/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

under anatomy > innerwear > petticoats, 'to create poof' is written twice

>>8191762
fixed, thank you!

The volume links when I opened it in the mobile app just keep looping back to the intro post. Not sure if you can fix that.

>>8191606
good work anon

Looks really neat, anon. Very comprehensive and unbiased.

>>8191809
same here

This looks amazing, anon. I'm so glad that the Google doc got improved and cleaned up. The formatting is amazing.

I just wanted to mention that you Maiden Clothing and Tokyo Alice both accept international orders via email, and don't need a shopping service.

How about some tips about small things that might be off with your outfit.
I'm thinking dark tights and light shoes or dark blouse and light JSK. Not because it's always bad but it's something to be careful with. I don't know if people even agree with this though.

>>8191876
>I don't know if people even agree with this though
That's why it probably shouldn't be included. There's no consensus.

Loving the Get Dressed section taking about different body types! Thank you for making such a guide that no only newbies will find helpful.

I think the whole layout is too pastel, I wear mostly sweet so nothing against it, but in terms of readability the colours are a bit hard on the eyes, and the photos and busy background are kinda distracting. I don't know what to suggest though because I know you can't please everyone, so it's just a thought...

Also in the tips for tall lolitas, where you mentioned long underskirts and gave 2 examples of Taobao shop who make them, I think that would be unfair on other shops and brands because if someone isn't familiar with the kind of products a brand carries, they're most likely to go with what the guide mentioned, hence only those 2 shops.

But all in all I enjoyed the blog, great work :)

>>8191888
That's why it's brought up. I have frequently seen that opinion though.

>>8191606
Looks good! The only thing I don't like about tumblr is that it doesn't allow you to pin posts to the top. When you start publishing asks this intro post will be buried unless you constantly reblog it.

>>8191996
I never used Tumblr but is it possible to make the intro post contents part of the layout, like the links on the right?

>>8191606
The French tips for nails struck me as odd. In mainstream fashion, at least, they are reserved for weddings and porn stars. They either need to be VERY subtle and well-done french tips, or not at all. And if they need to be told to do their nails, I guarantee you that they're going to get the BAD kind of french....

>>8191809
>>8191848
i can't really fix this since this is an issue with tumblr's mobile app itself, which is garbage. i make this a point on the faqs page, which mentioned that this blog is best viewed on an actual computer.

>>8191852
tweaked accordingly. thank you!

>>8191876
>>8191888
>>8191892
i agree; there's not really a consistent consensus with that. it really depends on one's own personal tastes, as well as overall look of the coord. like, light-on-light works fine for sweet, and dark-on-dark works fine for gothic. case-by-case examples can be discussed via the ask box.

>>8191890
i'll see what i can do! i have made the text slightly darker; let me know how that works.
also, i can't go and mention every single brand that makes underskirts. that's just ridiculous and unnecessary and would require near-constant tweaking as stores change their lineups. i made a mention that more than just those stores carry underskirts though. they can look into shops further in the buying section, with the taobao store list and the indie store list.

>>8191996
>>8192013
i can link to it on the left side of the layout, if that helps? i do not see the point in doing so.

>>8192048
are they really? because i see them pretty frequently in every day fashion, albeit toned down and subtle ones. my own mother gets something like pic related every so often, and she's not a porn star or is getting married/going to weddings a lot. that's kind of an absurd line of thought.
i mean it goes without saying that you shouldn't get poor-quality ones, right? as with anything?

>>8192062
Those are the nice type, not the kind that amateurs end up with. I love a nice french, but I never ask for them because every time I go to a salon I can afford they end up trashy as fuck. It needs a picture of a good french vs bad because it is definitely not a foolproof mani

http://blog.thefairest.com/2009/10/08/nail-it-four-french-manicure-donts/

>>8192062
Example of bad french. Looks great for fancy occasions though.

>>8192048
Where exactly are you getting this information from, anon? French tips are the most basic of basic nails. They're good for anyone and any occasion. If you get something like >>8192116
done, that's your own fault for not researching your nail tech before getting your nails done.

>>8192110
>>8192116
aaah i see. that's a great blog link though! i'll link that in the nails section. much appreciated!

>>8191606
The nails thing confused me as well. As well as the no-bold lipstick/unnatural makeup. You should make exclusions for gothic in terms of make up.

>>8192304
i can see where you''re coming from with that. will tweak accordingly!

This looks awesome, anon! One thing I'd really like would be a home button/ link to index in the side bar. I thought the title would get me there but it doesn't. I had to press back on my browser which is clunky.

>>8192293
Different anon, but I work in mainstream fashion (not retail, think more editorial) and while they've fluctuated slightly back torwards okay recently. Still not a good catch-all manicure.

>>8192365
there's a home button on the right hand side.

not even 24 hours since launch and already got some passive aggressive whining in the tags. truly a sign of how good the guide came out ahaha

>>8192386
>literally so much of this is problematic
Was this on the body types post?

>>8192376
Where - circle it for me cus I can't see it. If its there them its not obvious enough. I'm using mobile, chrome; I know op said that the mobile version is shitty but that's why you work around it - a link with the other two they have on the left wouldn't be a big deal and would make the page x100 more usable.

>>8192386
Oh for fucks sake.

>>8192413
>mobile
there's your problem.

I have to disagree about having 1 print dress to make a cohesive wardrobe for a beginning wardrobe. That part is probably just a suggestion. I have been a lolita for 2 years and have never bought a print dress. I think beginner lolitas should focus on coording solid colors first, before diving into prints anyway.

>>8192413
tweaked so that "Lolita Guide Book" in the left-hand side bar is linked to the home page. hopefully i'll try to find a way to make the big title under the picture be a link itself. i didn't make the base theme so i'll have to go into its code and play around for a bit.

>>8192402
most likely in reference to either that or the faq, where i tell people that Things Cost Money. i want to get off mr. tumblr's wild ride.

>>8192424
Ahh, three column layout. The nemesis of smart phones everywhere.

>>8192432
it's an example wardrobe, not a "you have to follow this perfectly otherwise you fail" wardrobe. i also really disagree with saying that beginners shouldn't get prints. my first dress was a print. prints are what got me into lolita in the first place, to be frank.

>>8192442
Again, it's probably just a suggestion. I admit to being bias. I could never understand the fascination of prints. I guess I can reword it by saying, that new lolitas should be cautious of busy prints.

OP you forgot to mention sundresses in "main pieces"

>>8192487

>>8192496
No seriously, she forgot to mention sundresses. They're not JSKs, they're real and brands make them and intend them to be worn without a blouse.

Isn't RinRin Chinese though?

>>8191606
You should really take the replica comments out.

Could you change the wording in the OTK section from "fat calves" to "large calves." I can't wear OTK's because I'm an active runner and my calf are muscles huge. Definitely don't have fat calves.

>>8192518
they're not lolita. just because brands put them out doesn't mean they're lolita. AP puts out mini skirts every so often and those aren't lolita either. that sundress doesn't give the proper lolita silhouette, isn't meant to have the shoulders covered (which is also important in lolita), and it's too long. it's a perfectly fine dress for some other j-fashion, but no lolita.

>>8192525
no :)

>>8192522
is she? i need a source.

>>8192553
done and done!

>>8192563
*not lolita

>>8192525
Nah I think the replica comments should stay. People need to be informed about this shit. It's mentioned in a way that guides newbies away from them for many reasons, encourages better options, and does not list where to obtain replicas. I think it would be fine and encouraged to leave it in.

>>8192563
K here's some more dresses that totally aren't lolita

>>8192525
As a seasoned lolita who has seen many replicas over the years, what she wrote about them is factual. She should retain it.

>>8192592
Not lolita despite being in the G&LB, nope

>>8192592
top left corner example looks like an unfinished coord and kinda ita tbh but i really can't judge because of the potato quality.
radiant candlelight is a halterneck JSK and the yellow AP dress is just like any other basic JSK, and both meant for blouses and/or some sort of shoulder covering. same for the black dress (halterneck as well) and the BtSBB cherry dress (you could easily wear a blouse under it and be fine. the VM dress is literally a normal JSK with neck ties, just worn without a blouse.

are you new or something?

>>8192605
That's a JSK. Jesus christ those leg warmers are gross as hell though.

>>8192525
I would actually add to the comments and remind people that they are not just knock offs, they are illegal knock offs and art theft.

>>8192304
The whole make up section is weird to me. It says no bright colors and to do subtle makeup. Then there is a picture of rinrin with super heavy hot pink blush over half her face and cherry red lips. Lolita make up is almost never a "look like you have no make up on" deal. You have to do more with your makeup to keep from looking washed out when you put on big wigs and busy dresses, etc. I've also never seen anyone overdo false lashes in lolita. If anything people under-do it. The kera models who look fresh faced have a lot of make up on, and if you put them in normal clothes they would look way over done up... I know when I take my wig and dress off, I look really over-made up, even after looking practically washed out when I was dressed up.

>>8192612
>top left corner example looks like an unfinished coord and kinda ita tbh but i really can't judge because of the potato quality.
It's from Kamikaze Girls.

>and the yellow AP dress is just like any other basic JSK
It doesn't say "jsk" at all, only "sundress" in the title.

>the VM dress is literally a normal JSK with neck ties, just worn without a blouse.
Still says "sundress", not JSK.

>are you new or something?
Are you? Sundresses/sleeveless dresses are old school as fuck.

>>8192616
If it's a JSK then why is it being worn without a blouse?

>>8192612
>Momoko
>kinda ita
>are you new or something?

thanks for this >>8192631 anon, sundresses whilst not all that common are a 'thing' - the term 'sundress' is used in katakana too, as in it's a term used separate to jsk.

Is it really so hard just to give them a little mention? - Nothing wrong with stating that they aren't so common either.

> pictures for ants
It can only be useful as a reference if you can expand them to an actually visible size.

