/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

I posted to my comm and got so much shit for posting it
>lolitas don't have tattoos
>lolitas don't have piercings

I didn't read it all the way through. The mod even contacted me about it

The head of my local comm posted it, and everyone had a positive responce aside from the biggest ita in the group. When no one agreed with her, she deleted her comment though. Outside the comm, I've just seen people posting or reblogging it with no comments either way.

Why is everyone so fucking obsessed with labels and categorization? If your outfit looks good, it will look good. If it looks like shit, it will look like shit.

This guidebook is heading towards a level of elitism that surpasses the elusive brandwhores.

>>8203295
>bitching about the 2.5x waist measurement guideline
Clearly this ho has never sewn her own lolita skirt, that's pretty basic knowledge that's been around for ages, although I'd argue that 3x is the base nowadays.
>no mention of Wa Qi or other similarly inspired outfits
Uh, no shit, snowflake. Maybe that's intentional? That shit always looks like a hot mess and is vaguely disrespectful, like I can't dissociate it from "geisha" costumes at halloween.

I'm not reading the rest of her drivel but she's off to a rough start.
>>8203389
I'm sorry anon, your comm must be really bad.

>>8203837
UBLUUUUUU LABELS ARE FOR SOOP NOT PPL

>>8203837
Would you like a chill pill

>>8203856
No, but perhaps Lace a la Mode would.

>>8203837
The guide itself has fucking snowflake substyles like NAUTICAL and PIRATE. Are you seriously going to throw a shitfit about wa and qi?

Ugh

>>8203868
Oh man through in a "hon" or "sweetie" and you've got the pinnacle of sugary smug elitism.

>escalating it this much
Jesus christ. Yeah the obviously biased tone is cringy, but people need to settle down. People are way too invested in this. It's just some guide for newbies that someone decided to make. It could definitely use improvement but the more voices and opinions that the OP considers the more shitty it's gonna get. Collaboration is great but after a while it's just too much and trying to include every little thing isn't the answer.

A girl in my comm posted it as well, she had a positive opinion of it. There wasn't any discussion but a lot of people liked it, I was a bit surprised.

>>8203837
If you hated lacealamodes, wait till you read this idiots "review"
She sounds like a typical SJW
>fat people are beautiful wear tattoos be who you want be and be happy

>>8203868
"just completely disregard what fits and flatters you, and get pissy when people think you might want assistance because you're a size xxl and you're stuffing yourself into a size m sugary carnival (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:・ﾟ✧"

>>8203874
Everyone keeps forgetting that /cgl/ made that guide. A lot of it comes directly from the docs that were being worked on. Everyone keeps blaming the one girl who put it together, completely forgetting that it was a combination effort. The elitist attitude isn't directly from the person who made the blog, it's from /cgl/ lmao

>>8203837

>>bitching about the 2.5x waist measurement guideline
>Clearly this ho has never sewn her own lolita skirt, that's pretty basic knowledge that's been around for ages, although I'd argue that 3x is the base nowadays.

Oh dear, should we correct that? The basic rule that's been around for ages is actually 3x and has resulted in noobs making terribly narrow tube skirts. It really should be 3.5-4x.

>>8203883
ikr? I feel bad for guide-chan; she's getting so much shit for trying to help.

>>8203866
I think whoever wrote the guide was worried about the sub styles section coming out like pic related. Sticking sailor and pirate together under nautical makes sense to me to keep the guide less cluttered. I personally wouldn't call pirate it's own substyle though, just a popular theme.

>>8203866
>?????
Sailor and Pirate lolita are legit substyles though and have been since time immortal

I could understand you better if you were bitching about Shiro or Guro, but you're really taking a snipe at Pirate?

>>8203878
>problematic
kill it on the spot right now

>>8203878
oh my fucking god, this bitch. turning the "you can wear shape wear to make your outfits fit better" into a pearl-clutching fest of body-positivity and anti-fat shaming.

>YOU wear the clothes, YOU decide how it should look on you. If you need it to get altered, ya'll go do that. If you buy it, IT IS YOURS TO DO WHAT YOU WANT. Just remember that it will reduce the resale quality hugely immensely.
Again, if you do feel like wearing the dresses listed, feel free to. But please stay safe, stay comfy, stay healthy, and don't do anything drastic, ok?

like, what? how is wearing a pair of spanx or using a corset equal to having an eating disorder or having unhealthy self-harm habits or whatever? jesus christ

>>8203945
As much as I want to call pirate a theme, I have to agree.. Brands even make tricorn hats

>>8204006
I vote for calling it both

wonderfinch (cimone something?) and that girl amber victoria are suuuuper buttmad about it

not really surprising that WF has a problem with a helpful guide because can't dress herself to save her life

So long story short: (and all frills aside) the guide needs improvement. I believe we can all unanimously agree that there are ways it could be improved, but can we also agree that there's never going to be a perfect all encompassing guide to lolita?

>>8204018
Yea the last thread was fuuuuulll of really great suggestions, it had nearly 350 posts before it autosaged into oblivion.

Of course the guide will never be perfect, but that's kind of the beauty of this guide, it's a collaborative, ongoing effort that can be changed

>>8204001
because people are stupid and wear spanx and minimizers that are too small for them and fucking start dropping like flies because they're cutting circulation and can't breathe and shit. so many of those fat cosplayers do the same shit and you can hear them like hyperventilating in convention bathrooms
i don't agree that fat people should wear clothes that are too small for them even if they want too, but don't fucking die for it like right?

>>8204018
isn't fyeahlolita sort of the unanimously decided safest guide?

>>8203878
isn't this the girl with oreo tits?

>>8204014
is Amber Victoria the "lolita charm girl"? If so I can't take her seriously, she photoshops herself beyond belief, I almost feel bad for her.

And yes wonderfinch is the epitome of "just because you own brand doesn't mean your outfits are good." She always looks so... frumpy?? It doesn't help that she doesn't seem to own an iron.

Some things on the guide were ridiculous, though.

>>8204095
story time
>goes into bathrooom of otakon 2014
>just washing my hands doing whatever
> random girl comes in in what i think is a raven teen titans cosplay, sweaty and in a hurry
> locks herself in stall
> hears weird clipping/unlicpping
flops a weird skin tones most thingy over the stall door
>girls walks out about 3x fatter
>realizes it was a fat girl squeezing herself in a tiny as shit minimizer

i really should have guessed, i was wondering how her legs were that thick compared to her waist.

>>8204130
amber one of the black NYC lolitas, and a gyaru sometimes

and yea WF is just... for someone who constantly bangs on about being a lolita for ~*~*~10 YEARS~*~*~ she really doesnt know wtf she's doing. that chess chocolate coord forever haunts me

>>8204148

>>8203936
Why is cosplay a substyle.

What were the main suggestions from the last thread? I remember these:

-Changing the bit about piercings and tattoos being unacceptable
-Removing photos of people who didn't give permission

>>8204126
Pepperoni nip

>>8204157
Here's the archive

>>8191606

>>8204149
oh my god what the actual fuck

>>8203389
I was wondering why that post disappeared. I know a lot of the girls have tattoos but so do I, that's such a frivolous thing to get offended over.

>>8204014
I guess wonderfinch is mad because she is making her own guide. It looks like she was throwing a fit about it in the big sisters group and either got banned or she left the group lmao

>>8204183
>I guess wonderfinch is mad because she is making her own guide

H...ow can she make a guide when she can't even dress herself. I mean, I'm not normally the type of person to say "you have to be able to do X to write about X" but in the case of fashion and style, you really do need to have an eye for the fashion before you can write about the ins and outs of it.

