Lolita in Glamour magazine

[Anonymous No.7555239]

Could we have a discussion about this?

[Anonymous No.7555244]

whats there to talk about...?
dont think this deserved its own thread. should just post in lolita general....

[Anonymous No.7555851]

>>7555239
I wanna see the full page!

[Anonymous No.7555855]

Post the full page anon, I don't buy newsstand rags

[Anonymous No.7555871]

Which volume? Post full page please?
This is actually pretty nice of glamour mag.

[Anonymous No.7555872]

Lots of emails have been sent.

[Anonymous No.7555875]

>>7555871
The statement in the OP pic isn't what's in the actual magazine. It originally said something like "Do not, -repeat-, do not dress up like a Candyland game board"

[Anonymous No.7555876]

Actual image I took.

[Anonymous No.7555878]

>>7555872
>>7555876
I remember how I was a normalfag once...
>hurrdurr all sweet outfits look like clown costumes
Andddddd a couple years later I became one.
Better prepare our anuses, normies will make lolita the next fashion fad.

[Anonymous No.7555885]

>>7555851
>>7555855
>>7555239

It's from a Do's and Don'ts page in Glamour. Photo is very old, and wasn't taken specifically for Glamour - was taken by someone else and sold on to Glamour. This isn't the original caption, the original caption classed it as a "Candy Land game piece" and "waaay too sweet".

There's nothing to discuss - mainstream media thought the fashion was odd and made a comment on the outfit that honestly wasn't that bad - it is very sweet! I'd rather have this than comparisons to being a living doll.

[Anonymous No.7555886]

OG image

[Anonymous No.7555889]

>>7555876
>powder pink with black accents
>a do
Almost all ~fashion~ magazines are street rags written by middle age women with no sense of style. Look up these magazine "style editors" sometime and prepare to be disappointed by a sea of fatties wearing American Eagle style cardigans with cinched waist belts. These are the people giving the masses style advice. Just look at that super daring, cutting-edge tshirt paired with jeans. Is it any wonder American women dress like shit?

[Anonymous No.7555891]

>>7555878
On the one hand, I'm silently looking forward to this so that I don't have to feel like a big sore pink thumb in public and can at least be a slightly smaller sore thumb in public.
But on the other, I'm vocally dreading this, because it'll probably be executed extremely shittily and what is lolita now will be lost on people normalfagging it up with low quality and half assed outfits.
But I also think they'd change the name. Like, take concepts of lolita, pick some aspects of it, bastardize it essentially, and then call it something completely different.

[Anonymous No.7555892]

>>7555886
Sad because it's a cute coord, pathetic that the magazine only called it out because it's stuck on a bigger chick who isn't a 10/10.

[Anonymous No.7555894]

>>7555886
>>7555892
I would change the tights and I am not super in to that wig style... That is just my opinion, other than that it is fine.

[Anonymous No.7555896]

>>7555891
"cupcake fashunnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!"

[Anonymous No.7555897]

>>7555892
It's not ita but it's not really a good coord, either, and the poodlehat wig doesn't help.

[Anonymous No.7555904]

>>7555875
Oh. Nevermind then. I am disappoint now...

[Anonymous No.7555914]

I found all the people getting butthurt about this more funny, especially people reblogging it on tumblr with comments about how they ~don't care~ and how rude it is etc. Clearly, you do care.

I really don't think lolita is ever going to go mainstream, there might be influences here and there as there already have and stories taking notice and poking fun at it like this and the TLC shows, but not beyond what we have at the current point.

[Anonymous No.7555916]

>>7555914
loli won't ever go mainstream because it's to much damn effort
the massive are used to buying one pair of boots, one purse, one statement necklace or one cardigan to have the ~newest trendy~ look. Lolita requires an entirely new wardrobe, even in its most watered down, ita form.

[Anonymous No.7555920]

>>7555914
I don't understand why people are so mad about it. Not everyone is going to like your style. If they say it looks bad, so what?

[Anonymous No.7555923]

>>7555916
Loli won't go mainstream because it looks like children's clothes to most people, not because of the effort.