>>8192623
done

>>8192625
i should have clarified a bit better i guess. i reworded some things; is it better? when i say "garish colors" i mainly meant neons and things like that.
i really disagree with having to do a lot of makeup to avoid being "washed out". if you're doing OTT looks, of course your makeup should match that, but if you expect me to do that for casual or regular outfits? no way.
and trust me, i've seen overdone falsies before. go browse the bad makeup threads on here sometime. there's also a girl i see in COF that frequently does it and it's terrifying. i also wouldn't reference kera models that much, since a lot of them are wearing a ton of makeup that's only really done for photo shoots and runway shows.
your picture shows a dolly look, which i mention in the makeup section as being a good looks as well for lolita. really just depends on one's facial structure and skin tone.

is using comments like 'sandy vagina(s)' etc really necessary(?), not because it might be too much for delicate tumblr users, but because there isn't really any context to it (plus it screams /cgl/).

>>8192592
Why not? Especially the top and bottom right

>>8192645
Wow, does she seriously use that term? What the hell?? That is really inappropriate outside of /cgl/, especially in a newbie guide or hand book. LGB-chan, please revise.

>>8192662
This. That is horrible, where is it in the guide?

>>8192587
No, it's fine, I meant the "comments" the writer is making on some posts. Comes off as forcing opinion on the reader.

egl will hopefully be completely separate rather than a board where people can just dump stuff that gets deleted here - as I have said before. It's pretty dead now, so thanks for linking to it!
>>8192669
Forcing negative opinions of illegal art theft should be encouraged.

>>8192631
>posting a shitty quality image
>what do you MEAN you can't tell what it is?!
also sue me for not watching a movie that i really don't have any interest in. i know it's a big deal and influential but it's just not something that caught my eye. SHRUG.

>if it's a jsk then why is it being worn without a blouse?
because it's not being worn as a lolita outfit in that picture perhaps? people can wear lolita pieces in non-lolita looks. could also be to draw more attention towards the dress itself than the overall coordinate.
also i don't really care if those dresses don't have the word "JSK" in their title. they're built like JSKs and that's what i'm looking at. are you honestly going to try and tell me that radiant candlelight, a dress made of velveteen, is a "sundress"?
i don't want to argue about semantics or whatever. in the blog, i define JSKs as "sleeveless dresses which have shoulder straps, a halter-neck or occasionally no straps at all in a bustier style.". that definition fits all of the dresses you mentioned so why bother?(although again, that MM dress you posted really isn't lolita, old school or otherwise. just looks like a cute normal wear dress to me)

>>8192641
if you want bigger images, you can easily look them up on lolibrary. all of the pieces have their names listed. i can't make the pictures too big because then the pages will take too long to load and then that just ends up being obnoxious. they really don't look too small to me.

>>8192669
I second this, it should inform and be relatively neutral, and not so much like an opinion piece.

>>8192676
>because it's not being worn as a lolita outfit in that picture perhaps?
A non-lolita, non-gothic outfit in a book literally called the Gothic and Lolita bible. Ok then :^)

>>8192645
>>8192662
>>8192668
fixed. it was from the old docs and i didn't really think about it. chill.

>>8192669
how dare i tell people to not buy shitty illegal dresses

>>8192683
i'm talking about the VM lavender dress, not the pink BtSSB one (which honestly could have a blouse and be fine buuuut could be seen as some sort of ero look? could just be the grainy picture quality but she looks like she's wearing pink fishnets. or i have shitty eyes. or both.)

People on my Facebook feed are saying it's body shaming. I guess if working with your body type to bring visual balance to an outfit it body shaming, it qualifies.

>>8192691
my work here is done.

>>8192684
A guidebook should stay neutral. I'm not only referring to the replica comments, but your opinion scattered throughout the document on other subjects as well.

>>8192689
Yeah, there sure are a lot of sweet pink dresses in ero.

>>8192689
Pretty sure the dress in >>8192605 is being worn by Kana, who almost never follows the guidelines and can be hella tacky (That red vinyl dress anyone?). I suppose you could interpret her style as ero though.

>>8192701
I'm surprised ero was even mentioned in the first place. Who the fuck wears it anymore?

>>8192691
According to one person on CoF, dressing for your body type is anti feminist, so....

>>8192676
your definition of jsks is fine anon, I don't think this necessarily has to be about semantics, more just providing as much info as possible such as 'you may see some sleeveless dresses listed as 'sun dresses', this term is sometimes used for dresses that are particularly suitable for warm weather, and may even be shown being worn with no blouse or a light bolero'. Then perhaps some disclaimer about perhaps not attempting blouse-less coords if you're still inexperienced or trying to get the basics down within the recommended guidlines.

Just a thought.

it perhaps isn't that important but I think it's good to have a bit of info regarding variations that people may encounter when looking at what's out there.

>>8192691
Well tell them instead of just whinging about what they find offense of facebook, to be constructive and offer suggestions on what they feel would be better.

>>8192707
IIRC it wasn't going to be mentioned but a few anons started bitching to include it.

here we go

>>8192716
that could work, thanks! i just didn't want to have them as their own category of main pieces because that just sounds unnecessary to me.

>>8192707
>>8192724
pretty much. i find ero to be pretty tacky and ita but it was A Thing and i was asked multiple times to include it.

lol @ all the ita's getting mad on Shannie Bee's FB post

>>8192724
I think it should be mentioned for the same reasons discussed here >>8192716
it's for when people look at something that has a certain amount of presence (ie enough to be noteworthy) and wonder 'ok, so what's that'? and possibly even 'why do these things contradict those things'. Without discussing some of the more common variations/variables (exceptions to the 'rule' etc etc), I actually think you end up leaving more room for new lolitas to think along the lines of 'so model x is dressed like such and such, which contradicts such and such, therefore I should just totally go all out with my special snowflake self'!

>>8192750
Where? What?

>>8192750

Pls link or cap. I want to see dem rustled jimmies.

>>8192697
you're referring to me talking about GLW or lime crime i think?
honestly at the end of the day, people can choose whether or not to follow the guide. the guide is also a living entity in a way, as the blog will have people come and submit questions, asking about this that and the other. i figured people would ask me about GLW in the future, and my answer is what i put in that section. the same goes for lime crime. the same goes for replicas from DoL and Oo Jia.
if people don't want to adhere to my opinions, that's fine. those are opinions are products and companies, which can be somewhat subjective. but they're not harmful, so i don't see the problem with having them in the guide. what would be a bad thing is saying "I think rectangle headdresses are ugly, so you shouldn't wear them!" or "Sweet lolita is ita! Don't wear it!" (for the record i don't think these things). i think there's a big difference between those (which are based heavily on taste alone and not objective things like quality) and "hey don't buy from this company, they're quality is pretty lackluster", which yeah is still an opinion, but is a little more objective. i hope that makes sense? i just don't want newbies to buy from these certain places and be really disappointed in what they get, or be made fun of and posted on ita threads here for buying replicas. the point of the guide is to prevent itas, so i'm going to say "don't buy replicas."

>>8192522
She's Chinese, from California

>>8192776
i'll just fix it to remove "japanese". poked around and saw that she's american, but i can't find a source for whether or not she's chinese. this will do for now.

Some of those itas are getting extremely butthurt. However, some of the points they make are right. Some of your comments are completely out of line. Some are ok, but worded terribly.
I am now considering making my own lolita guide to rectify this.

In the terms, all the sales tags are wrong. it's !DS, !DT, !DA, etc. (or leave off the !). The ! are from the tags on EGL, where the ! was used to sort the tags together in the tag list.

>>8192761
So much butt mad.
But also so much
>I know everything about lolita
>So this entire guide is wrong!!!

LOL wonderfinch is posting.
>I can write a better guide.

>>8192518
That outfit isn't lolita. If she was wearing closed in shoes, socks and a bolero with a fuller petti, then yeah, you could pass it off. Those straps could probably be a bit thicker though, which is why it's a sun dress and intended to be worn without a blouse.
Brands make dresses. All dresses aren't lolita.
If we called sundresses lolita, then let's have a "sunny" lolita theme to go along side with stupid themes like "ero" and "steampunk".

>>8192761
>Eh, whatever. That whole thing was obnoxious and unnecessary. Doesn't matter your shape, size, color, height, gender, etc- just wear what you love and don't give a heck.

>>8192788
why don't you just tell me specifically what needs to be fixed? again i honestly don't think saying "don't buy replicas or from companies that have unsecured websites" is so wild and out of line.

>>8192794
i've seen both (! in front on egl, ! on the end on FB). should i include both or just get rid of them entirely? even without egl's necessity for them in regards to the tag list's system, they're still used frequently, so i don't really feel right removing them.

>>8191606
Thanks for this! It'll be a good thing to link next
time I'm asked about lolita. I think you did a good job.

>>8192788
All of these people saying they can/will make a better guide... I'll believe it when I see it? I'm guessing 95% is all talk. But hey, the more guides the better if it actually happens, ha.

>>8192813
aah i see it. sent her a relatively friendly message because i don't think she actually read the damn thing. how am i being a "hater" by informing people on how to dress to suit their bodies so they don't buy things that don't fit them, thus having them avoid wasting their money? that comment as a whole along with the reaction image is...obnoxious to say the least.

>>8192750
What group??? WHERE?

>>8192767
I kinda agree anon but perhaps your tone could be a little less forceful - the limecrime thing seems pretty much irrelevant tbh since you go into a lot of detail about a brand not directly related to lolita that also isn't anything close to a household name in the way major cosmetics brands are.

As for GLW, something along the lines of 'you may want to use caution before buying from this company, they are known for having varying quality and have caused a certain amount of controversy due to the issues discussed 'here' '. Something along those lines perhaps.

>>8192767
Then the problem lies with "don't ever buy a replica" statement. If you made a link to your explanation it would sound less opinionated.

>>8192825
>wear whatever you want no matter what you look like!
>but make sure you look good doing it
lmao

>>8192838
Maybe saying "buying replicas of brand products is highly frowned upon by the majority of lolitas, and is of questionable legality" (because it is totally legal....depending on your country's copyright laws)

>>8192844

More like 'wear whatever you want, but if you don't pick flattering items, don't expect to look like a magazine layout"? Isn't that reasonable?

>>8192845
It's in violation of paypals terms, so even if you live in a country that doesn't honor international copyright (where do you even live?) you can't pay via paypal.

>>8192852
True!