>>8204157
I thought all the photos used were from ads--guide-chan seemed emphatic about that; was that not the case?

>>8204221
I think she is delusional. She has been in lolita for TEN YEARS, she modded the great egl, she wears it almost every day. Even though people are constantly dumping on her coords or correcting her that's all she needs to know. She has been thinking of herself as an expert lolita for so long it would be too big of a blow to her ego to consider otherwise.

>>8204279
she pretty much said that they tend to look like shit with lolita and people will shit on you but you can do it if you're that stubborn, which is true.

>>8204177
I stated I didn't like seeing offensive tattoos in lolita, like dicks or 'fuck', I don't like seeing them in general.
I got compared to being racist for it
"if you discriminate against one group of people, you might do it to others, like saying that blacks don't look good in lolita"
I nearly died, I've been having so much issue with this comm I'm tempted to leave

>>8204285
you poor poor thing.
>if you do this to x you might do it to y
that's like the worst logical fallacy ever and i'm pretty sure they would throw a fucking bitch fit if you applied it to their hypocritical bullshit.

>>8204149
why does she always look like she's about to kill someone? i'm not saying she has to ~*SMILE*~ or whatever but it's like, her eyebrows are always furrowed so she always looks annoyed and ready to fight.

>>8204288
It's because one of the mods has a tattoo of profanity, so that made me feel even worse
And not having my proper medications made me feel even worse
But it's the only comm that's nearby unless I go to Northern Cali

>>8204289
I would hazard a guess that her terrible attitude online is a reflection of her IRL personality?

>>8204279
I think the only ones not used from ads she got permission for, unless I'm mistaken. Using the ads should be fine under the US version of fair use, although the guide maker seemed under the false impression that they were "public domain"

>>8204295
fuck her man. and fuck america's view on tattoos. in the rest of the world(and here up until a decade or so ago) tattoos were either for badasses who actually kicked ass like warriors and shit, or violent gang members. i wish people could stop caring so much about their own identities and supaayunique bullshit for 5 seconds to look at the people around them and realize how much more selfish they are than the ones who are 'shaming' them or some shit.

>>8204307
Yeah, I don't mind if people have them, but I prefer not to look over and see a huge fucking dick on someone's arm, although it is their bodies, if I can't have a shirt that has a dick on it and wear it out in public without being told to change, the same thing should apply to tattoos
I mean, I have a tattoo that frequently shows in lolita, but it's a simply small one that can easily be shooped out

>>8204288
if you eat chocolate you could potentially eat live babies. If you have ever squashed a bug you could just as easily murder someone. If you dislike noisy cars then this must mean that you need to be locked in a soundproof room.

Also tattoos are a choice, not something uncontrollable like height are race. If someone gets profanities tattooed on their body, surely they will expect others to take offence? Oh no - I forgot. You cant shame tattoos. If I get a tattoo saying "kill all blacks" it isn't racist because it is muh unique personal expression.

>>8204325
You just did what you're complaining about, though.

>a tattoo with the word "fuck" or "damn" on it is the same as a tattoo saying "kill all blacks"

>>8204326
What? They didn't do that though, they were just pointing out another tumblr logical fallacy that 'self expression' like that isn't racist and it's shaming them or something. (seriously I've seen people chew people out for being offended by stuff like 'plantation slave' porn and shit cause it's really racist, but nope, that's kink shaming, can't have that, cause everyone needs to accept ME for who -I- am and what -I- care about.)

>>8204333
>they were just pointing out another tumblr logical fallacy that 'self expression' like that isn't racist and it's shaming them or something.

But how is that a "tumblr logical fallacy"? That type of attitude (____ isn't racist because self expression, I mean) would get immediately torn apart by the majority of Tumblr, niche Neo Nazi blogs and porn blogs run by douchebags aside.

>>8204326
No, they are not the same. I was being sarcastic. Profanities and racism were meant as two separate thoughts, not lumped together. One actually implies violence and racism whereas one is just a swear word. All I am saying is that saying "shaming all tattoos is bad" is ridiculous because people choose what they get tattoos of, and there is a vast difference between a butterfly and racial slurs.

Also
>white girl entitlement
my sides are in orbit. This Emma chick is such a bigoted shit I have no words. Not only white girls are entitled, in fact the most recent replica entitlement came from a black girl.

>>8204340
it has to do with context. tattoos deface your body and since that's not culturally accepted fully, any act of it is brave 'fuck the haterz' style self expression and they'll just deny the racism out of it. same with porn, kinks are a -big- thing to be oppressed because of right now.

tumblr is more about telling people they're brave for doing shit that will make people 'bully' them, they don't care about real issues.

>>8204349
oh I thought I was in the online comms thread Ill go whinge about racist shits somewhere else.

>>8204349
Wouldn't she have a shit fit if someone called her 'brown girl' yet she just freely uses 'white girl'?

>>8204285
What issues are you having? I don't always agree with everyone but I don't see why there would be issues. It seems like a chill group.

>>8204366
She also calls people "mayo asscracks" and whinges about:
middle aged white women
white people are all capitalists
white people are single handedly destroying the environment and she wants to move all of the PoC to a settlement on the moon (something equally ridiculous) and ostracise whiteys to the earth they ruined.

>>8204014
Wonderfinch has the ugliest personality and attitude I have come across in the sf comm. I hope she continues to stay active only amongst her friends because I don't know what I would do if I had to encounter her in real life.

She really is thirsty for power and wants things to center around HER. It's HER egl, it's HER handbook, it's HER that must be correct.

Girl seriously needs some 'tude adjustment if she's going to be dressing like shit.

>>8204349
How old is she anyway? How long has she been in lolita? She seems very young to be this mouthy.

>>8204373
I've been harassed multiple times by the same person begging me for money, I've gotten into it with the mods twice now. Idk, I just feel like I'm not really welcome. I can't come to very many meets due to living so far away, and I'm sure that people talk about me often. I'm not a very good lolita

>>8204376
Where is she posting these?

>>8204376
She's so vehemently anti-/cgl/. It's like she can't bare the thought that there is an active lolita community that she's not a part of and that collectively hates her. Every time I see her talk shit about the guide she goes off about how "stupid and dumb" /cgl/ is and the people who post here

I know she goes to Rufflecon and it makes me not want to go because I really don't want to have to interact with someone so salty

howdy! LGB-chan here. i haven't been checking /cgl/ that closely since it's crunch time for college, so sorry about that. i'll make it clear here: if you think something seriously needs to be changed, PLEASE send the blog a message. that way i can keep everything organized and i don't miss things.

>>8203295
tbh as soon as she said that skater dresses could be argued as lolita in regards to my definition, i stopped taking it seriously. she also said that the guide is "overwhelming" in regards to the amount of content it has, which is just...ridiculous tbh. it's like she'd rather have less information so that newbies can easily read it? but that doesn't make sense to me at all. just seems like unnecessary coddling. if you can read english fluently and are on a computer, you can read the guide just fine. she clearly doesn't know what she's talking about.
same goes for "where's wa/qi lolita u guys ):". i didn't include those because i can count on one hand the amount of decent/good coords i've seen for wa/qi. i really don't think they're necessary to include, and i even said that it's not an exhaustive list of sub-styles. i don't want to bring them up anyway because tumblr might have a shit fit with that too ("uh white ppl shouldn't wear wa/qi its cultural appropriation!!!" like you just know that would happen)

>>8203868
cringed so hard at this oh my god

>>8203878
>"problematic"
yeah i aint touching that.