[Anonymous No.7555941]

>>7555916
>>7555923
I think it's a bit of both.
>too expensive for the average person to afford for everyday wear
Normies don't even buy high end fashion they show in magazines, and rich people would rather spend their money on legitimate high end fashion items that will gain them recognition and not weird looks/questions.
>effort
This is the biggie. People probably won't latch on to wearing wigs to balance out an outfit, wearing thick makeup to pull off the full 'doll' like appearance, and then all of the preparation and layers that lolita requires.
The fact that lolita requires things like corsets, pettis, and in some cases binders already makes it impractical for most people.

And while I consider it a legit fashion, I've also made peace with the fact that I treat it pretty much like a costume because I only ever wear it to meets and conventions.
It's sad, but in a way it's for the better.
>less people = more fun

[Anonymous No.7555974]

>>7555941
...Almost none of the things you mentioned are actually required for lolita, though, sans petticoat.

[Anonymous No.7556046]

>>7555886
damn that's cute

[Anonymous No.7556050]

>>7555941
>lolita
>requires corsets

this ain't the 19th century bro

[Anonymous No.7556071]

Irony of this is that the girl is a fashion blogger.
>http://www.intrinsicallyflorrie.com/

[Anonymous No.7556079]

>>7556071
Anybody with a camera and internet access can be a "fashion blogger" these days.

[Anonymous No.7556086]

>>7556079
But she's a good one.

[Anonymous No.7556097]

>>7555889
This. It's always boring, basic shit.
Fashion magazines convinced me fashion itself was boring and very pointless for a while.

[Anonymous No.7556114]

>>7555974
>>7556050
>latching on to one thing out of the entire post
And sometimes I even wonder why I bother.

[Anonymous No.7556126]

>>7556114
Let's talk about the rest then

>People probably won't latch on to wearing wigs to balance out an outfit, wearing thick makeup to pull off the full 'doll' like appearance, and then all of the preparation and layers that lolita requires. The fact that lolita requires things like corsets, pettis, and in some cases binders already makes it impractical for most people.

Wigs, thick makeup for a 'doll' like appearance, and corsets aren't required. I've never known anyone to wear binders, except for fatty-chans. The only 'layers' really required are a petticoat and that's about it.

[Anonymous No.7556128]

>>7555941
Except you don't require thick makeup, wigs, corsets or binders in lolita, except if you're intending to go OTT.

Both high end fashion and lolita require a certain level of effort not many people are willing to go through. The only difference resides in the style of the fashion.

The reason why people don't buy into the fashion is because, as hurtful as it may sound, certain styles of lolita -do- make people look like oversized children, especially when you pay attention to Sweet over the rest substyles.
Plus the connotations of the word "Lolita" in the western world. It is a legit fashion [I'm more into Classic], but I still see it as it is. Not to mention it's hugely impractical to wear it regularly.

Besides, fashion isn't about acquisitive value to begin with; it's about taste. This is why it doesn't matter if you buy designer clothes or not as long as you have taste.

This, however, doesn't seem to apply in Lolita.

[Anonymous No.7556150]

>>7556114
Too bad about that 'post being almost entirely wrong' thing huh

[Anonymous No.7556163]

>>7555878
what changed your mind?

[Anonymous No.7556171]

>>7556126
>aren't required
Show me a coord that honestly looks good sans makeup, sans wig, sans any shapewear.
I'll wait.
>except for fatty-chans
Or maybe girls with big boobs......................?
>>7556150
>Too bad about that 'post being almost entirely wrong' thing huh
Subjective, and you've yet to explain your personal reasoning.
>certain styles of lolita -do- make people look like oversized children
Yeah, and goth is for freaks who never grew out of 2007, and classic is for crazy old cat ladies.
But really, it's the effort mostly.

[Anonymous No.7556176]

>>7556171
>>certain styles of lolita -do- make people look like oversized children
Meant to quote >>7556128

[Anonymous No.7556190]

>>7556171

No one looks great or complete without any makeup, but there are plenty of people who pull off the look without any shapewear (if they have the right shape) or wigs. You just have to have long enough hair and make sure to put it in an appropriate hairstyle if it's not thick/long enough.