>>8192833
lime crime has marketed to j-fashion folks in the past, so i think it's applicable. hell they literally have a palette called "china doll" so you best believe they're trying to cater to asian culture fans. plus the cute purple unicorn packaging could be appealing to newbies who are into sweet lolita and think "oh, this is perfect and cute!". besides if i'm talking about makeup i might as well mention them; they're a big issue right now within that community.
that's great wording for the GLW section though, i'll add that in. as anyone could tell by these critiques, i'm not always the best when it comes to wording.

>>8192845
This sort of tone would be a lot more appropriate I think, it does read a bit like a lecture form a surly older sister at the moment; and for the record, I've not come here from the apparently more delicate tumblr or facebook brigade.

>>8192816
Well namely you are extremely passive aggressive about certain things. This seems more of a consolidation of general /cgl/ attitude rather than a good explanation about the lolita comm as a whole. It should be positive rather than shitting on people.
The comms page? Needs to be started over from scratch. Complaining about noobs on egl goes to your own personal blog, not a guide of different communities.

The FaQ page also has you whinging that poor people shouldn't be able to wear lolita. Instead of that, why not under the purchasing page make a price guideline for how much someone should expect to spend on various pieces. Don't say things that are common knowledge like "don't buy clothing instead of feeding your kids".

Also why are you giving links to all of those random stores not even related to lolita saying that they are good/bad to buy from? Why not just list reputable stores, and specific bad ones like DoL, Milanoo, Amazon and Ebay, etc. Link to the "how to avoid scam sites" page, and tell people to look up reviews of any stores they would like to buy from online.

Not all replicas are shit, some are almost indistinguishable from the real deal. As one of the people on Shannie Bees post said, you should be dissuading people because they are art theft, and illegal to buy via most online paying sites, plus illegal to import and have shipped within America (plus a few other countries)

The body shaming complaint thing is ridiculous, but honestly you could have written this a lot better. The 4chan attitude stays to 4chan. You need to baby people if you are not on this site.
If you were getting my opinion on this on a site like LJ, my response would have been half as harsh. As it is, I am holding back on a lot of things I could say about your guide because I think you get the general idea.

I am very happy to tone it down for you without removing any content if you want, so more people will like it. email me.
>>8192833
Also this.

>>8192838
but i do explain why you shouldn't buy a replica. a lot of the replica section the construction page is about that.
>"Replicas tend to be very low quality, with bad lace that is improperly sewn on (often hanging far lower on the skirt than it should be) and stiff, poor-quality cotton being used. Prints themselves are usually done badly, with a lot of them bleeding easily in the wash, or are misprinted so that colors are printed outside of the outlines."

The Tumblr generation writes the rules of lolita, oh this is brilliant guys -

A slow clap for CGL pooping out this unpolished turd of a creation, filled with personal opinions which should have no bearing on how one wears lolita and offensive suggestions based on what a select group believe is appropriate for the fashion. Careful with that nail polish ladies, hide that ink and those piercings, shit ain't kawaii.

This looks like something that began as a solid plan to update a dated resource, however, too many cooks were in the kitchen and too much personal opinion went into this. Cut the fat out, stick with the basics, dump your opinions from this. Make-up specifics (like telling people where to buy their make-up, are you for real here), how to do their nails, wig/make up resources that you personally do not approve of, how you feel about what people do to their bodies, etc., none of that is relevant to this guide. You've made too many rules, and too many of your own as well.

This entire guidebook is extremely revealing of its writers by the way, something you might want to think on.

>>8192851
It's completely reasonable, but that was what this chick said in response to the guidebook. It's exactly what the guidebook said.

>>8192868
This isn't true of all replicas though. As I said, replicas can be almost indistinguishable from the real deal (I know two people - one who owns a replica and the other who owns a real print, and looking at them the only thing you might notice is that one has a slightly different trim). The issue with replicas (aside from moral and legal stuff) is that the quality varies ENORMOUSLY between all of them, and you are really just gambling when you buy one. You do not know what you will get.
There are certain companies that are good for replicas but just tell people to look that shit up themselves (in a NICE way)
>>8192875
Honestly I agree with this statement.

>>8192859
Ah fair enough, I must admit I didn't know about their marketing strategies, you may still want to consider tweaking the tone though - introduce the issues you want to raise and why rather than 'tell' is a good general rule of thumb.

I always thought btw that 'china doll' was a generic term for dolls made from glazed porcelain rather than necessarily anything to do with a 'Chinese doll'. Anyway, that in itself doesn't stop a company from sucking though.

>>8192868
I was referring to the comment in vol 5.
But I think >>8192845 says it better.

>>8192880
>Chinese doll
Of course, I forgot. Anon likes to watch ani-mays and mangoes, and dresses up like a Chinese little bo peep doll.

How is "china doll" even relevant to lolita?

>>8192867
I think this is sound, solid advice anon. I hope all the things you have raised here are considered.

>>8192760
>>8192761
>>8192832
lacealamode/posts/671644436297604

I don't want to be THAT person but pic related just slightly rubbed me the wrong way. Seems like it should be worded differently. Instead of "white girls can go to a, b, c. Brown people, please go here." it seems like it should be more like "white people go to a, b, c. Brown people go to x, y, z" and maybe post the list after that? Idk, sorry if I'm being too nitpicky or anything like that. The guide is good. I like it. I appreciate you even including brown people in this guide.

>>8192676
At least make the ita pic bigger, since you would probably have to scour /cgl/'s archive for it.

>>8192875
another /cgl/ scumbag here that actually agrees with this statement, so it goes.

>>8192896
I haven't read it but I'm assuming "dark-skinned" is also referring to tanned white people. Also it's leading them to a specific guide, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like it's saying lol you can't shop at MAC if you're brown. Too much tumblr.

>>8192875
I have to agree too.

>>8192890
YAY.
Honestly it is all well and good to say "they need to stop being butthurt, because our info is right."

4chan desensitises people. I know pre-cgl me would cry if she even thought about saying half of the stuff I say. She is still in here, which is why I am sort of able to bridge the gap between "shitlord" and "sjw". People have called me the "only reasonable one" before in topics like this, because I understand both sides and am able to help them work together.

>>8192896
I think that the mention is good, but agreeing with this anon that it isn't the best wording. Telling people wear to buy things like makeup are once again unnecessary. Any makeup brand is completely acceptable and saying "this non lolita related makeup brand is bad, dont buy there" but "this non lolita related brand is ok" is just silly. However if you really feel it is relevant, just list them like:
general makeup brands
x
y
z
aimed at lighter skin tones
a
b
c
aimed at darker skin toned
d
e
f
Because some lighter skinned people also can't find foundations and stuff light enough for their skin tone, it isn't just darker skin tones. The "oh just go here if you have dark skin" thing comes across as pretty rude, although well intentioned.

Guidebook anon, I just want to say that I think you're doing a fine job and all these sandy cunts that want to keep nitpicking will find something to complain about no matter how much you edit. At the end of the day it's just a fucking guide. If newbies end up getting their dumbasses scammed that's on them. Some people don't have a good sense of taste and it's not on you to give it to them. Some girls and guys will stay ita forever no matter how well you explain and its not your fault they can't get a clue or take any criticism. I think its good that you kept some /cgl/ snark (GLW drama, throwing shade at EGL) because let's be honest, you're gonna find out about all that old shit anyway.

And really, if there's so many OMGHUEG problems with the guide why don't you picky fucks go write a new one yourselves?

welp, this turned out exactly as shitty as expected. nice work /cgl/!

>>8192938
nice try OP
inb4 backpedaling and denial

>>8192923
the voice of reason

>>8192943
Sorry not OP. check the number of posters.

>>8192048
>>8192374
I think this may be a regional thing, too. Maybe they're not considered the height of fashion generally, but at least in my area they're considered the basic go-to for people of all economic backgrounds and social statuses.

>>8192645
>(plus it screams /cgl/)
So does the intro >>8191606. I don't think the guide is ever going to be completely separated from /cgl/ and I don't think it should be.

>>8192896
Nitpicks are good. Guide-anon has been very good about soliciting and listening to suggestions and usually tries to incorporate them into the guide if she doesn't disagree with them.

>>8192946
>numbers of the posters
Holy shit anon you fucking noob every post gets a new number.

>>8192952
False

Suggestions:

Makeup: I feel like style is the only strict factor when listing makeup choice. This is fine and dandy. However, purpose and venue is also equally important. If you're in a dark convention area and you're going to get some hallway shots, you may just want to layer on your makeup heavily than normal. Not just because "OTT" but because in some lighting and some facial structures, it's just not going to show up otherwise.

Also colors aren't necessarily exclusive to one style. For example, red and burgundy can go great in sweet or classic. But typically if you are playing up your lips, you may want to tone down the color on your eyes. Likewise, bolder eye makeup and go with a less bold lip color.

more coming

>>8192958
False? What the fuck are you talking about? Of course it isn't false. Unless you have a trip code, you are 100% anonymous to non-janitor/mod users.
And if it is true, why don't you link me to some posts in this thread that I wrote, since you have the magical power of knowing who wrote what on an anonymous imageboard?

>>8192952
They're talking about the number of posters in the thread, not post counts. How new are you?

That said, I don't know how they expect us to keep track of who's who in a thread after there's been at least two posters.

>>8192968
ok to clarify not completely anonymous, but you cant differentiate between different posters on anything aside from writing style/tripcode/etc.
I have had samefag arguments with myself many times on here before and not one person has called me on it.

>>8192968
They're talking about how many unique posters are in this thread. It has nothing to do with the number of posts, like >>8192952 is implying.

>>8192972
>>8192970
>implying that people constantly watch the number of posters in a thread and know when a new person joins the shitfest.

Also I will just point out that the number of posters feature is a pretty new thing.

>>8192938
there's actually some excellent advice here by people that genuinely seem to want that anon to succeed and appreciate the all effort gone to, but until the sort of things detailed here >>8192923 >>8192867 are considered, The Lolita Guide Book is going to fall short of the excellent, perhaps slightly less cuddly version of a typical 'how to' guide that it could be.

>>8192963
(cont)

god damn I typed that twice because I hit backspace and it took me a page back and lost what I wrote. Sorry for the shit 1 am grammar.