>>8203904
is this true? most people told me that 2.5x was fine. i could edit it to 2.5-3x though for safety.

>>8203936
pretty much; those pictures are always so awful haha. i put sailor and pirate together because a) pirate was mentioned in a similar fashion in the google docs and b)it's sort of like...a sub-sub style in a way to sailor? this is just semantics though. they're both nautical-themed outfits so i shoved them together. it's whatever.

>>8204177
that whole section was revised, just FYI.

>>8204379
You're a fine lolita. I don't think people really talk about you, not more than anyone else, but I don't know much. I don't know who is asking you for money, I haven't had that problem and that is really strange. I think you take things too personally sometimes but I don't think you should leave.

>>8204390
Ooh, she is going to Rufflecon? That is great, I'm excited, it's going to be like seeing an Okapi in the wild

>>8204375
Oh dear, what a rude girl. Lolitas have long memories for this kind of thing though, I don't envy her the future ostracism she's buying for herself with that kind of talk. It's bound to happen.

>>8204095
Also, an increase in bladder/yeast infections if you wear them constantly.

>>8204393
Best to just say that a hem should be full enough that a petticoat does not look "stuffed" into it. Many more hem sizes will work, I could have a dress with a hem 9x my waist because of pleating, for example.

>>8204393
Hey LGB-chan, I posted in the last thread like at the very end, long after it was in autosage.

My main suggestion was for the body type section, since that seems to be a point of contention for lots of people (read: tumblrinas)

Anyway, I thought that a quick way to put their bitching to rest to would to add some kind of disclaimer in that section, 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."

Or something similar!

>>8204389
on shannie's facebook page. the post is public

>>8204376
She really does. She's a rotten person who desperately wraps herself in the cloak of "but I'M the ADMIN of EGL!" as if she got there by any virtue of her own. Did she forget that the only reason she became admin was that she had been around the longest of any of the mods when laiferr stepped down? And that laiferr stepped down after wonderfinch herself started a scandal by saying she wanted to kick a member's teeth in while moderating a dispute? And that she's been pretty much ignoring the community for almost 2 years at this point... and that her own self-importance and inability to handle serious situations is one of the major reasons that maikodolly got away with her scam.. and so on.

And lol

>twintails died like three years ago lmao

Twintails are still popular with sweet lolita, particularly in Europe. Lockshop still sells them because--dun dun dun!--people buy them. And I like how she acts as if the mere mention of twin tails = TWIN TAILS ARE THE ONLY LOLITA HAIRSTYLE ACCORDING TO THESE CGL WEIRDOS LOLOLOLOL.

>>8204393
>2.5x was fine.

The rule has always been 3x when I got into the hobby, never as low as 2.5x. And it still makes for a really narrow skirt on some girls because their waist is small, but they have otherwise average measurements including height and hip width, so even 3x waist becomes disproportionately narrow on their bodies.

I'd edit it to "a minimum of 3x the waist, or a minimum of at least 2-3 meters in the hem, whichever is wider". I'd say that should be safe enough to catch both the skinny girls and fatties alike.

>>8204406
good point; will revise.

>>8204408
hello! yeah the get dressed section caught the most flack because how dare i tell fellow fatties that some things aren't probably going to be flattering on them. sarcasm aside, i added something similar already to the faq/in vol 5, especially just saying "this is just a starting guide and some things may work for you and some things might not. experiment and see how things look, but in general these things tend to work."

also, this is up. would like opinions on this; feel free to post here or send me a tumblr message on anon (which would be preferred, and you don't need an account on tumblr either to do so)
>http://thelolitaguidebook.tumblr.com/post/114551952377/just-to-put-it-out-there-but-would-anyone-be

>>8204389
On lace a la mode's fb status about the guide

>>8204413
added alongside >>8204406's suggestion; thank you! i'm not a sewing expert so my rule of thumb was always "can i properly fit a petti in this, and does this make a proper skirt shape?". i appreciate the help!

>>8204413
3x? MINIMUM?!!? You moneyshaming shitlord, did you ever ONCE consider that some people can't afford the extra half yard of fabric or live in a fabric desert and simply don't have access to it? Check your fucking sewing privileges. I'M SO DONE.

>>8204411
Figures, wonderfinch has a vendetta against wigs because people tell her her hair looks like shit with lolita. I'm starting to think she purposely tries to look as bad as possible because she has absolutely no reason to not at least try them. They don't attach themselves to your scalp permanently and prevent you from wearing your natural hair if you want to.
>WELL TEN YEARS AGO, WIGS WEREN'T REQUIRED WHEN I STARTED LOLITA, WHICH WAS TEN YEARS AGO

>>8204415
Ah cool beans. Since that's in there, I don't know what there could possibly be to complain about in that section, but I guess we will find out!

I also saw a complaint about the brolita section, someone actually said that "not all brolitas want to look feminine" (jesus fuck...). To fix this, you could just say, "if your goal is to look as feminine as possible, here are some tips: xyz"

>>8204434
>brolita section
actually did this as well! we've got a mind link going on, anon.

>>8204394
I have a tendency to do that often, primarily because I'm new and fairly self conscious

>>8204349
Is this the same Emma chick that was being an asshole a little while ago saying she was more kawaii than this other girl could ever be and saying more blatantly asshole things and barely anyone did dick all about it? (not blaming anyone given the mentality of Rufflechat) It was during that "racist" thread a little while ago.

>>8204434
Lolita is a feminine fashion. I think all that those people are saying is that not all brolitas want to pass as women - some are perfectly fine with wearing their facial hair + lolita.
I would just leave the section as is, unless the person who complained is a brolita and has a suggestion of how to word it alternatively. People who get offended for others are the worst kind.

>>8204424

Yeah, that should work pretty well. If someone hasn't bought their petticoat yet they can go by the measurements, if they have then they can go by the "can the petticoat fit" rule.

Thanks again for working on the guide!


>>8204428

This should be funnier, but it's just really sad when you see newbies literally being unable to figure out why their skirt looks like an overstuffed tube because they made a 1.8m skirt due to having a small waist...

>>8204446
A lot of girls are new and self conscious in every community. These are obstacles that can be overcome. If you reach out to lolitas they generally respond well, but they don't always come to you, I think you would find a lot of people are just as self conscious as you are and maybe that's why you don't feel welcome, because they find approaching others hard as well. I felt like I had to go to a lot of meets to get to know anyone, so I think I get your perspective, but there's always facebook, which is sometimes better for talking to people, actually.

>>8204451
Yep.

>>8203936
"Erotic" just looks like burlesque to me kek

>>8203936
I hate this guy. He used to bother me on DA all the time to make patterns for his fugly dress designs, but I told him to fuck off. All of his stuff is disgusting. All the over-contrasted saturated colors, the ugly potato headed chibis with the very obviously reversed eyes, that aren't even rotated to a good angle, and the damn fat fucking legs. Don't even get me started on the hair.

>>8204393
I don't think sailor and pirate have much in common look wise aside from being nautical. Sailor is more of a very light in material and minimal look similar to country and pirate is a bag of ruffles, heavy fabrics and OTT.
But I see why it was combined as they do share the mighty sea.