Honestly, I'm just glad I can finally find a fashion where the clothes are not always fuckin moving around me because I'm too skinny for the entirety of American clothing lines.

[Anonymous No.7556197]

>>7556171
>still thinking you need a wig for a coord to look good
wow get out of 2009

>or maybe girls with big boobs
the fat has to come from somewhere

[Anonymous No.7556198]

>>7556190
>I'm too skinny for the entirety of American clothing lines.
Surprises me that you'd say this because I thought lolitas by now would be privy to shopping online. Wouldn't you just shop online for normal clothes from asian-based or petite stores too?

[Anonymous No.7556200]

>>7556197
>the fat has to come from somewhere
Yeah, from genetics. Where the fat accumulates on their boobs and not on other parts of their bodies. Is anyone with tits a fattychan to jealous flatties?

[Anonymous No.7556203]

>>7556198

Well, lolita did introduce me to the concept of buying shit online, so there's also that aspect.

I still enjoy shopping in store, but it does get frustrating after a while after you've been shopping online, both at the selection of styles and the sizes available.

[Anonymous No.7556208]

>>7556197
>fat has to come from somewhere
nigga r u dumb

[Anonymous No.7556246]

>>7556086
she takes photos of her friends mostly

[Anonymous No.7556258]

>>7556171
>sans
honey no.

[Anonymous No.7556266]

>>7556171
>Show me a coord that honestly looks good sans makeup, sans wig, sans any shapewear.

I didn't say "sans makeup." You said THICK makeup was required and that a "doll-like look" was required, which is ridicules.

>implying people can't look good in lolita without wigs

Incorrect.

>sans any shapewear

If you can't look good without shapewear, you're fat. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Anonymous No.7556268]

>>7556258
What?

[Anonymous No.7556277]

>>7556266
I'm still waiting for some pics.
Only person that came close was >>7556190
and I can tell she's wearing a fair amount of makeup.

[Anonymous No.7556279]

>>7556171
>>7556176
>Yeah, and goth is for freaks who never grew out of 2007, and classic is for crazy old cat ladies.
Don't be so in denial about the fact that Lolita doesn't make you look like an oversized child, because it does. This is why it doesn't get recognition in the mainstream.

>But really, it's the effort mostly.
You're still making it look like getting dressed in Lolita is some sort of super complex process when it's not lol. Do you seriously think the average person will spend $300 in a dress just to look weird? No. They don't buy Lolita stuff not because they can't afford it [come on now, you have Bodyline if money is an issue], but because of the way the fashion looks. It's not common, and the connotations it has in the western world are still based on ignorance and novels that have nothing to do with the fashion at all.
A normalfag would rather spend that money, in say, a pair of Louboutins than a dress with teddy bears on it.

[Anonymous No.7556284]

>>7556266
>If you can't look good without shapewear, you're fat.

What's with the amount of insecurity I've been reading in this thread so far?
>binders are only for fat people
>shapewear is only for people who can't look good naturally
Like, what the actual shit am I reading in here?

[Anonymous No.7556288]

>>7556279
>You're still making it look like getting dressed in Lolita is some sort of super complex process when it's not lol
To a lot of normalfags it is. Have you ever explained to them step by step on how to care for your clothes, and what you go through to put them on?
>Do you seriously think the average person will spend $300 in a dress just to look weird?
I alluded to this too. I don't deny it.
In fact I flat out said something similar to your last sentence in my original post.

[Anonymous No.7556300]

>>7556288
>Have you ever explained to them step by step on how to care for your clothes, and what you go through to put them on?
Of course I have. They actually come to me for advice on how to take care of certain fabrics. Same for the effort. All I'm saying is that both in high end fashion and lolita there's a certain level of effort most people aren't willing to put up with because of practicality, but in the case of lolita it's not mostly the effort but the connotations it has in the western world.