I feel like things like body shape and seasonal colors should be listed as suggestions. They are great starting points to help you figure out colors that will suit your skin tone, or styles that will flatter you. However, everyone is different and these are not hard/fast rules. I believe the other body shape guide says that people are often combinations of different shapes and there can often be exceptions. The key is to experiment to figure out what suits your skin tone and your figure the best.

Also, you can also usually work around some items if there is a release you really like but only comes in a style or color that doesn't suit you. Boleros, belts, use of color, fabric choices, etc can be used to make a main piece more flattering on you.

So yeah they are really just guidelines and suggestions to bring out your best at the end of the day. (and yes I put it this way because it is on tumblr and you gotta word that shit in certain ways)

>>8192986
>>8192944
>>8192890
other people are actually supporting my opinions?

Times sure have changed...

>>8192997
No they actually are just guidelines - even on /cgl/. Everyones body shape is different, and just because something suits most people of a type doesn't mean it will suit everyone. This is the only thing I love about the tumblr attitude. Not everything is black and white (instead it is PoC and white :^)) and they know that everyone is unique. Not in a special snowflake sort of way, but what suits you won't necessarily suit me, and so it goes.

>>8193009
Exactly. So this really should be listed as suggestions rather than flat out "THIS is how you should wear and THESE are the colors you should use!" and why there are comments like >>8192813 >>8192844

While good intentions are there, the delivery needs work. It's not even a tumblr thing, but when you're dealing with people across various backgrounds, ages and experience levels there are going to be vast differences in how people perceive things.

>>8192997
agreed, there needs to be an element of 'know your audience' here, something that's not just stereotypically 'do absolutely whatever you want and have fun!!!' Cloyingly politically correct tumblr sounds good to me, however something that exists primarily for seagulls to perpetually high-five each other from afar, doesn’t.

>>8193019
This. And while there are comments like >>8192813 which are slightly ridiculous (although true, but not for a fashion with specific rules like lolita), they come as a backlash to everything being made as rules. If everything is a hard, fast rule, people will be like "oh I cant do this because of all of those ridiculous rules, I will just find an easier guide" and end up doing the exact opposite of what the guide intended. The reason the sides of sjw and "4chan attitude" are so extreme is because of backlash - people get madder and madder at each other and try to go directly against what the others are saying. So it gets more and more pronounced.

I'm not new, but I've never been certain if I should go by the rule for pears or hourglass since my body is
>wide shoulders
>small boobs
>defined waist
>wide hips and thighs(ish)
my shoulders and hips are in proportion, but my boobs are lacking by a good 2" as visually lean more on pear if I discount my shoulders

>>8192997
same anon that posted here.

Suggestion for changing this:

How to pick colors that look good on you:
There is this thing called seasons. You can figure out your season here. This is a good guideline for choosing colors that suit your skin tone the best. Keep in mind, these are not rules but they will help you get a feel for what colors you should look for when building your wardrobe?

What cuts will look best on me?
If this is something you are concerned about, you can use this handy body shape chart to help you figure out what cuts and styles may work the best for your shape. Keep in mind that all bodies are different and it's quite common to be a combination of more than one shape. They key is experimentation!

>>8193038
The seasons thing basically only works if you're white though.

>>8193038
No, take out the "if this is something you are concerned about". That is too much even from my sjw points of view. The issue wasn't the chart, it was the text op wrote afterwards.

You do not need to write that things aren't rules/arent something you are necessarily concerned about. Just don't say like "you need to do x and x". Rules are unyielding, guides are not. So there should be a section for the hard rules of lolita, and one for guides for making yourself look the best in clothing.

>>8193056
You sure? A lot of the color season charts I've seen have included dark skinned women. It's mostly about the temperature of the color of you skin, as in warm or cool tones. Different anon by the way.

>>8193056
No. They pick up on the temperature and undertones of your skin - regardless of race. Also a different anon...
Can we just give ourselves names for this thread?

>>8193032
Yeah, I'm relatively large boobs (larger cup size), but my frame and bone structure is small up top (small rib cage, small(?) shoulders in proportion to my height) and small waist, wide hips, fat thighs etc. Not sure what I would be either. I have a friend like you and I'd say hourglass still, even if you aren't an 's' curve from the side.

>work as a copy editor
>paid to check for author bias and consistency all the time
>OP is receiving solid proofreading and alternatives to biased statements that would turn this blog into a polished, professionalized product
>all that fucking defensiveness and "WEHTUMBLR" itt
Holy shit, I'm not sure if that was OP or just a bunch of salty cunts who wanted to have a guide composed of their opinions, but you made me CRINGE reading this. Be grateful you have a free source to tap for editing, damn.

>>8193056
I've heard this too. How about getting skin-color matched at someplace like Sephora, they can tell you warm, neutral, cool...though many people like to successfully correct too warm or cool undertones so ymmv no matter your skin tone.

>>8191606
I also think there is WAY too many of your own opinions in this for it to be any kind of objective guide.

>>8193067
>>8193063
The ones listed in the guide focus heavily on eye color. If you're asian, black, hispanic, native american, basically anything besides white, your hair color is going to be black and your eye color is going to be brown or dark brown. It's pretty much only useful if you're white and there's significant natural variation in hair and eye color.

alright SO. i have gone through the entirety of the blog and tweaked and mulled down some things. take a peak and see what's new. i hate the whole "gotta baby the newbies" attitude but i'll suck it up i suppose for the greater good. also i should mention that this is a guide book, not a "this is the epitome of lolita and you should follow these suggestions always" book. can't please them all i suppose but it's fine. i still appreciate feedback as long as it's not ridiculous (i'm not budging on replicas, sorry.)

>>8192896
>>8192906
tweaked the wording. i definitely didn't mean that in a racist/rude way, it's just that i'm aware that a lot of big name companies don't cater to a huge variety in darker skin tones. usually there will just be various shades of peach and then like one shade of brown that may or may not suit you. it's a good list to go to if the aforementioned retailers aren't working out. it's anything but rude imo but i guess i can see your point. also if anyone has suggestions for makeup that suits particularly pale skin, let me know. i know grav3yardgirl on YT talks about it a lot and mentioned that blending lush's jackie oats with her foundation worked to make it paler and suit her skin tone more, but that's about all i know on that subject.

>>8192963
that's a good point! added.
>>8192997
tweaked as well.

>>8193021
>not just stereotypically 'do absolutely whatever you want and have fun!!!'
this is pretty much what i was trying to avoid primarily, i guess i went too far with it. my apologies. god damn i wish ya'll had spoken up during the past couple weeks i was requesting feedback as i went along.

>>8193032
it's more of a suggestion than anything, as previously mentioned. everyone's got different physiques and the visual there is just a basic intro into body types. not everyone fits into those categories.

>>8193083
Well OP will have to find a more suitable one.

The good ones where you compare your skin tone to various colors and determine this stuff for yourself would be far better.

>>8193083
any that you can recommend? i disagree and think that the "advanced" one listed can work with any ethnicity, and the basic one is ok for a starting point (even if you are not-white you're going to have either a warm or cool hue to your hair, eyes, skin tone, etc) but i'm open to more suggestions. i'm not an expert on tones after all.

For body shape, this calculator seems better and resulting shapes a little more realistic, maybe? http://www.shopyourshape.com/calculate-your-body-shape/
There's an embeddable version for blogs too.

>>8193091
It is definitely improved but your attitude certainly hasn't. This isn't about babying people, this is about being a nice person or not. If you don't want to help people, don't choose to write a guide. You are not a good leader, certainly not someone I would have wanted teaching me about the fashion.

Do I need to make a fucking guide myself?
Goddanmit, I do. I am going to make a guide.

>>8193106
There's a suggestion that if you look at your hand and your veins are more green, you are warm. If they are blue, you are cool. Though I'm not sure how well this would work on very dark skintones, but it works from the light to medium range.

anyway with lolita people change their eye color with contacts often enough and hair color with wigs (although certain colors suit certain skintones best) So I think it really comes more down to does warm, cool, dark or light colors suit your skin tone best.

>>8193063
>>8193067

Would either of you have a link to those season charts that have darker skinned women? I'm Asian and have never been able to get the seasons thing to work.

>>8192669
I agree that you should inform about them including the legal side of it but I think there's some off hand comments in other sections like plus size where you just order to never buy them ever and there it would have been better to tell them to read up on them in the appropriate section.

>>8193077
Maybe you could give OP some good examples where her bias is clearly showing and an alternative way to present the info. It's frustrating and sometimes a bad blind spot to writers. Editors are so nice to have, I wish I had one for more of my writing projects.

>>8193106
I don't know what type of advanced ones you and Fluffypants are talking about, I haven't seen them. I have used guides that are more specific to different races finding their undertones (I usually look for articles specifically about Asian undertones). These are helpful, but only to specific races, in the way that the season thing only seems to be helpful to a specific race. I don't think that there's a simple, universal way to do it, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

>>8193110
i never intended to be some leader or whatever. i just made a blog. chill, man. go make your own guide if you want to. i won't stop you and honestly, the more the better!

>>8193114
>http://galadarling.com/article/fashion-help-for-recovering-goths/
i could see this being useful as well
>http://imancosmetics.com/findyourshade

>>8193110
Haha, WF is that you? If so, you really should.

>>8193123
i link them in the makeup section of "getting dressed". and yeah there isn't ever always a simple universal way of doing it, because there's so much variety. they're good starting points though, i think.

>>8193110
>this is about being a nice person or not
Not even this, it's about sounding professional and objective in general. Seeing any kind of opinion content in something toting itself as a general "guide" is an extreme turnoff.
>>8193122
Will OP pay me? Otherwise, I politely decline. You don't wanna see my rates for freelance.

>>8192295
That blog is heavily biased, written by someone who admits French looks like shit on her own nails. Squoval french is the most popular mani to get and styles of painted and deco nails come in and out of fashion for lolita just like they do for high street fashion. It also varies a lot by country and age.