>>8204393
Why not put shit like sailor and pirate into themes where they belong.

>>8204376
Wtf why is no one calling this bitch out for being such a rude asshole?

>>8204936
Because she's the admin of EGL and people lick her butthole for it. I can't think of a single redeeming quality she has, truthfully. She's ignored community issues until they exploded, she's made ridiculous arbitrary modding decisions that she refuses to back down from despite people on all sides telling her she's wrong, she's enabled scammers, she's protected mods who pull outrageous behavior and then thrown them under the bus as soon as they're not mods, she uses violent language when she doesn't get her way, she's hypocritical, and she dresses like a tweenager getting into her big sister's clothes, to boot.

>>8204936
>>8204956
The only reason she hasn't been booted from her position(s) is because nobody else wants to do those shit jobs. She's like en enormously egomaniacal elementary school janitor who lords their position over all the little children but doesn't get replaced by someone less tyrannical because what sane person would want to take their place?

>>8204956
Wonder how she feels about EGL being practically dead now outside January?

>>8204285
I'm wondering if you're in my community. we had a post like that but a mod told us the OP deleted it herself. I just want to know what actually happened.

>>8204126
Dinner plates.

>>8204375
oh my fucking god what a racist cunt

>>8204285
those kinds of tattoos are so trashy and tacky and I have no words. I personally dislike tattoos in general but I don't really have anything against them, if you get me. They can look nice on some people and they make some people feel better.
But when a person gets a tattoo like that it's maximum white (or any other race, I don't discriminate) trash. Ew.

>>8204349
She should change her name to Emma Irene Kuhnt. Cause this racist bitch is a cunt.

>>8203945
Whoah now, shiro is also a long-established thing. Shiro/Kuro twinning has been around since the late Triassic period ffs

>>8204375

Wished this bitch would move to the moon already. One can dream.
Yes I have a vendetta against her, who doesn't? Bitch can't do logic and she's racist.

>>8204433
I've been into lolita for 11 years but I wear wigs, not all the time but yeah, some coords really do require a wig. Not all oldfag think like het thank goodness.
She might be a Lolita for 10 years but she sucks at it, hard. 10 years of ita, damn.

>>8205048
Must be hard work staying this ita for 10 years.

>>8204433
I've been a lolita since the first GLB was released. Did she conveniently forget La Croix Noire wigs? She's such a terrible person. I really want to go to Rufflecon, but I'm afraid of being lumped in with her for being an "old-school" lolita.

>>8205036
But it's not a style, it's a theme. You could have classic shiro, sweet shiro, gothic shiro, etc.
I think the guidebook gives too much weight to themes, making them into styles/substyles.

>>8205177

It's because "themes" is a really new term, coined sometime in the last five-ish(?) years.

If you go back further than 2009, most of egl will talk about substyles, not themes. The term "theme" didn't exist. However, shirololi, kurololi and the like already existed back then. And the only way to classify types of lolita was "substyles". So shirololi and kurololi were called substyles back then, and by tradition are still being called substyles now.

*not gonna argue if we should reclassify them. If you can convince all lolitas everywhere to adopt the term, it will happen automatically. However, right now you're just one stubborn girl unable to accept that your classification system is actually something new that someone made up just recently.

>>8204433
Top kek

>>8203295
I actually really enjoyed the guide and I thought the amount of detail it went into (that that reviewer thought was a bit anal and would put newbies off) filled in the gaps in a lot of other guidebooks. I would definitely have loved a guide this comprehensive when I was new. But I do have aspergers, so I like rules-based things.

I think the main thing that needs changing is the girl to add more links to other resources, like the plus-size mentoring group on Facebook and shit. It's a bit jarring when a guide for newbies links to the fucking chan with the legs of a spider or to bitchy Chinese /cgl/ but doesn't link Lolita Fashion Mentoring or plus sized help groups or anything that actually provides good advice for newbs. But I saw anons suggesting she add links to other guides in the generals while it was being made and she still didn't.

>>8204451

>>8203883
This too. It made me laugh when someone in the "The Lolita Guidebook goes live" thread got pissy because they'd written some stuff for the original docs but didn't like the guidebook's tone. It's like...the original docs were far, far more 4chan than the guidebook ended up being.

>>8204109
No? Because she has some great history and interest and wardrobe building articles but she doesn't really provide any explanation of different substyles or all-encompassing information for newbies.

>>8205140
I lol'd

>>8204376
>twintails died three years ago
>justifies her shitty outfits because they were popular ten years ago
>???

>>8205219
Yeah, the Chinese one isn't even English-language. If you're going to include that you ought to include Dunkelsuss and that Spanish forum lolita in wonderland (although I think that's dead now).

>>8205140
She always looks like an autistic 12-year-old boy dressing up in his little sister's clothes.

>>8205288
My cousin is an autistic 12 year old boy and....yeah. Looks about right.

>>8204987
I would take her place except I am quite sure she would blow up at me if I suggested it.

The only part that I didn't really agree with was the "brand" brand vs "indie" brand section. How is Atelier Pierrot considered a brand and Atelier Boz considered indie? I may be wrong, but I thought they were the same company, and they've been in almost (if not) every GLB since the beginning, as a really strong old school brand. How did you decide what went where? Because that section feels flat out wrong

>>8203874
can I please have more hank hill lolita reaction images

>>8205288
>>8205289
I lold.
The worst part is she's more of a 'wierdo' than any of us yet we are the wierd ones because we choose 4chan over the comms that tolerate and encourage her (racist) sjw bullshit and kiss her ass without question.
Also her tumblr is an ita goldmine http://wonderfinch.tumblr.com/tagged/me

The person who runs it really, really dislikes old-school lolita for some reason.

>>8205459
Since when?

>>8205467
There's a lot of stuff she said in the previous thread (legwarmers are ita despite being in the glb, you must wear a blouse under a jsk at all times or else you're ita, anything made by a lolita brand that doesn't perfectly fit her rules just isn't lolita) that made her sound very biased against or at least ignorant of oldschool lolita.

>>8205478
btw she's never seen/read kamikaze girls since she "wasnt interested" and thought momoko was ita when someone posted a picture of her

>>8205478
Legwarmers are ita tho

>>8205516
According to BtSSB, they aren't.

>>8205523
The Momoko thing was ridiculous but those things were fucking hideous. That's not even a nice legwarmer example

i'm back! again please send messages to the blog when needed. i can't stay on /cgl/ all the time (at least for now)

>>8205219
hey thanks!
re: FB groups: i can't add all of them. there are way more than just what was listed and if i add them all it'll be a damn mess. i'll sneak in a link to the big sisters FB group though (i'm really not into lolita fashion mentoring's system, to be frank).
as for linking to other similar guides, i link to fyeahlolita, which is fine on its own for articles and stuff. plus a lot of "good" guides online are outdated. i have a feeling that there are plenty of guides that can be found online; i can't link to every single one. besides i'd like the LGB to be able to stand on its own without having to always rely on other guides, otherwise it's less of a standalone guide and more of an aggregate of other guides.

>>8205284
wasn't aware of the german site; will add. i'll hold off on lolita in wonderland since it seems pretty dead. it's the same reason why lacebook isn't mentioned either.

