>>10899578
they also have a bow on the ankle strap if you zoom in, you can see it. fucking newfag.';

'>>10899631
>>10899630
no bows allowed in classic, you heard it here first, ladies';

'>>10899636
never';

'>>10899578
It looks like it has a heart buckle';

'>>10899638
>>10899636
you keep moving goalposts. the coord is shit, all 3 OP coods are shit. the thread itself is shit.';

'>>10899651
that anon wasn't even me (original shoe anon). bows are extremely common in classic shoes, almost every IW shoe ever has them. every MM shoe has them.

>>10899641
try again, IW has repeatedly used subtle heart motifs in their shoes.

you can just admit you were wrong and don't know what you're talking about, you know. this larping is why classic is half dead.';

'>>10899655
IW also makes a lot of sweet leaning pieces that aren't appropriate for gothic leaning classic coords';

'>>10899659
still not seeing any justification for "gothic leaning" beyond color of the dress. the styling doesn't contain a single motif that is distinctly gothic.';

'>>10899682
it's certainly not even slightly sweet except for those shoes';

'>>10899687
it's almost like classic is a separate substyle and not just a blanket term for coords that aren't gothic or sweet.';

'>>10899703
It's almost like you can't just mindlessly put any "classic" items together and automatically look cohesive';

'>>10899712
never said the coord was good, just that it is neither sweet nor "styled gothic"';

'>>10899712
i feel like no one ever talks about this, but that's why i feel coordinates that stick to 95% one brand are usually the best. it doesn't make you uncreative or boring, either. brands have a specific vibe and style, and you'll look more cohesive if you stick to it.';

'>>10899687
>>10899682
It does look gothic more than classic because of the color scheme and the amount and types of accessories like another anon said. It doesn't have any elegance and just looks cluttered.';

'>>10899822
Gothic is supposed to be elegant too. It just looks like a mess';

'>>10899822
there is nothing specifically gothic about the accessories, all the accessories simply have a plain or floral motif, and the colorway isn't enough to change that.

floral hat, plain necklace, plain chunky ring. all likely handmade regretsy stuff. i agree it lacks elegance and cohesion, but that doesn't make it gothic. it's firmly attempting to be OTT classic. it honestly probably would've looked better if it had been "styled gothic", because as it stands a lack of theme in OTT coords just looks overdone and costumey.';

'>>10899841
The big hat with the netting and covering one eye feels vaguely funereal to me, but I agree it's not really landing on any solid theme';

'>>10899841
This, anyone arguing the coord is gothic is clearly a newfag who wasn't around for the OTT classic trend.';

'>>10899845
OTT classic was a mistake and I'm glad it's dead';

'>>10899845
those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. out of respect for our gothic counterparts, we gotta nip this shit in the bud. gothic newfags are bad enough at identifying what substyle an item is supposed to be as it is without being told blatant OTT classic/literally anything black is "gothic". the blind are leading the blind around here.';

'>>10899846
agree. classic is meant to be understated. even when OTT classic looks "good", it looks too much like a costume/cosplay to me. a lot of chinese lolita also falls into this category for me, and china seems to be the only place OTT classic is still alive.';

'>>10899828
I think that's really the issue. It looks like a fucking mess. I can definitely see why people say it looks gothic, but blatantly defending it as classic when it looks awful is kind of missing the point. Crappy accessories and like >>10899844 said, make it lean gothic, but it's not a good coord regardless. None of the OP coords are very nice, but trying to defend it so hard either way is embarrassing.';

'Apologies for maleposting in a Lolita thread, but I'm curious, how would classic wearers feel about pairing with a guy who's into dressy historical Western stuff similar to the Tombstone pic here? That's my thing and it occurred to me recently that it and Classic Lolita actually have pretty similar roots (both idealized versions of clothing from the same era) and could actually go pretty well together.
Fwiw I used to date a girl who wore classic and classic-adjacent stuff (the more subtle end of Sweet, particularly some AAtP stuff) and I'm a big fan of the aesthetic, and I always wanted to dress up with her but never came up with something I thought suited me until this. Not sure I'll ever get the chance to date another classic enjoyer but it's kinda nice having the idea in my back pocket.';

'Hope you gulls like Rococo Bouquet.