>>8193132
I wasn't suggesting you copy-edit the guide, just give her some pointers and concrete examples to make her aware. That's not too big a freebie to ask on behalf of us all, I think.
But your call, of course.
You can't hardly complain it's done badly though if you aren't willing to help a bit. :^)
If she rejects the examples, we'll also have a better idea of how far south this has gone or whether it's worth continuing to talk about, hm?

>>8193126
+1, I could use a good laugh

>>8193125
Definately the Iman guide now that some walmarts and other accessible places carry her line.

>>8193142
She could just point out which people have legit advice in this thread.

>>8193147
Yep, even that, I'm seeing lots of advice, and I'm sure it's overwhelming. OP is not a writer, and everyone cares about the guide, obviously. But I'm sure it's frustrating as well to 'get told' so much too. More objectivity will do a lot to keep opinionated squabbling down.

>>8193142
>just give her some pointers and concrete examples to make her aware
That's what editing is.
I can tell you that much of what's been said already is legitimate advice, especially concerning tone. The passive aggression was unnecessary, but good luck getting this off the ground (though it looks like your credibility is already a tad jostled) :^)

>>8193114
http://musicalhouses.blogspot /2010/01/undertones-for-asians-how-to-tell-if.html
I'm Asian and I kind of like this one. It doesn't follow the season thing though.

>>8193154
added to the blog as well just for more options. thanks!

>>8193153
Well it was helpful at least to come in and say something as an editor so I hope OP can take some of the advice and choose helpful information and neutral wording if her goal is really to help new and improving lolitas. Otherwise people will reject the work entire and think of her and this blog how we do Lolita Tips. Ugh.

>>8192785
Source: I knew her before she moved to Japan to model. But I think any lolita who has been around for a while knows.
I assume you're fairly new

>>8193177
She has been wearing the fashion since September 2013. Says so on the FAQ page.

>>8193177
>>8193179
i'm not new, i don't really keep up with celebrities is all, especially small details like her ethnicity. that's not something i'm interested in honestly. doesn't really matter now since i fixed that hours ago.

"Onepieces (3rd img), or OPs, are dresses that has* sleeves"

*Not sure if this error has been picked up by anyone else above. Will comment on this post if I find other errors.

>>8193195
corrected, thanks!

>>8193143
Oh come on, you know she'd do a decent job. And she has a thick enough skin to handle the corrections or to stand her ground on info at least, and which battles to pick.

>>8193202
Hey, I am not WF anyway. This anon has messed up her chances with this. I don't know what she did, but a lot of people on tumblr reblogged it to say it is shit. Also, she is unwilling to make it unbiased. The only chance is to remake it.

>>8193202
Sure man. If it was a guide on how to consistently look like a trainwreck and dodge all criticism, I'm sure she'd do a great job.

The OP seems to be taking the specific and clear advice from this thread to heart and is continuing to make changes.

>>8193218
did you even check my revisions? you know, the ones i spent the past 4 hours doing?

>>8193229
Alright then I apologize. I am not so worried about the content so much as the fact that you would not make it unbiased although I have looked and can see it is improved. You may want to post an apology saying that it was published for review and has now been improved - and of course the blog believes that people of all types can wear lolita. say sorry and that you have improved the content to be more inclusive.

I didn't see what was so bad about it before that tumblr got so upset but that doesn't really matter because it happened, so you will want to fix it.

>>8193229
Not that Anon but I'm sure everyone is checking. No, you won't please everyone but quickly getting less personally opinionated and better tone will indeed help. I know you are spending lots of time on this and people are offering lots of (good) critique, but you should be worried if they do not. If they are offering advice then they believe it's a worthwhile project.

>>8193233
Are you kidding me, she does not need to make a formal apology

>>8192110
You know, there is this thing called talking? You should try doing that with your nail lady the next time you go get them done.

>>8193245
I agree, but a 'bear with me as we work on it' and that its a work in progress would be good. And OP, don't kill yourself making changes for hours, decide how much time to devote to this, then prioritize the updates. Otherwise you'll stay running on this a LOT.

>>8192386
>#triggered

>>8192522
she looks like Anna

>>8193125
>>8193154

Thanks, these actually help a lot, especially if you combine the Asian skintones one to help deciding between warm/cool autumn/winter. mfw I may have been cool toned all along (always thought I was warm.).

>>8193295

Also wanna add, OP, you're doing good. Don't mind the squabbling on 4chan, it's not like you don't know how sandy cgl gets. Thanks for putting hard work into writing the guide.

I think its slightly important to remember that the guide originally in docs had multiple authors that were all from seagull. When I first saw the current guidebook it sounded as if most of it was directly copied from the docs. We have to remember that the doc was being written as a guide for those (beginners and otherwise) who genuinely wanted to improve and dress well - not for those who wanted to be coddled. Now that it's not just a "/cgl/ so have tough skin!!!" guide, it's understandable to have it be more gentle and inclusive, but my point is that OP isn't at fault for a lot of what is written. She's trying to make improvements to what is still an immensely helpful guide, so stop being grumpy shits.

>>8193308
This. While I agree OP's attitude was a bit sour at first, they're getting shit on for a lot of opinions/things that were taken mostly from the cgl docs.

>>8193125
Relax anon, whenever someone decides to do something to help noobs some salty seagull accuses her or him of 'trying to be a leader'/'being bossy'/'acting smart' etc.
>see: makeup thread, skincare thread

>>8191606
I was worried this had died! Great work.

Had a look and it is very much improved. I think you should take out the "and don't buy a replica" from the plus sized lolita bit. This isn't the part of the guide dedicated to "where/what to buy", so don't include that there.
Also as a tip relating to one of your asks, don't tell people to lose weight - just give them their options based on what they have rather than what they could be.


And remove the whole "everyone looks down on piercings and tattoos" thing. That isn't remotely true. They might not fit with the aesthetic completely but the majority of people do not care about them - just those who do are extremely vocal about it. With alternative fashion comes other alternative things, and you can't just write a whole paragraph saying they aren't ok and then pass it off as "oh but you can do what you want with your body". Having those things doesn't make someone less of a lolita. Certainly for styles like punk and goth they add character to an outfit.

>>8192867
Chill, anon. The guide was written by multiple people to begin with.

>>8193154
oh god this is so confusing, it's for asians but then she starts talking about caucasian olive skin too.
I have to say that the season thing is much easier, if someone's willing to explain this nicely and spoonfeed me I'd be so, so grateful

If you live near Sephora, they offer a free foundation matching service and from time to time a free class as well, will give you 3 free foundation samples per visit any time you ask as well.

If poorfag, go to drugstore with your samples and get corresponding L'Oreal True Match with a coupon from L'Oreal site. Mix 2 shades and shop the BOGO 1/2 at Walgreens or Ulta if you need to. They have them often. Might not work for the super-pale and deepest skin tones but it WILL for so many.

>>8193330

I read it from the perspective of actually being Asian, and seeing her compare her skintones to other Asians and non Asians (the Caucasian) was really helpful for me.

I don't see it as being an alternative to the seasons thing, in fact what was really helpful is that this clarified what skin tone I am, so now I can go back to the seasons skin tone and look up what colours suit my skin tone. A lot of seasons articles, even the ones that include Asian skintones, will simply say "warm/cool Asian skintone" or "olive tone" without clarifying which is which. That's why this article was so helpful.

>>8193179
So someone who has been into lolita for less than two years has decided to make the end-all lolita guide

>>8193533
If you'd been keeping up with things, you'd know that OP just decided to take the unfinished CGL guide doc and turn it into a tumblr for easier access.

>>8192801
Lol, Wonderfinch really shouldn't make a guide cause she's fucking ita as hell. Definition of a brand ita.

OP, I think you did a really good job on this. Well thought out, easy to read and hopefully it will help out a bunch of newbies. Also love that it doesn't beat around the bush when it comes to certain issues (itas & replicas).

>>8192801
>I swear, all these people complaining and not making mini-guides on their own blogs
Well, we dare you to try and make a guide! If you think you can do better, why don't you vs complaining and not doing anything to help the community...

>>8193202
:>wonderfinch
>thick skin
>knows what battles to pick
>decent job

I... what? Wonderfinch has been in the fashion for years but dresses like a frumpy stay at home mom who just discovered it. Wonderfinch has, over and over, fought ridiculous battles and "stood her ground" when she's made terrible decisions because she's incapable of taking a step back and taking responsibility for her behavior or her actions. She had a hand in literally shutting down EGL because she got caught saying she wanted to kick someone in the teeth for being annoyed. She made multiple posts blaming EGL for her poor health ('you guys want to see me sick!! I almost fainted in the post office!!!") when the community caught wind of her making hypocritical and potentially scammer-assisting decisions.

Wonderfinch is the last person who should make a guide to dressing in lolita or helm a new guidebook.

But I can see her doing it. She's ignored EGL for years now because it's not active enough to stroke her ego, but Tumblr + a new guide? Ooo boy.

>>8193177
I originally read the post as "J-fashion model" and not as ethnicity wise. But she's def Chinese American living in Japan.

>>8193600
She recently posted on EGL for a newbie notes pinned post, so she's semi-active. I'm assuming that a lot of mods work behind the scenes and that's why there is a big turnover from unpaid stress.

>>8193091
Guidebook anon, I'd recommend making a throwaway email so people can email you more detailed corrections like >>8192867 or making a copy of the original gdocs and have 1 anon do some editing for wording. This is a really big project and kudos to you taking concrit seriously!

>>8193627
But they aren't taking all concrit, only some concrit.

hoping I don't sound sjw as hell but I feel like telling people what parts of their body to shave outside of facial hair is distasteful and will actually put people off of listening to the actually good info
and i know this is written by gulls but i think softer wording for the plus size section will stop ruffled feathers and again make people more willing to follow

on my fb feed some people are peeved you've used their photos credited but still never asked and they think your guide is a bit crap an misinformed so i thinkmit would be more professional to ask the girls photos you're using before sticking them on the guide

>>8193627
considering how inactive she's been for ages, and how difficult it's been getting ahold of her, I don't feel like praising her for making a post.

>>8193056
Not true. It works with undertones of your skin (cool/warm), regardless of race. The ones that only cover eye color and hair color are shit though.