>>8205483
are you the same person who was whining last thread about sundresses? dude chill; i don't care about kamikaze girls because it's not my thing (here's a crazy idea: people have different tastes than others!) and i couldn't tell it was momoka in the picture you posted because it was potato quality.

i never claimed to hate old school because i don't. old school is charming and great in its own way. also just because it's in the GLB doesn't make it immune to being called ita/not really acceptable in every day lolita. the GLB is a fashion magazine, and fashion for photoshoots is different than what you see on the streets. for all intents and purposes, legwarmers are generally ita (even in old school they weren't used nearly as often as, say, lace-topped socks, and there's a difference between good old school and ita old school). i never said no blouse = ita; i said that not covering your shoulders usually = ita.

I love how this thread became "shit on WF general".

>>8205665
me too, i haven't shat on WF in a while. feels refreshing.

>>8205574
>are you the same person who was whining last thread about sundresses?
you mean the multiple people who told you to add them and you kept resisting?

>usually = ita.
k but that's not what you write in the guide

>>8205010
Pdx?

>>8205438
>race-themed lolita
what the fuck

>>8205671
does it make you feel better than they're mentioned now? and no, that's what is gonna be in the guide. sorry you don't like that and are 100% set on wearing your dresses with no blouse/shoulder covering, but i'm not teaching that to newcomers.

>>8205671
sundresses aren't a thing in lolita.

>>8205694
>>8205696
>does it make you feel better than they're mentioned now?
saying "you should wear a blouse anyway" is just half-assing it. why are you being so stubborn about this? several anons have told you you're wrong but you're still going to do the whole "you must follow my rules an ap sweet fatty-chan definitely knows more about lolita than the brands who shaped it!!1" thing

>sorry you don't like that and are 100% set on wearing your dresses with no blouse/shoulder covering, but i'm not teaching that to newcomers.
sorry you're 100% set against it??? idk why you're being so salty about this :///// and saying "newcomers" when youre not exactly a veteran yourself just makes you sound even more bitchy

>sundresses aren't a thing in lolita.
and we literally had this discussion last time

>>8205749
yeah ok no, you're the same person. quit trying to hide it; you're even posting the same pictures as last time. i'm just going to ignore you from now on because you're being the more "stubborn" one in this conversation. using my preferences and my body type is also uncalled for and makes me stop taking you seriously. you can have your opinions just fine, but there's a line, you know. i mentioned sundresses in the guide and i'm leaving it at that. sorry that you don't like it, but i'm putting my foot down on this. go moan elsewhere about your precious sundresses and tighten your grip on your legwarmers and ~muh glbs~.

>>8205749
yea and you can throw all the burando pics out that you want but they're still not a thing.

>>8205749
You wanna know else isn't a thing in Lolita?
Salopettes and ACTUALLY jumpers

Just because brand puts it out doesn't mean it's Lolita you fucking twit

>>8205523
omg please tell you don't wear leg warmers in lolita

Oldfag itas are the worst

>>8205782
>yeah ok no, you're the same person. quit trying to hide it; you're even posting the same pictures as last time.
cause nobody ever saves pictures from 4chan right?
>everyone who doesnt agree with me must be samefagging!!!1


>>8205784
>Just because brand puts it out doesn't mean it's Lolita you fucking twit
so it can hold a petticoat, follows the lolita aesthetic, is put out by a lolita brand, but its not lolita because it doesnt have sleeves. lmao ok

>>8205782
Why so sandy?

>>8205810
You do know that it's incredibly easy to just remove the (You) from screencaps, right? Also I'm pretty sure LGB-chan is referring to you being in the last thread and complaining about the same thing.

>>8205818
k so i guess i went in ms paint and edited out every single (you) just for one 4chan post?

>>8205810
JSKs don't have sleeves because you wear blouses under them. Why are you acting like a massive dipshit? It's not that hard to understand

>LOOK GUZZS IT'S NOT ME
Dumbass just close the tab or something, that (you) won't show up next time

>>8205824
not that anon, but it resets when you close your browser, or delete your cookies/cache, it's not hard.

>>8205829
but anon why on earth would she do something that makes her look like she's right? that's stupid, she obviously wouldn't lie to prove a dumb point.

>>8205810
Honestly you remind me of that Raleigh chick and her batshit behavior when it came to what is or isn't lolita. Gross.

>>8205829
>JSKs don't have sleeves because you wear blouses under them. Why are you acting like a massive dipshit? It's not that hard to understand
You should wear a blouse under both IMO since they don't even look good on the models, but they *are* different:
サンドレス = Sundress (supposed to be worn without a blouse)
ジャンパースカート = Jumperskirt (supposed to be worn with a blouse)

>>8205857
>in glb
>in brand advertisements
>ur wrong!!!!1 ur just like (some random comm person) wow!!! wow ur acting so dumb!!1 wow

have fun being wrong :/

>>8205876
Not guide anon, but could you post some photos from brand advertisements? I've never seen any

>>8205932
i'll dump some.
there are already two here by the way
>>8205523
>>8205749

>>8205952

>>8205957

>>8205963

>>8205965

>>8205952
>>8205957
>>8205963
>>8205965
Not to rain on your parade but three of these are from brands that don't do fully lolita clothing, miho matsuda is more pink and jetj does a lot of generic elegant lady stuff.
And I think the motie one is exactly what the guidebook maker means with it at least covering the shoulders.

>>8205972

>>8205973
k i'll post more exclusively lolita brands

>>8205965

>>8205981

>>8205990
Ha I beat you to that one kek

>>8205990

>>8205984
WHOA

>>8206000
yeah so basically guidebook person is wrong about this

>>8204375
Is she secretly Tomino

Styles change all these photos are really old. Just cover your damn shoulders. This guide is suppose to be for new Lolitas, so I don't expect them to understand when it's ok to go bare shouldered. Most can't even tell what makes an old-school coord.

>>8206020
This, exactly.
What's your aim, sundress-chan? If guide-chan did include all this incredibly pointless information and a bunch of itas started running around without blouses, would you feel accomplished?

>>8205952

Sundress anon I can't even your logic.

>>8206002
>opinions about dumb dresses
>SHE'S SO WRONG ABOUT THIS ):<

Whoa, none of those sundresses look good except >>8205952. I'm glad that part of ye olden days didn't catch on, and I don't understand why you want them to be shoehorned in to a guide for noobs? A lot of them are already so against blouses.

Plus, I'm sure anyone could post pictures of lolita brand rompers, salopettes, and mini-skirts in mags, and that still doesn't make them automatically lolita.

I guess I'm just confused why this is such an issue?

>>8205863
Then it's not lolita
Which is all fine and dandy

Personally I hate that the guide panders to noobs like they're too fucking dumb to live. Why not mention that it's okay to go blouse-less but it isn't recommended until you have a better grasp of the fashion just to make sure you don't end up looking bad? Why not explain old school a little bit more in debth so the too dumb to live noobs have a better grasp on it so they don't fuck it up?

When I was a noob I had no trouble grasping things like this. As soon as I could find an explanation of something it made sense to me.

Also, I personally am not a fan of the guide. I don't like it's tone and don't like how it's biased in some parts, I feel some places have too much info and some don't have enough.

This is making me miss the good old days so much for some reason.

>>8205965
>>8205963
>>8205957
>>8205952
>>8205981
>>8205972
>>8205990
>>8205984
>>8206000
>>8206002

Congrats, you posted a bunch official ita pictures. You mother must be so proud.
You don't seriously think that since brand put it out it's automatically lolita, right? Because that would make you biggest tool since Craftsman

>>8206242
I'm sorry but what is wrong with you?