VM - Toile de Rococo Bouquet Series
2 JSK cuts, 2 OP cuts, 1 bolero, 1 printed headdress and 1 straw bonnet
3 colourways: burgundy, blue and black

Reservations close midnight, 31st Jan 2024
>https://www.victorianmaiden.com/collections/toile';

'>>10900837

>how would classic wearers feel about pairing with a guy who's into dressy historical Western stuff similar to the Tombstone pic here?
your style would look neat paired with classic.';

'>>10900837
i actually wouldn't mind this at all, it's miles better than the half assed ouji men wear these days.';

'Classic really feels different from the other substyles. But I guess that's what makes it a substyle';

'>>10901192
Unacceptable sleeve length VM.';

'>>10905318
it's more mature and understated, so it's more popular with older lolitas';

'>>10898062
Anon you could make this. This is just a dress. Like, it's beautiful, but it's really just as dress as it gets';

'bango';

'>>10897307
>Do you wear classic lolita? If not, are you planning to? If yes, do you wear other substyles?
I love classic, but a part of me wishes I had started out gothic. I still might expand to gothic but I plan to keep it understated either way.

>Did you start out lolita by wearing classic?
I started out with sweet-classic but I often toned down my coords to be closer to the casual old-school looks.

>What drawn you to classic lolita?
I love historical clothing and it was exciting to wear cute clothing with similar elements to the Rococo period.

>What are your thoughts about OTT classic? Do you think it will get trendy again?
I was never onboard with the OTT style. I think OTT can be fun for holidays so I don't think something like that can go "out of style", but I personally think it's crucial to differentiate it from EGL as a lifestyle. I always thought it was silly that some people would dress up in OTT, wearing large wigs and theatrical props while lecturing to strangers on the street that it was a "real" fashion and not a costume.

>Are you a daily lolita and/or a lifestyler?
I'm not a daily lolita anymore but I still consider myself a lifestyler. I've applied some of my taste onto non-lolita clothing as well.

>What is your favourite brand for classic lolita?
IW

>What do you think about sweetfags?
I love my sweet sisters so this is not an attack on the educated ones, but it is particularly the beginners that have warped the style into something that I no longer consider lolita. Someone ITT mentioned nu-sweet, I'm calling it that from now on... it looks very jarring next to the other substyles and, despite it appearing very playful, ironically needs to follow a staggering amount of unspoken rules in order for the concepts to translate irl without looking too gauche or sketchy.

>Would you enjoy classic only lolita spaces?
Probably. (No hate to sweet, but it has become an unrelatable style unless it's old-school.)';

'>>10900837
I think this would be so cute for a couple, it totally works. I hope you find another classic gal!';

'>>10908618
your attached pic is really cute but it's not classic at all.';

'>>10908618
>I always thought it was silly that some people would dress up in OTT, wearing large wigs and theatrical props while lecturing to strangers on the street that it was a "real" fashion and not a costume.

I've never thought about this but you're right it's ridiculous. nobody carrying a septor around is wearing street fashion. I wear a full coord almost daily and I think it's very manageable because it's just all the basic elements without the wig and nonsense';

'>>10909925
I don't dress OTT, but in their defense fashion can be wild, dramatic and elaborate and still be fashion. It doesn't automatically become a costume when it passes some point on the weirdness scale.

But I agree it's ridiculous to expect that the general public knows the difference between really elaborate out-there fashion and a costume, and then lecture them if they don't.';

'>>10901826
>>10901830
>>10908629
Oh shit I forgot I'd posted here, glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks it'd work. Hopefully I'll have the chance to wear it as a couple but I'm old and it's a lot harder to meet lolitas nowadays so I kinda doubt it.

>>10909925
>>10909934
From my "informed outsider" perspective, I'd draw the line at the point where it starts to make everyday activities impractical. I haven't worn the stuff myself (well, there was that one time when I was young and skinny and let a girl talk me into trying one of hers on) but I've been a dressing assistant and handler enough that I know stuff can get really inconvenient to put on and wear and I think that if something is difficult enough that you're only willing to put it on for a meetup or convention, and if you have to pay constant attention to keeping stuff perfect, making sure accessories don't fall off, etc. then it's into costume territory, and particularly if it's like some of the outfits my ex wore where I had to be down on my hands and knees pulling up petticoats and stockings and things like that so she could actually get out of the house/hotel without wrinkling the hell out of everything.';

'>>10910211
You're entitled to your own opinion, but I think impracticality as a defining marker for what is or isn't a costume is.. dumb. I'm sorry.