>>8193643
Not OP but the fatty section is fine. It is worded just the same as the other size exception sections...no special coddling for the fatties, please.

>>8192116
So why exactly is this 'bad' if it's good for fancy occasions and lolita is often considered fancy clothes worn on particular occasions? To me this is a good example of personal bias.

I would just remove the bit about body mods. It has no place in a neutral guide.
Also, the "itas flock to replicas" bit sounds really off and will ruffle some feathers. You could just wrote "some people".
Bodyline does not release that many plus size pieces. Fully back shirred brand is bigger than most Bodyline.
Why are you recommending bustier lolitas to not buy blouses with buttons because they'll gape? Being busty =/= having a large bust measurment.
There's no point in telling people to shave their armpits, what's that about? It's not like anyone's going to see, same for arms and legs. Way outta line.

A lot of parts are really useful, but you really need to edit your opinions out, it looks unprofessional.

>>8193759
you kind of do have to word things softer for ~sensitive~ topics though, read what i put, it puts people following your advice if you sound like a cunt

anyway i woukd probably never link the full blognfor newbies just use choice quotes, a lot of it makes sense amd sounds right to experienced Lolitas but there are gaps where youve under explained and parts are over explained

>>8193769
sorry for typos fuck touch screens imo
>>8193766
100% agreed with this anon

>>8193769
Or fatties need to get over being ~~sensitive~~ cunts who think they need special treatment/wording. They may as well learn at the outset that it's going to be tougher for them and the general fat-shaming attitude in lolita that marginalizes them is a harsh reality that's not going away. Mainstream lolita doesn't make exceptions for much outside of the narrow norm, fat, tall, big feet, boobs...and the sections detailing the options do it nicely. No need for special sweet talk for fatties. The rest of us don't really care, you know.
Still think they need it? Make a 'lolita for fatties' guide.

>>8193796
dont expect them to follow it then
this is why the guide will never catch on, semsitive topics need to be treated sensitivley how much of an autist do you have to be to not get that

>>8193802
This. If you piss people off, they will deliberately ignore your advice, and we're back to square one. Preaching to the choir should not be the goal of this guide.

>>8193796
When your silhouette more closely resembles a manatee than a human, the very mention of it becomes taboo.

>>8193802
You are not getting my meaning. Being a fatty in lolita doesn't merit any more ~sensitive~ treatment than having big feet or being tall. Expecting speshul treatment and wording for your fat sensitivities is pretty entitled, there is nothing autist about democratic treatment.
Being sweeter to the fatties isn't going to help them with their fitting problem realities and if honesty and plain speaking is enough to put them off then that's a shame, they won't get far in lolita.

This guide is not fat-shaming, it's very helpful in honestly detailing some of the common fitting, sizing and styling problems fatties WILL face in the fashion. It doesn't need to be changed to cater more to fatty kindness, it's fine as-is.

>>8193861
Don't they constantly say they want to be treated just like anyone else? Well you are. You're also addressing the things they tend to whinge about.

If someone else hypothetically wrote a guide would it be ok to use the information from the cgl page so long as it was worded differently?

>>8193867
I'm not OP, I'm just a onlooker (who is also tall and big-footed) who thinks all these topics should just be addressed frankly and in plain language detailing the realities. I'm not crying b/c my special body concerns aren't being addressed in the proper sensitive and flowery manner. That's one of the reasons people resent fatties...because of the spoiled, entitled crybabies who think they need some kind of special treatment for their special topic in a General Guide. It's ridiculous.

>>8193879
cite your source every step of the way or you will be plagiarising.

>>8193860
Yeah, true that...but if manatee-lita wants to have any chance at looking decent, she'd do well to take a chill pill and just heed what is good advice. Sugar coating should not be necessary.

>>8193886
Huh? No I am not plagiarizing anything... And since I wrote some parts of the guide those would generally be the bits I am using.
Plus the various dress/collar style info.

>>8193861

Yup, I agree. The guide was straightforward and matter of fact, but made sure to say that you can still be a "good" lolita if you are plus size. Nothing at all in there was a value judgement about being fat.

I thought it was really well done.

>>8193056
Couldn't be more wrong
http://www.truth-is-beauty.com
Here's a comprehensive guide of all 12 seasons and examples of skin colours from Oprah through Halle Berry and Aishwarya Rai to Eva Longoria and Lindsay Lohan. Literally every single one, not just 'white people'

>>8193902
I agree, it would be a good idea for OP to reinforce that everyone (with practice) has the POTENTIAL to become 'good at lolita' regardless of size, shape, skin color, age, etc. I was serious about someone making a fatty guide too, it could be a good thing for them. It's just not a good idea to pander to any special interest group much in a general guide meant for everyone.

>>8193904
Rock on with your bad self, anon-chan. Nice link

>>8193879
Attribute what you use to the source and you should be fine.

>>8193915

I agree the lolita guide does a nice job of talking about all the special considerations (tall, fat, big feet), but it would be way better to make a seperate guide for fatty-chans than to add even more to the guide book about it. The guide book covers the main points and an additional plus size guide would be an awesome way to continue expanding.

Someone should do that!

good afternoon!

>>8193357
will add this! i wasn't aware of this at all (i usualy go to ulta for my makeup and sephora only occasionally for nail polish) and it could be super useful to others. are the classes something that happens at every sephora store? i've never seen my local one advertise one so i have a feeling it's only for bigger stores/in certain locations? i'll add it just in case though.

>>8193643
majority of the photo used are public domain (magazine scans, brand adverts, stock photos, photos from brand events, etc). cadney and orgasmicyogurt were asked in advance and credited appropriately. also agreeing with >>8193759
, i'm not coddling plus-sized girls. i'm one myself and i'm sick of that sort of behavior tbh towards newbies that are similarly shaped. i don't see the point in doing so other than "b-but they won't like you then, anon! ):". i'll try to tone down a little more but honestly it's not scathing at all in its current form.

>>8193766
>Bodyline does not release that many plus size pieces.
wholeheartedly disagreeing. did you not see the 6L releases?? bodyline has catered to plus-sized lolitas for a while now.
also i mentioned the arm pits because i've seen male lolitas in short sleeved blouses that had so much pit hair it was poking out from the sleeves. it's kinda gross imo but whatever i'll remove it.

>>8193861
and you're not listening to what I'm saying, i never once said thebterm fat shaming so idk where you got that from
its not sugar coating it's literally just not coming across as a cunt and blunt, and misinformed (larger busts arent allowed to wear buttoned blouses like are you high)
get your head out your ass and stop sounding like youre repeating the same argument and buzz words in regards to everything to do with fat girls

a lot of the advice is pretty dumb anyway as there are all sorts of plus size.
teaching people to be good lolita is the hard part and the learning to dress to your body is a personal learning curve sincr all bodies are different

basically want people to listen, don't tell them flat out they CANT and NEVER CAN do something it makes them more determined to do something and breeds more "fuck those elitists rules ill purposely do the opposite of what they say because muh fashion expression" types

>>8193904
added to the guide; thanks!

>>8193933
a lot of plus-sized folk go to the FB groups "positive & plus size lolita Q&A" and "big sisters of lolita fashion" (the latter isn't exclusively for plus-sized questions but a good number of posters ask about things relating to that topic). these can do for now but a whole guide on plus-sized lolita fashion is an interesting aspect! would love to see this made.

>>8193940
>did you not see the 6L releases??
I'm really bad at searching Bodyline, but can someone link me to a list of the 6Ls, pretty please? I've been curious for a long time.

>>8193941
i never said larger busts aren't "allowed" to wear buttoned blouses. i said that they might not work out because they tend to make gaps between the buttons. it's a frequent issue for those with big busts and i thought it was important to add to the guide. getting a blouse with buttons is fine so long as it's made or edited to account for that (i've had to add buttons to things many times in the past to fix this problem so i know what it's like). chill.

>>8193946
BL only released certain things on 6L. l481 is the one I know off the top of my head.

>>8193951
other anon is determined to throw a shit fit about something, so I wouldn't bother trying to reason.

>>8193955
That's what I thought. I remember searching for these 6L pieces awhile ago and I never came across one. The highest they went to, as far as I saw, were the 4Ls.

>>8191606
Hi, it's original nitpick anon! Congrats on getting it live! I didn't see you reply to the last lot of edits I suggested so I'd wondered if you saw them.

This blog looks really great now, it's nice to have something I can refer people to for an intro to the fashion without having to add caveats like "Oh, it's really out of date though, lolita has changed since then" or "Oh, it's not perfect but it's good for a beginner."

>>8193961
i saw them, don't worry! thanks for helping me so much with this.

>>8192051
I suggest linking the intro post in the layout as "intro", it'd be handy.

>>8193941
TL;dr
Make a fatty guide for your special fatty concerns, this is a general guide and as a reader, I think the fatty section is as good as any of the other special problems section. It's not even a majority problem and the majority of not-fat Lolitas don't give 2 shits about land whale probs. in Lolita.

>>8191606
Are shoe options for Lolitas with big feet mentioned anywhere or am I missing it?

>>8193940
Hold up, the fatties are crying bodyshaming when it is another plus size lolita that actually runs the Guide Book?! That's priceless.

>>8193940
>did you not see the 6L releases
I've seen one, that's it, and their new dresses have been on the smaller/medium side.

>>8193983
Jfc, is 2L and 4L not big enough? Even with Bodyline's voodoo sizing, those are plus, right? And there's quite a few, and some 2LT too for tall.

>>8192859
Lime Crime have had product placement in the videos of Melanie Martinez, who is kind of tangentially lolita (she was dressing in a fairly lolita way in Dollhouse), among other artists popular for dressing in alternative styles, like Kerli.

>>8192880
They had a racist af ad campaign that was based around the owner dressed up as a Chinese/Japanese mashup, rather than a porcelain doll, so the intention was pretty clear.

>>8193957
not throwing a shit fit, just think the whole section is pretty much bs and will create more determined "RULE BREAKERS"

>>8193998
Most dresses only have 2L, which is like 104cm bust, and is not bigger than many shirred brand items. I don't really care for bodyline, but they're not really the greatest recommendation for plus size lolitas when you can get similarly sized brand rather easily.