Actually what is wrong with everyone here?

Seriously. I've been disappointed in everybody.

>>8204936
Yo if she just sold that cloak cape thing, it ended up at a local theater...

>>8206233
Well, with all the itas we keep seeing even after there is so much information on the internet, I think it is necessary.

>>8206242
I agree with all the others except >>8205972
That's just old school

>>8206242
>official ita pictures
>You don't seriously think that since brand put it out it's automatically lolita
Do you need help with your first coord, Anon?

>>8206260
...what?

>>8206305
trainwreck for the eyes. I don't care if it was in kamikaze girls

>>8204109
not really, and a lot of her stuff is pretty old at this point, even if I do still love her blog

>>8205523
No....

This is just Kana doing her own thing.

>>8204014
>>8204376
Its funny too, she was shitting on twin-tails and posting on shannie's topic, when shannie wears that style often.

I recently had an interaction with her, that was really off putting. I mean if she has been in lolita this long, it was a she should have known better.

I wonder if the "sleeveless" issue could be resolved by adding "old school" to the guide, and noting that some of the trends that used to be popular in older lolita (excessive lace, for instance) are now considered... some word that's a polite way of saying "tacky"?

>>8204416
I don't see any updates on that page past February?

>>8206431
Sounds good to me, anything so long as sandy sundress-chan will stop

>>8206431
Old school is on the guide though. Did you even read it?

>>8206462
I don't remember seeing it last time I looked, but now it's there, hmm....

>>8206489
It's been there since Day 1 under the "styles" section...

>>8206233
>>8206233
because a lot of girls who get into Lolita can't even into regular fashion and have no taste

>>8206242
>Because that would make you biggest tool since Craftsman
Ok so I'm with you, the vast majority of those pictures are not lolita, BURANDO or not, and oldschoolfags are delusional.

But seriously? Did you get that one from a 90's TV show?

Sleeveless-chan, you do realize that just because brands were doing something that was on trend at the time, doesn't mean it looked good right?

Mom jeans, head to toe denim, velour sweat suits as anything but something you sleep/exercise in, jeans under plaid skirts, leggings as pants, and many other things(like trying to convince people that peplums and giant shoulder pads are flattering on everyone) were all a pretty big thing right?

>>8206575
>Sleeveless-chan, you do realize that just because brands were doing something that was on trend at the time, doesn't mean it looked good right?

should we also say that super sugary pastel vomit prints aren't lolita, because some people think they don't look good?

Sleeveless isn't popular anymore (I mean, even Meta doesn't really do it at this point) but I wonder where the line is between "it's not popular anymore" and "it doesn't count as lolita now."

>sundresses

Different anon here.

Can I suggest that we add in sundresses anyway, BUT also add that most brands no longer seem to release them?

The guidebook is already so complete and full of stuff. Leaving one tiny thing out just because some lolitas are biased against bare arms seems a bit counterintuitive. It's not like you're going to rewrite history pretending these things don't exist.

The other reason is that the dresses themselves still exist, so some newbie out there is going to pick up something like pic related and wonder whether it's a onepiece or a jsk or some other hitherto unheard of item. Then they're going to post it excitedly going "what is this?!? How do I wear it?!? What blouse?!?" and then some elder lolita is going to come along and say "that's a sundress, the lolita guidebook is incomplete on that topic". If you just included these extinct sundresses, they'd go, "oh hey, this is a sundress. I can wear this without a blouse but it's really outdated". Everybody wins, yes?

>>8206594
To be fair, even those styles of dresses are usually coordinated by brands with blouses.

>>8206592
When it's something that can't be re-worked into something that works for current tastes. The problem with pastel vomit is/was it's too busy and usually had really infantile themes (see dream baby room). However that doesn't mean pastel prints with toy bears and shit can't be reworked.

For example using chiffon now it on the rise for sweet, and it "softens" the whole look, and making the print more focused on the border.

As an example of things that have done this, look at old school bxw coords now compared to the majority of them back in the day.

The fits, quality in material, and designs while still all "old school" give it a newer feel and keep it from looking updated. There was an anon who posted a good photo showing the difference in one of the threads here.

>>8206594
I think this specific boat neck style just falls under the category of OP but with less sleeves, but I agree with the sentiment. Maybe we could add a section called Outdated Styles or something and include sundresses, peeking bloomers, wearing black mary janes with everything, and other stuff that was popular in Lolita a decade ago but is now considered passé and tacky.

>>8206594
Those are still usually worn with a blouse or bolero.
Also please note that shoulders and some arm are covered in this type of dress.

>>8206609
That might be interesting. The trouble, I suppose, is how in-depth does guide-anon want it to be? A beginner's introduction? Something more fleshed out, like a regular blog?

>>8206565
Honestly? I can't remember

I just have a stockpile of cheesy-edgy one liners

>>8206602
>>8206610

I wish I could find the ad for the boatneck dress, I don't think that one was done with a blouse. I could've sworn someone said it's a good thing the boatneck was removable, because it got in the way of boleros, and since it's a summer release it should at least be wearable with short sleeves, but short sleeves don't work well with the boatneck thing.

Anyway, it doesn't really change the fact that leaving it out only makes the guidebook incomplete.


And to be truly fair, Angelic Pretty had quite a number of instances where they coorded jsks without any blouse at all. This one is a 2006 pastel vomit release, not even old school.

>>8206616
Having them listed with a corresponding image and a small blurb would be sufficient. I'm actually the original handbook anon and I kind of feel embarrassed for not accounting for the boat neck style when we were listing out all the features.

(Still same person from >>8206636)

Here's a more recent example of sleevelessness against those in favour of writing "arms must be covered" into the guide book. This one from VM's 2013 blog, not so long ago. I picked a random year, by the way. Might be more in the summers of other years.

Honestly, we can go around trumpeting that lolitas must cover their arms because even I don't want to see wriggley jelly arm fat and most newbies have no idea how gross their arms look because they're used to normalfag clothes being sleeveless.However, right now some reviewers are already complaining we're injecting our personal biases into the guidebook when we're just putting across as much facts as possible. If we did write stuff like "you must cover your arms, it's a lolita rule", then it seals the case against us; critics would be able to point to VM's blog and this one specific rule and say that it's definitive proof that the guide book is biased and that it's a terrible guide. We want lolitas to steer newbies to the guidebook, that's what it's for. We don't want all our hard work being pissed down the drain just because we prefer not to look at bare arms. And it's not like we can tell VM to stop making weird things that they intend to be lolita but end up being kinda weird.

>>8206669
Would it be better if we phrased it as something like "this is a less common occurrence" or 'this style of dress is generally less popular" or something along those lines to imply that it's largely frowned upon and looks awful without outright saying it?

Also (beating a dead horse here, sorry), brand =/= automatic lolita. IIRC VM also did a pencil skirt a while back, and I doubt anyone would argue against it not being included under the lolita umbrella. Granted, that's an extreme example and this might just be me projecting my own opinions, but VM does do a lot of stuff that is really more borderline lolita than lolita proper. I dunno, something about that dress feels off for it to be called lolita, like I'd feel like I would be more okay with it if the neckline were lower or something.

>>8206636
looks bad
>>8206669
shoulders are covered, also VM is known for doing more "evening" type dresses once in a while.

And honestly, it just doesn't look very good outside of photos.

Boatnecks with no blouse can look cute, but it looks more vintage inspired than lolita.