[Anonymous No.7556331]

>>7556277

Just as much (if not less) as my classmates on a normal workday. Where I'm living, people like to cake it on, sometimes with a paint applicator (I've legit seen this in the restrooms).

I think for makeup anyways, you really underestimate how much normalfags can put on. There are people (like me) who don't wear it on a daily basis, and there are people who cannot leave the house without their 7 layers of foundation, bb cream, etc etc etc.

[Anonymous No.7556354]

>>7556284
The truth? Sorry you're in denial but if you're reasonably thin, don't have large breasts and have nice natural hair and know how to style it, you don't need any of that stuff. And if you're naturally pretty or cute, you can get away with no to bare minimum makeup as well.

>>7556331
This too.

[Anonymous No.7556375]

>>7556354
>The truth?
Uh no.
At least two people have already explained to you that you can be reasonably thin and still have large breasts.

Personally I wear a corset sometimes and my natural waist is 25'. Unless you think that's fat too or something, but I certainly don't wear shapewear because I think my body is hideous. It's just icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

You do come off as insecure.

[Anonymous No.7556383]

>>7556354

>tfw I don't have to do much to look decent in lolita

I feel so pretty right now. I'm no 7/10, but at least I don't need shapewear or massive amounts of makeup.

[Anonymous No.7556388]

>>7556375
>you
>implying

You need to learn what a qualifier is, anon.
>if
That's fine that you need it, but many of us don't. You are the one sounding insecure here.

[Anonymous No.7556409]

>>7556383
>That's fine that you need it, but many of us don't.
Good for you, but whoever posted >>7556266
and >>7556197 still sound insecure as shit. The one who said shit about the binder being only for fat people is just plain wrong. I don't even get why you're not distinguishing yourself from that post if you're not the same person behind it.

[Anonymous No.7556413]

>>7556383
Post pics or go home ladies.
>liars to the left

[Anonymous No.7556415]

>>7556331
>sometimes with a paint applicator
I think you mean an airbrush, and that's supposed to be less makeup with more coverage compared to applying it with a sponge/brush

[Anonymous No.7556420]

>>7556415

Oops, I meant paint mixers. Like this wooden stick. It looks like a ruler and is as big as one.

[Anonymous No.7556424]

>>7556409

I'm not that post, and I didn't feel the need to distinguish myself. Why do I need to?

>>7556413
Ahaha.

[Anonymous No.7556448]

>>7556284
How long have you been here? Cgl is where all of the most insecure women flock. Calling anyone even a few pounds over 100 fatties, making fun of relatively average or not necessarily beautiful girls uggos - so many people project so hard here. And I wish I was even exaggerating a little.

[Anonymous No.7556451]

>>7556448
*I meant, calling them uggos.

[Anonymous No.7556468]

>>7556448
Man, not to say this generalization isn't likely to be partially true but you really buy into the 'if someone doesn't like you/think you're pretty they're just jealous of you' self esteem spoonfeeding, huh.

[Anonymous No.7556528]

>>7555941
>less people = more fun
Agreed on this. I know I soud like a speshul snowflayk, but it really is fun to have a small community. I love how I've met friends through it, and how we all have our own jokes and meets and stories and literature. Like a cult or something. It's fun.

[Anonymous No.7556586]

>>7556171
You seem to have a disconnect between what you apparently think and what you're actually saying.

Because here you're saying sans makeup, when no one implied that people looked good without any makeup. You said that lolita required thick makeup to achieve a doll aesthetic. The "doll look" is not desired by everyone that wears lolita.

And here you're saying sans any shapewear, when you said that lolita required *corsets.* The only time I can think of people wearing corsets are either people doing outfits which are more steampunk than lolita or bigger girls wearing them (like the girl from Michigan before she lost weight, who did all of those ~quirky outfits, and the apple girl who flounced) to fit into brand.

And sans wig? You do not need a wig to look good in lolita, point blank. You need to style your hair and make it presentable, certainly, but you don't need a wig. I'd rather see most people's natural styled hair than shiny plastic wigs that look out of place.