Even with fashion the time, place and occasion have to observed. It would be impractical to go hiking in fuzzy slippers, running in stiletto heels, or to scrub a toilet in delicate formal wear. And yet those aren't costumes in their proper context. Some of the more expensive high end historical fashions are impractical and require assistance to put on, yet those weren't costumes in their time. Some wedding dresses are impossible to put on yourself (the ones with a gazillion buttons on the back), but that isn't a costume if you're getting married. Impracticality doesn't make something automatically a costume. Fashion doesn't have to be practical. It often isn't.

You can put lolita fashion on a scale of least formal (casual lolita) to most formal (OTT). Some OTT outfits, which are usually worn only for the most elaborate/expensive/luxurious events, are almost as impractical as an actual wedding dress, sometimes even just as impractical as one.

Lolita fashion is called a fashion for a reason. Gothic fashion can look just as strange and be just as impractical.';

'>>10910211
desu you probably can't find a lolita or anything because you sound fucking annoying. the idea that you're labeling an entire fashion as impractical simply because your ex can't wear her clothes properly is absurd. as >>10910216 said lolita still has levels of formality. i'm not going to wear the same type of outfit to a date or a party as i would to go to the store(though sometimes i doll up extra to go to a cute cafe just because i feel like it), but then i'm a lifestyler, so i know how to gauge comfort and utility in my clothes. i'd never base it on normie fashion though because otherwise i may as well not wear lolita at all. your clothing may seem practical to you because it resembles standard menswear but you need to coordinate a dress shirt and pants and a tie and a jacket and some accessories which is way way overkill to those who wear jeans and tshirt. try reminding yourself that everyone has different preferences in every fashion, including normies if you'd believe that. try not being so close minded.';

'>>10910211
Tuxedos are pretty fucking impractical. We don’t call that a costume. Thats true of most formal wear actually.';

'>>10910216
>>10910220
I apologize, I was assuming a casual street context since that was implied in the reply chain I responded to and I was only referring to really extreme and elaborate stuff that's genuinely impractical, and I should have explained that better. I totally understand that the majority of lolita stuff is wearable on an everyday basis or for more casual, normal events, and that there are more formal ones where the wild stuff makes sense. My own fashion style has similarities in that regard so I'm particularly sympathetic and for what it's worth I also have a spectrum of stuff that ranges from everyday to only appropriate in certain contexts so I totally get it.';

'>>10910249
If I showed up to hang out with my friends in a tux for no reason they'd ask why I was cosplaying James Bond, though, and that's really the sort of thing I meant. They're also not impractical in the same was as the stuff I was referring to, the other anons I replied to were talking about wearing big wigs and carrying props etc. on the street, which is a whole other level.

For what it's worth, and I probably should have put this in the last reply but only just put it into words, but I think the kind of stuff I had in mind was pretty squarely in the category of badly done coords/outfits that come off as really gaudy and ridiculous too, a well put together cohesive OTT thing has a totally different vibe than what I was thinking about.';

'>>10909925
the anon you're replying to called all of lolita EGL and thinks her pic related is classic. pretty safe to ignore her. also i have never ever cared if people think i'm wearing a costume or not. we need to get over this as a community, and we need to get over caring about normies in general.';

'>>10910261
>If I showed up to hang out with my friends in a tux for no reason they'd ask why I was cosplaying James Bond


I would expect them to ask you what kind of event you're dressed like that for, not the cosplay assumption.

Getting back to the topic of OTT lolita, the people who wear those for expensive/luxury events still have to get to the venue and that usually entails walking out in public for a bit even if it's just to cross the street. The public are probably going to assume it's a costume. That doesn't mean it is though. Even with the scepter, sash and huge wig.

If the public can distinguish between a well done or badly done outfit has also been a recurring topic of debate. Some lolitas think the public doesn't see the difference between an ita outfit and a proper coord.

>>10910361
yes, we need to stop caring about if the public thinks it's a costume or not. Too many lolitas still explain stuff to (some well meaning, some not so well meaning) people out in public as if it's their duty/responsibility to inform the public.';

'>>10910211
Your ex sounds like an idiot if she couldn't put her own clothes on, I've never had that issue and I don't know anyone who has. As someone who wears a full coord daily I think you'd be surprised how practical lolita is for most basic activities, I even garden in it sometimes because I can't be bothered getting changed when I get home';

'>>10910418
his ex(and the entire story) sounds made up.';