>>8206609
>Maybe we could add a section called Outdated Styles

I think the problem with that is when is something outdated enough to be listed here. Twintails aren't super popular anymore, are they outdated? Etc.

I think the Old School section on there now is fine as it is, tbh.

>>8206710
I think boatnecks look better without blouses personally, but yeah, it doesn't look as lolita. If that makes sense.

>>8206725
And with a blouse

>>8206636
Haven't been following this thread but I own this print and so I had a few images saved...I don't think this isn't the image you're looking for but I'm pretty sure this model was styled by Baby and it doesn't feature a blouse. The boatneck is definitely not detachable though.

Looks kinda like you're grasping at straws to convince people that sleevelessness and sundresses are common/generally acceptable though...because they're really not either of those things.

I think you should put in the idea that fast-fashion=/= Lolita from the get go so they shouldn't expect cheap, Every size, don't-worry-you-can-match-it-later mindset.
>mfw People always tell newb how Lolita is generally modest
>newb=is it ok for my ____to show?!

>>8206733
>common/generally acceptable

I'm actually not. Don't confuse me with the sundress anon, I personally am all for covering shoulders, even in hot weather.

I'm arguing that for the purposes of the guidebook, it's better to say what >>8206692 suggests, that it's "a less common occurrence", or that it's "less popular". The guidebook isn't my way of dictating how newbies should dress, it's supposed to answer all the annoying little questions they'll otherwise dump on here or in other comms, so all we have to do is direct them to the guide book.

As it is, you currently seem to be arguing that the rule should be "all shoulders must be covered in lolita, all the time"? You're going to end up with a lot of newbies asking "brand X did this and they're lolita, why? Is the guide book wrong?". Which defeats the purpose of having a guide book in the first place.

So it's just easier if you tell them from the start, "some brands make items that don't quite fit the lolita guidelines. Some brands will style lolita jumperskirts without blouses. Brands used to release sundresses. However, all these things are no longer popular as of 2015 (date of writing), and it is generally recommended that you avoid them". So that solves everybody's problem. You tell them that these things exist so they stop cluttering up threads with newbie questions. At the same time, you also tell them most lolitas don't like this style so they know not to do it.

>>8206753
>tfw my face and hands still show even after I don the frill

Forgive me Mana for being a filthy whore.

>>8206768
>However, all these things are no longer popular as of 2015 (date of writing), and it is generally recommended that you avoid them

I don't think that "These is no longer popular as of _____" will work at all. Just saying "They are less common/not common" is fine.

>>8206788
a lot of people will just complain either way. i think a better way to go about it is to just mention that not everything in the GLB or by brands is considered lolita.

>>8206642
While lolita brands do make items such as rompers, salopettes, mini-skirts, sundresses and boat-neck dresses etc., and show them in magazines from time to time, that still doesn't make them or their styling automatically lolita. Once you have a basic grasp on outfit coordination, branching out to include some of these might be of interest but they can be challenging for a new person to coordinate successfully before they have made a few basic coordinates.

Maybe something like this will cover it but convey 'wait a bit befor you tackle them.' I hate to discourage anyone from getting something they like but the tendency for 'of, I can get away without a blouse for this one' is too strong to recommend them until a noob kind of has the ferl of things.

>>8206795
I think we need a animated banner going across the top of the blog saying "learn to walk before you run" in bright glittery letters.

Really once you get someone over that damn hump of 'all I see must be lolified forever' they calm down and can even (gasp) wear a JSK with bare-nekkid arms...and just not tag it lolita or post it as a coord. That's all it takes. Of course there are always those few who never get it but chances are they wouldn't anyway so meh.

>>8206788

No, I'd also like to avoid the other extreme, where newbies start whining "the guide just says it's rare! Not that it's not lolita to show bare shoulders!" So I think it needs to be said that bare shoulders are unpopular or not widely acceptable.

>>8206808
Very true. Come to think of it lumping all the exceptions together and saying 'wait a bit for these and you will have better results' would save space and deter the 'what about....' type of a uestions at least a little.

Wa, Qi and Hanbok any ethnic or fusion lolita and lolita x ____ mashups could all go under that banner. I know noobs think they want to do something 'new and different' or 'make a splash' and some of the odder and harder styles (like wa) are noob magnets.

>>8206819
I think that saying "This (whether it's bare shoulders or lots of lace or etc) is no longer popular as of (whatever year)" is just not helpful in terms of guidelines/the guide aspect. Because not only does it put arbitrary dates on when something is out of style, it begs the question: "why does something not being popular as of ____ mean I shouldn't wear it"?

Saying that it's uncommon and not typically used is recognizing that while it exists, it's not usually found, is probably as explicit as the guide could be without going into "DON'T DO THIS" territory.

>>8206831

Hmm, I see your point. I guess the original statement I typed up is a little arbitrary.

Maybe something like what >>8206822 and >>8206795 suggest would be better? I don't know.

>>8206822
I think an exceptions section would be good to have. Some parts of the guide are getting bogged down with too much obscure/irrelevant information.

Maybe tea length dresses could get a mention in there too? The whole acceptable skirt length paragraph in anatomy feels off to me.

alright so i went in and tweaked the jsk part a bit. i don't think it needs to be done any more than what it's got now; it conveys what needs to be said, i feel. can we drop these sundress-related shenanigans already? lord have mercy, i can't believe how much debate this caused.

>>8206819
i'm agreeing with this sentiment. remember that this is for newbies primarily. they're not all stupid or want to be special snowflakes in the fashion, but some will have that tendency and i don't want to be the root cause of that.
things like >>8206725 strike me as more otome than lolita (not your run-of-the-mill otome, but i get the vibe of otome from it, if that makes sense), and i'm not writing a guide on that.

>>8206609
outdated is sometimes subjective, like with what >>8206722 mentioned about twintails. plus things go in and out of style frequently so the section would need retuning all the time, which is obnoxious. i'd rather not do this.

>>8206866
this is mentioned in the anatomy section under "acceptable skirt lengths".

>>8206866
ah shit my reading comprehension failed me. sorry there, trying to rush through answers before bed. i don't know what you mean by "feels off", please be more specific.

>>8206871
>One should still wear a blouse or some sort of shoulder covering though when wearing them
Nah.

>>8206883
that's not changing. sorry. i already expressed that in this thread.

>>8206877
It's a lot of words to say anything from a couple inches above the knee to your ankle is acceptable. Saying that the longer skirts still have to have the right shape seems redundant too but maybe I'm giving people too much credit, haha.

Sorry for being vague, I'm shit writer

>>8206900
trust me when i say that you're probably giving folks too much credit with that one. again, it's for newbies. i don't feel like it's too clunky though? it's illustrating skirt lengths decently for anyone to read it and imagine what those look like in their head. if i can get one of my male friends (who isn't into fashion at all really) to read it and say "oh, i get it. so from here *points to a little above knees* to here *points to mid-calf* is fine," i think it works ok. shrug.

anyway i'm going to bed so i'll try to catch up with this thread tomorrow if it hasn't saged to oblivion or whatever. once again: SEND MESSAGES TO THE BLOG. it's a lot better for me and you.

>>8203295
Yawn. Can we just go back to shitting on WonderFuck?