[Anonymous No.7556593]

>>7556586
Which girl from Michigan did the ~quirky~ outfits?

[Anonymous No.7556631]

>>7556593
Theosakakoneko. Not all of them were quirky but she did quite a number of OTT outfits. But what always bugged me was the waist cinching corset, I think it looks so unflattering when bigger girls squeeze their waists because it emphasizes the rest of their bulk.

[Anonymous No.7556656]

>>7556631
Wow, this girl is also comes off as so high and mighty in threads in the comm...

[Anonymous No.7556657]

>>7556656
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.7556669]

>>7556528
>Like a cult or something

I'm kind of inspired by the anons that said Lolita was a cult. what could we say to make it sound like lolita was a cult?

so far I've got

>large following all over the world
>we all are a community with set rules, refusal to follow these rules can lead to expulsion from our communities.
>we worship our group's founder, Mana
>most of us aspire to make a pilgrimage to Japan, birthplace of our fashion, and the location of many gorgeous stores targeted towards us.

anything else?

[Anonymous No.7556680]

>>7556669
>kawaii ambassador to spread the 'good word' of lolita
>very specific sects with obvious traits and differences

hell even things like twinning or style themed meetups can be considered cultlike. shit's creepy if you think about it.

[Anonymous No.7556945]

>>7555239
Huh I saw the original going around tumblr and I shopped the pic and re blogged with the original at like 3 in the morning and now somebody has posted here... I wonder if/which one of my followers posted it here? Anyway what bothered me (even if her coord isn't great) is that the picture looks like someone has asked her to pose for a photo (judging on her angle) and the went and insulted her.That's just not on, for any fashion.

[Anonymous No.7556948]

>>7556945
The person who took the photo didn't insult her. The person who took the photo (and, presumably, got permission) put it up on Getty Images. It was purchased with licensing by the magazine and insulted.

[Anonymous No.7556957]

>>7556631
>I think it looks so unflattering when bigger girls squeeze their waists because it emphasizes the rest of their bulk
It only looks stupid because they do retarded shit like wear the corset on the outside of the clothing, and the break in flow (though that picture is a hot mess anyway) is what makes it such an eyesore.

[Anonymous No.7556961]

were still around
Join us

plus.google.com/communities/105862296825299525510

literally the best people from this board

[Anonymous No.7556994]

>>7556948
Thanks for explaining, still seems like a lame thing for a company like glamour to do.

[Anonymous No.7557377]

>>7555889
>middle age women with no sense of style
This. The mainstreaming of ugly hipster shit and 1980s thriftstore garbage really cinched it for me. They just shill whatever they get paid to shill, and apparently put no effort into it.

[Anonymous No.7557379]

>>7555886
Florrie's been in multiple magazines. I can't remember which one it was, but she was in a UK mag for fashion week last year, while wearing a bodyline jsk.

[Anonymous No.7560471]

>>7556669
> Ranks of the cult are determined by the quality and flamboyancy of their displays
> A "No talking about fight club" society where no one can talk too excitedly about anime and no one can compare lolita to the book.
> It's important to look physically like the rest- In weight, hair styles, body type, race (Seriously. The amount of controversy there is about different races wearing lolita must look absurd and concerning to outsiders)
Ok, the biggest ones?
> Routinely meet up in a large, public group to practice the sacred ceremonies (ie tea and miniature golf)
to add to your rules one:
> Very specific uniforms must be worn, received from approved sources, or risk banishment

[Anonymous No.7560888]

>>7555892

It's mediocre at best. Fatties need to stop believing any critisism they get is because of their weight.

[Anonymous No.7560897]

>>7555889
Thank you.
Western fashion magazines are horrible.

[Anonymous No.7560913]

>>7555889
I actually like her style, it's a bit boring but I think she looks nice. That said, it's bitchy to use "do's" and "don'ts" that include real people without asking the individual first, they should just have a model show examples of what looks good and what doesn't.

[Anonymous No.7560915]

>>7556258
Different anon, but sans is use perfectly correctly (at least to my knowledge). What's with the condescending "honey no"?