>>8193969
>Are shoe options for Lolitas with big feet mentioned anywhere or am I missing it?
will add! thank you for bringing that up. i'll shove it in the getting dressed page.

>>8193966
sure!

>>8194031
pretty much all of this

>>8193627
She's only becoming active because she feels like she's losing power. She was EXTREMELY butthurt about Lacemarket and now there's a new guide book as well? She'll finally be irrelevant.

>>8193964
No problem, I like doing editing and proofreading. Dropping my disposable email again since I don't have a tumblr, so give me a shout anytime.

It's good to see you responding to other criticism and advice too, I think the guide's pretty solid but it's good to tighten up the wording and not come off too /cgl/. (I personally thought the plus size advice was well-worded, apart from the blouse thing which I brought up before, but I'm not plus size so I'm no expert.)

I'm still glad the community has this, especially since I've had someone new ask me about lolita only a few days ago and now I can link them to this.

My final couple of suggestions are to add the overseas locations of BtSSB and AP to the Worldwide: Buying New section and perhaps to add links to the older guides (lolita handbook, Hello Lace etc) as "further reading" for sort of historical interest. I know reading the same information in more than one place to see different opinions on the same thing helped a lot when I was new to read through multiple different style guides. I mentioned both of these before and I don't know if you just didn't see it, or if there was a specific reason you didn't want to.

>>8193326
I think a lot of people don't put into account that the guide book was originally put together more as something to put in the sticky that gulls could point newfags to rather than a comprehensive guide for the general public. It was supposed to be by gulls for gulls, and god knows putting it on a hugbox like tumblr isn't a good idea.

>>8194213
This so much but I figured any gull who wanted to make a guide for the general public should know that.

>One should still wear a blouse or some sort of shoulder covering though when wearing them.

Could you add a section about what the avoid with petticoats? I've seen a picture around here showing bad petti shapes (squid shape etc) that was very helpful. Also maybe pictures of skirts with too much and too little poof for their design.

>>8194277
Can contribute some pictures of myself with various poofs under different dresses for analysis here. Although all I have is a webcam for pictures...

>>8192386
I had a quick look through the notes on the reblogged intro post and tbh it's only a small handful of people, mostly nobodies who don't look to be good lolitas from their pictures, who are complaining. If I was the anon who'd made the guide I'd be more pleased over the fact that a lot of e-famous lolitas and blogs (I've only read through a tenth of the reblogs but I've already seen princess-peachie and colourmelolita) have reblogged the intro post without any disaparaging commentary, as well as course as the fact people like Cadney have agreed the use of their images.

>>8194277
If needed I can provide pics (only from webcam but it is the shape here that is important) of examples for things such as:
-bell shaped petti worn under a - line dress
-a line petti worn under bell shaped dress
-too much poof
-too short petticoat
-not enough poof
- too long petticoat

>>8194300
There are also a few other guides out there that could be linked to (can't remember the name or link but there was a nice drawn one on tumblr a while back).

>>8194311
But real pictures are better than drawings. Especially the bell shaped under a line one, I used to do that all the time until I got my real a line petti and realised how bad it looked. just because the bell shape puffs out to the a line does not mean it doesnt make you look really frumpy by stretching the fabric too much.

Most people on my timeline like octavekitten and the lockshop owner said it was a shit guide and after reading it I have to agree.

>>8194360
lol as if anyone cares about chokelate's shit opinions

the guide is fine, it needs work but its not atrocious, and clearly the person running it has no problem making the guide better

>>8194213
yea I always assumed it would be like the taobao guide.

>>8194374
Hi OP

>>8194360
>the lockshop owner
Of course she's painfully sjw trying to please every not so privileged group and pretending everyone's beautiful.

>>8193940
>public domain

Uhhh. That does not mean what you think it means.

>>8194355
One thing I've always wondered whether these guides should include is guides that look OK with either. Some dresses/skirts that have gathered tiered layers work with both because the tiers (you know, looks kinda like shirring but on a skirt) hide excess fabric. I have a dress like that and for mega poof it needs an A-line but if you're not stretching it to the max it works with either.

>>8193940
Magazine scans aren't public domain and they're usually in violation if copyright.

>>8194383
Did she even say it was a shit guide? I just looked through her archive and I can't find a post relating to it.

>>8194419
Ditto Octavekitten, and I checked her tumblr too. I'm not friends/following either of them on Facebook though so IDK.

>>8194291
Cadney is thirsty as all get out, of course she'll want her picture everywhere

>>8194419
It's on her facebook.
Cadney said it was a shit guide, too.

Pretty much all fame lolis posted about how bad it was. I'm disappointed how non of them supports it.

I don't wanna post private Facebook posts here but I read a lot of negative comments.
Pretty sure they won't be anything about it on their tumbles since they don't want to support it by re-bloging it.

>>8194436
post private facebook posts but block out names.

The guide has improved tremendously since op first shared it so I do not know if they still hate it...

Milkteamilk called it CGL trash and as much as I love my anons I trust her opinion more

>>8194431
Cadney even reblogged the guide on her tumblr. She wouldn't if she though it would be shit.

Nice try to stir some shit.

>>8194447
Milkteamilk is upset that something might take attention away from her generic blog

>>8194447
Honestly I don't trust anyone who's sniping against right now because everything I've seen that's presenting any sort of argument is "omg fatshaming! wear what you want!" and ugh..

>>8194447
proof?
>>8194481
Dude her blog is fantastic.

>>8193940
>majority of the photo used are public domain (magazine scans, brand adverts, stock photos, photos from brand events, etc)

Literally none of those things are public domain.

>>8194447
Since when?

To the anons that have helped put all this together – it's looking so much better now, informative and with excellent and comprehensive resources lists. The formatting is pretty damn great too, especially considering the restrictions of tumblr.

After giving it all another read through, I did still pick up on a few things that came across as slightly 'off' - although the overall tone has improved greatly, I think it still sounds a little too demanding/preachy in places. I think this could be rectified with some very simple re-jigging. Also some of the wording in places still sounds a little jarring:

>Modesty is an important concept in lolita fashion. Its wearers dress in a relatively conservative manner, reminiscent of high-class fashions of the past.

I don't want to turn this into another 'appropriateness of the term 'modesty'' discussion again but at the very least, in conjunction with the word 'conservative' it does read like it contradicts the relatively outlandish and sometimes rather flashy nature of lolita fashion. I'd drop 'conservative' altogether and go for different terminology to get your message across about lolita being a relatively 'covered up' and carefully considered fashion. I'd also probably change 'high class' to something like 'refined and intricate'.

>>8194613
I would also recommend something along the lines of the following changes:

>A Note On Piercings and Body Modifications

Compared to many other alternative fashions, piercings and body mods in lolita fashion tend to be kept to a minimum due to its largely cute and girly aesthetic. Because of the arguably potentially jarring nature of piercings with lolita fashion, many lolitas choose to either take them out, or will coordinate their piercings to match their outfit. Although tattoos can be covered by layers of clothing (especially on the torso and legs), if you are going to show your tattoos, it may be worth bearing in mind whether or not it will be a distraction to your coord, or if it plays off it well. Everyone is of course free to do as they please with their body, and there are no doubt lolitas out there that rock their mods, these however are some pointers you may wish to consider.

>Replicas
>Many itas (aka “bad lolitas”; see Volume 5: Getting Dressed) flock to replicas because they are “more affordable”, or because the replicas can be custom-made to fit their measurements, which may not fit into real brand pieces.

I think this bit should be taken out completely, it's not informative and doesn’t add anything to the data provided other than sounding like a thinly veiled opinion piece. The comments about the legality of replicas is valid as it is discussing why it is best discouraged, but you should cover the facts and offer reasons rather than 'judge', 'tell', 'imply' or make sweeping generalisations. People are actually more likely to take things on board if you use a more neutral and reasoned tone.

>>8194431
screencaps or gtfo

>>8194622
>Nails should be either cut short or at a normal length.

I would change this to:

To adhere to a more typical lolita fashion aesthetic, nails are often either cut short or at a normal length.

>The standard size in lolita suits those that are 5ft 2in to 5ft 7in

Typical lolita sizing tends to cater to those that are in the region of 5ft 2in to 5ft 7in

>x Don’t buy their petticoats or blouses

you may be best looking elsewhere for blouses and petticoats

>x Don’t shop on Milanoo, lightinthebox, and lolita-dresses-online.

It is not usually recommended to shop at

I'd go through and take out 'don't' (or similar) wherever it is used, you can still inform and give warnings without using an imperative – ditch the imperatives.

>>8194630
I agree with everything else you have said except the "dont shop at x, x and x" thing. People should not shop at those sites, they are scammers.

>>8193113
b-but i have veins that are blue one one wrist and green veins on the other

>>8194639
In context with the links provided it becomes all too clear why they are best avoided, saying 'don't do it' is still not the best approach in my opinion.

'not usually recommended' is the truth, the links are there to support this notion. I also didn't suggested taking out the comments about scamming. I mean, with that information I know i would want to shop there at least(!).

>>8194622
I agree about the replica bit. Stick to the facts. Hell you could even mention that non-print replicas are illegal and a matter of personal choice.

>>8194662
People should be told point blank not to shop at milanoo. You want to say it's "not usually recommended," but in what context is it actually recommended to shop there?

>>8194639
In context with the links provided it becomes all too clear why they are best avoided, saying 'don't do it' is still not the best approach in my opinion.

'not usually recommended' is the truth, the links are there to support this notion. I also didn't suggested taking out the comments about scamming. I mean, with that information I know i wouldn't want to shop there at least(!).

>>8194667
Non print replicas are not illegal. Only prints and products that claim to be the brand or use its copyrighted shit.

>>8193279
who

>>8194672
>>8194667
Gah, sorry I meant to say "legal"

>>8194667
some people have shopped there with success and shared their experiences (provided photos tc) but they do seem to be in the minority, hence 'not usually recommended'.

I do see what you mean though, perhaps it needs only to state what is known, for instance 'the following companies have been known to do X ' I'm still not a fan of using 'don't' but maybe that's more of a personal thing or nitpick, it's probably the least problematic thing i picked up on, either way, it's not the worst thing if it stays as is.