>>8207353
Make your own thread for that, sandy anon

>>8207353
I hope she gets rightfully banned from all the comms for being a bitchy,racist,lazy shitfuck. Thats about all I have to say.

as a complete noob i found the details about skirt shapes, necklines, and sleeves absolutely fabulous. unfortunately I'm not into having a brand name on my clothing, I think it's horribly tacky. A brand name fine, but I don't want it printed all over the item 20 times. It seems desperate. Since I'm already a pretty good seamstress I'm just going to take the shapes I like and make my own.

>>8207610
It's not gonna happen, she's too well-known/popular. She'd have to do something really fucked up, like Maikodolly level

>>8207610
>wonderfinch
>banned from all the comms
>banning herself from EGL???

wat

>>8207617
Just because you choose not to/cant aford to buy brand doesn't mean you have to be a tacky bitch about it. O love how girls like you try to bring down girls who wear brand just to justify your inability to.

>>8207617
How many brand items have you actually looked at? Brand rarely has the name obnoxiously printed all over their stuff, it's usually pretty discreet.

>>8205438
Scrolled through just a bit saw her call herself fat 3 times. Can she do anything right? Or is she doomed to be wrong on literally everything she says.

>>8205810
When I disconnect and recconect to my wifi the (you)s sometimes don't show up. Since around 2005 it's been a thing to cover shoulders. People get away with it sometimes, brands make the clothing but the rules aren't really as much of thing to them as its western lolitas who feel the need to define lolita this much.
So in the international lolita community it's been cover shoulders for ~10 years. No guide will say otherwise. Just get over it, you can still do what you want

>>8206356
Kana is the moonmoon of lolita

I'm not intending to just bleat out the whole 'there are no rules, just have fun'!! Guff again, but really, there are technically no rules are there? - Just prevailing guidelines that underpin the fashion and keep it consistently recognisable.

>>8208496
There are no rules and you can have fun, if you're just wearing clothes... if you want to call it Lolita, then you're going to have to follow certain rules.

>>8208496
Good thing this is a lolita guidebook and not a lolita rulebook enforced by the petti police then.

>>8208455
Is she calling herself fat now? She used to constantly bring up how she was SO THIN because brand was baggy on her because of how THIN she was she was even THINNER than Japanese girls and did she mention she was REALLY THIN yet

>>8208506
Who wrote these 'rules' and what is their authority? Is there a grand high arbiter of lolita fashion?

Why not just talk about 'guidelines' as this anon >>8208515 mentions - why do people keep using the term 'rules' again and again?

I appreciate that if you deviate from something enough, then it eventually becomes unrecognisable. I also believe guidelines have value and would never try to argue the contrary but 'rules'? There ain't none son.

Banging on about 'rules' just leaves even more room for the special snowflake darlings to see flaws in such claims and just go off and do their own, arguably misinformed and divergent thing, sometimes even just because rustling the jimmies of /cgl/ fucktards is reason enough in itself, and/or worth it for their own amusement.

>>8208537
Now you're just arguing retarded semantics.
If you're not wearing a petticoat with a short dress and no legwear, You're NOT lolita.
Guidelines, rules, whatever you want to call them, I don't care. But they exist.

>>8206332
A local theater just bought the same exact top thing from ebay.

>>8208537
I wrote the rules now stfu and sit down bitch.

>>8208537

The rules are short for "rule of thumb", not enforceable law. It's more like, as a rule of thumb, lolita dresses should have this much fabric in the hem, or else it won't poof properly, or as a rule of thumb, you will need a petticoat to wear lolita.

To be very truly accurate, lolita has no real rules, which is why Japanese brands all break them one after another. VM makes pencil skirts. AP makes muumuus, JetJ makes sleeveless dresses. AatP makes tea length skirts, AP made a convertible floor length dress once. Millefleur and Atelier Pierrot make blouses that can be worn off shoulder. And so on.

However, what this means for communities everywhere is that we get inundated with really dumb things, like claiming to have been a lolita forever because they wore a princess dress in kindergarten, or their 80s prom dress looks like a lolita dress because it has a poofy skirt (and is also covered in shiny sequins). Worse still, because no one told them how to dress, we get girls who fumble around being itas because they think they don't need a petticoat, or they try to make a narrow normalfag dress into a lolita dress, or 101 questions about bloomers, questions about blouse necklines, and so on and so on. Some girls can look at lolita dresses and immediately understand the kind of feeling the clothes are meant to convey. Others are completely lost and need it pointed out to them.

The lolita rules and guide book isn't intended to restrict anyone's creativity. They're actually there to help newbies into the fashion.

As for snowflakes. Snowflakes gonna snowflake, best we can do is give guidance to the saner ones. At least with the guide book up there's no excuse that no one taught them how to dress in lolita, since the guide book does exactly that.

>>8208547
I'm 'arguing retarded semantics' because of how unpopular the term 'rules' is - you may think the distinction is meaningless but enough people care about it to churn out related rants on tumblr and elsewhere. I don't actually care one way or the other, but I'm not really discussing my opinion on the matter, merely acknowledging that If you really want to get more people on board, you're more likely to achieve better results by just dropping the term.

I think that if your goal is really to inform and preserve the distinctive look of lolita fashion or whatever, then presenting a guide or offering advice in a less authoritative sounding way (ie not using the term 'rules') is a better way to achieve this.

Either way, people have been getting irked by others apparently misrepresenting lolita fashion pretty much since it emerged, and it's still managed to survive in tact.

>>8208593
And to throw my favourite example out there: Baby has put out cutsew jsk designed to be worn without a petti.

>pic stolen from Lauran

>>8208593

I actually completly agree with you anon, i was really just attempting to suggest that semantics or not, the term 'rules' seems to be consistantly unpopular and gets used as a platform for, hell, call it a springboard, for the usual facebook, tumblr guff and general 'really dumb things' that you already highlighted.

>>8208653

Ah, a miscommunication, then.

A lot of lolitas already call them rules, not guidelines, so I don't know how you'd go about changing that. Making a post on cgl is certainly not the way, especially when you're getting yourself into miscommunication problems instead of highlighting what you actually want to say. A few lolitas used to go around making macros about "the rules are more like guidelines" back in the day, that's a better response than starting a passing argument on 4chan which will get deleted once the thread is old enough.

As for the rest. The first lolita handbook (circa 2006) was written after most of the shenanigans I mentioned already happened, so the handbook did not cause them. You could say the handbook itself was a reaction to all the dumb things egl got inundated with back in the day.

In fact, after the handbook was written we got a lot less "really dumb things" for a while, until everyone started shifting onto facebook/tumblr. Around when livejournal allowed facebook users to post on egl is when we started to get really dumb newbie questions again.

Look at it this way, if newbies now want to get into the fashion, there is a set of rules we can point them to. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, the handbook being outdated is no longer an excuse, and we no longer get lolitas hating on the innocent ones who just didn't know how to get started. Anybody who starts out by deliberately breaking the rules for the sake of thumbing their noses at "the lolita elite" is basically picking a fight, let them have the fight they want or whatever. It's not our job to save them from wanting to fight something that doesn't exist.

>>8204289
Eh, there are worse things to criticise for. I have resting bitch face too. I am doomed to have people think I'm about to attack them, forever...

>>8204340
You're right. Having used tumblr, that would certainly be torn apart. I've seen plenty of posts there talking about racist tattoos and stuff, and not one person defending it because it's 'self expression'. The attitudes there are pretty similar to the attitudes here.

>>8203882
She said "Not everyone will like what you wear and you shouldn't expect them to." Why are you so buttmad at her response? I think it's much better than saying everyone should like everything no matter what it looks like.