>>8194668
why say "not usually recommended"? Just say "it's not recommended", because there is no exception to that.

>>8194431
>>8194360
>>8194447
Caps or it didn't happen.

>>8194414
Generally images found online can be used for research and discussion purposes if they are credited. Most serious copyright law comes into play if the user is profiting from the use of the images. This varies by country of course.

>>8194742
They're still not public domain though and Guidebook anon is clearly misinformed in that department. I also remember that GLB really cracked down on the scanlations which is why no one is posting them anymore.

>>8194735
That anon here, yes that's actually better. Not use why I was getting caught up in it (I'm gonna go with too little sleep and too much caffeine as my excuse).

>>8194737
I didn't see anything from OctaveKitten or Chokelate, but this is what Peachie commented on Lacealamode's review.

>>8194779
I just came here to post about lace-a-la-mode's review. I think she brings up some pretty valid points.

>>8194779
Lolita still has rules and guidelines though? If you don;t follow a certain set of criteria your outfit isn't lolita

Jesus what is with tumblr's obsession with claiming that lolita has no rules

>>8194779
(Same Anon)
This is all I could find from OctaveKitten.

>>8194785
That's not what she said though, she said that there were unnecessary rules and guidelines in there, as well as pieces that are clearly the author's opinion, which is true.

>>8191606
She does bring up great points. I agree that the new guide was extremely overwhelming and stiff. It feels overly professional and impersonal, yet everything is still quite biased.

>>8194785
I don't think that was her main point. Yes lolita has rules and guidelines but some of the things the author claimed were albeit a bit far fetched and came off as someone trying to "micromanage" your appearance.

>>8194785
I agree with this. Because with what I've seen on tumblr, they're mostly talking about stuff like the petticoat or a blouse under a normal jsk. I'm sorry, but without those things I don't think it should be called lolita. Just call it jfash if you(general) don't want to follow the fashion rules. Personal gripe, of course, but I'll never understand why people want to call things lolita if it's not?

>>8194613
>>8194622
Thanks for these anon, I'm the original nitpick anon and I didn't want to seem like I was changing too much by suggesting the anon that put it together cut out entire sections, but the bits you've highlighted seemed off to me too. I definitely agree that it sounds preachy - I showed it to my mum and she liked it but said it came off as too much "do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that" which rubbed her up the wrong way.

I think there are some really valid criticisms in this thread. I just don't agree with the people on tumblr objecting to the guide on the grounds that they can "do what they want if they think it's cute!!!". It's irrelevant, because what they want may be a fine outfit but that doesn't mean it's lolita. Just as someone saying blue jeans and a polo shirt isn't goth isn't that person saying the outfit is ugly and they're not allowed to wear it, it's just...not goth.

>>8194785
I think it's because there are technically no rules, as in there is no grand high arbiter of lolita fashion that came up with a comprehensive list for all to follow.

'Guidelines' is an appropriate term I think because it actually best describes the data and recommendations out there. Guidelines are relevant because if one deviates enough from them, then they're arguably going to end up participating in something that no longer resembles its namesake. This will always be a grey area however and as such be the source of endless, tedious, rehashed debate. I'm an oldfag and I've been seeing the exact same lolita fashion argument shit since around 2002; although back then people argued about stuff like using square dancing dresses and how lolita wasn't 'Little Big Girl' or 'Kinderwhore'.

>>8194667
Non-print replicas were kinda covered by the mention of replica bags and shoes, but I suppose something more specific could be said about non-print replica dresses.

>>8194779
I mostly agree with Peachie's assessment, she's fairly sensible, but I don't really get the older feel from this guide...I mean, there aren't any more up-to-date guides anyway, so it still comes across as less rules-focused than what's already out there, which does stuff like tell you that sheer blouses are unacceptable (confusing now chiffon is so popular) or skirts *must* be knee-length.

>>8194791
I agree with this actuallly. I like the more professional/objective feel but if you're going for that you need to cut out so much opinion.

i noticed people on tumblr were totally mad about this. which basically means it's a good and honest guide. thanks for not holding back.

>>8194820
>I agree with this actuallly. I like the more professional/objective feel but if you're going for that you need to cut out so much opinion.

This raises a good point, if you're not going for 'friendly and chummy' then a more professional approch needs to read as fairly neutral, informative with no obvious opinion statements. That's what comes of as jarring - pick a style and stick with it consistently.

Guidebook anon, are you the only admin/editor in chief right now? Because if so, you should probably get some co-admins to help you edit the pages.

>>8194742
>Generally images found online can be used for research and discussion purposes if they are credited.

I'd like to point out that Tumblr will typically abide by the laws of whatever country the person filing a claim is in. I once got a post removed and a strike against my account for using a 2d reproduction of a painting from the 18th century. In the USA, that image is public domain and free to use. In the UK, however, the image is "owned" by a museum and Tumblr sided with them even after an appeal.

So basically if you (general you) do want the site to stay up, always get explicit permission and be very careful about using magazine scans (GLB's owner specifically stated that they don't like the images used, even small images, even single images--so there's that) or other professional photos. "fair use" can be a tricky line and more often than not, Tumblr will just remove the photo & give your account a strike instead of bothering to see if it applies.

>>8194873
Actually, in the US the image is the property of whoever took the photo of the painting, same as the UK.

Lolita guidebook, or ANY of you gulls. Im perpetually confused, which suits petite (<5'3") girls better?
High waisted or low waisted JSK's?

Im totally at a loss and the guide mentioned some petite stuff but didn't really cover which silhouette is complimentary

>>8195014
As a 5' 2" girl, it's less about your height and more about your frame. Higher waists can be nice because they make your legs look longer, but lower waists look good too. But if you're busty high waists might not be flattering because they hide your waist and make you look larger. It's seriously up to your individual body type and personal preference, not your height.

>>8195014
that isn't important, what is important is the rest of your body like your bust size and stuff.

>>8194998
>Actually, in the US the image is the property of whoever took the photo of the painting,

In the US, a digitized reproduction of a painting of a certain age (the image I posted being an example) is considered public domain, no matter who digitized it. Multiple court rulings have upheld this, even in a case where a company was actually selling the digitized versions of paintings another company made.

In the UK, however, museums (or people/organizations) can own the copyright for a digitized painting, even if it's from the 15th century.

Tumblr, despite being located in the USA, has upheld in the past copyright laws from other countries.

So what I'm saying is, don't rely on: "It's fair use/public domain/etc in the USA!" because that won't always see you through with something hosted on Tumblr.

Agree I only read negative opinions of the popular and well known lolitas so I'll stick with the old guides http://lace-a-la-mode.tumblr.com/post/114171328011/review-of-the-new-lolita-guide-book

Only one secret about the guidebook this week. I'm assuming a lot of people haven't seen it yet.

>>8195689
The good lolitas on my friend's list have reblogged and reposted it positively. Even if they hadn't, I'd still like the guidebook just fine though. It's not hard to have your own opinion. I'm happy there's a guide that isn't sugarcoated.

>>8195689
>i dont know how to form my own opinions so i will let popular lolitas do it for me

>>8195195
I stand corrected; I looked up Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and ut seems you were right. Looks like what I learned in school wasn't up to date. My apologies.

>>8196011
Do you ridicule people for trusting experts on other topics too?

>>8196053
i am just saying, being a popular or well known lolita does not make you an expert or your opinion gospel

>>8196053
Being popular does not mean you're an expert on anything.

>>8196088
>>8196073
No, it doesn't, but most of the popular lolita have a fairly good grasp on how to dress (granted there are a few exceptions). If they didn't they wouldn't be popular with the group.

>>8195689
...but did you actually read the guide?

>>8196100
Talia was a popular lolita

I was wondering if the use of 'ita' within the guidebook and also when replying to questions etc could be curbed somewhat(?). When I read this:

>good chunk of them design-wise are pretty ita

It made me think of some 90s valley girl getting all 'omg they're like, sooooooooooo ita'. The term 'ita' has been explained within the guide and I really think it would sound a lot more professional in general (which fits the style of the guide) to describe what could be considered unattractive or unsuitable about certain products and items if the topic comes up/is being discussed, rather than just peppering the word 'ita' everywhere.

Also in the same reply to that particular anon this

>Really it’s up to you whether or not you want to buy them; I can’t stop you.

once again just sounded a bit unnecessarily passive aggressive. You can inform and add opinion without using this kinda tone such as: 'I wouldn't recommend them because of x, however if you really like something then it really just comes down to personal preference'. Alternatively, you can omit the 'it's up to you' disclaimers entirely but if you're going to do that, stuff like 'I can't stop you' has no place within the text either.

Maybe not the exact words I've used here but you get the idea. In general, I actually really like the less fluffy approach to the guide but I really think LGB-chan should just pause for a moment and consider their tone before they discuss anything. I think LGB-chan has done a great job but I do think taking these things into consideration would really help to enhance the blog so that it is still slightly more neutral than it is fluffy, yet equally not standoffish.

This thread has been in autosage for ages but, just in case you are still checking this:

Since people are complaining about the body type guide, I think it might be a good idea to put some kind of disclaimer before it, like "This body type guide is not meant to be strictly adhered to/relied on. It is simply a starting point that you may want to consult when considering what will be flattering on you. The best way to determine what looks good on you is to try things on and see for yourself."

I dunno, something like that?

Also I've seen some people make the argument that "not all brolitas are interested in looking feminine," in which case you can just say "if your goal is to look as feminine as possible, here are some tips: xyz"

Also I think the makeup section contains a lot of superfluous information. If someone wants to learn about makeup, there are plenty of other guides out there. Maybe you can link to some good lolita makeup tutorials or something, but I don;t think it's necessary to go into the depths that the guide currently does. The part about limecrime is a bit... like I dunno. I get that they are shitty, it just seems out of place.

>>8196668
Oh also, about the bodymod section. I feel like in order to be as balanced as possible, you just need to say something like, "There is no official stance on the inclusion of bodymods in lolita. Opinions vary greatly on the matter, so whether or not you include them in your coordinates is a matter of personal choice."

>>8196668
>>8196601
Agree with these 100%.