Real lolitas and lolitas at heart

I think if you only wear lolita to meet-ups and conventions you are a conlita (you need a specific occasion to wear it and it's not your normal style). But conlita's are still lolita's too. And I don't think they are worse or less "real" than other lolita's.

I honestly couldn't care less what other people do, I just enjoy the fashion and wear it. Not sure why there's this big debate over being a "conlita", "lolita at heart", etc. It's not my place to categorize people, nor do I want to.

>>9318112
You're a real lolita when you own at least one outfit and wear it from time to time. That can be once a year or every day, doesn't matter.

"Lolita at heart" is just bullshit people who don't want to take the effort of putting together a coord tell themselves in order to justify participating in the online comms.

If you wear and own lolita you are a lolita. Nothing more to it than that. The 'lolita at heart' thing is bullshit.

This really didn't need its own thread. Take it to Lolita general if you want to argue about this for the nth time.

>>9318112
sage because this really doesn't need it's own thread but i'll answer your question:

anybody who owns and wears a full lolita coordinate is a lolita. doesn't matter where or how often you wear it, you're a lolita. a lolita at heart is somebody who doesn't own a single proper coordinate/doesn't know shit about lolita/believes that lolita is a feeling.

conlitas or "occasional lolitas" are just people who don't wear it in their day to day lives, and that's fine. they are not lolitas at heart.

>>9318144
your bait sucks

>>9318969
This really didn't need its own thread. Take it to Lolita general if you want to argue about it for the nth time.

Lolitas who treat it like a fashion, mix and match and don't require special occasions to wear it > conlitas who only own full sets/only wear it to cons and meetups > girls who don't own anything lolita but spend all their free time shitting up the online comms anyway.

>>9318112
Unpopular opinion time!
In all honesty I feel like this topic is much more complex than people really think but I will summerise my opinion as best as I can.

Wearing lolita clothing is not the same as being a lolita.
One is an act of putting on clothes the other is a state of being. This is why we can argue that when we are not wearing lolita but a tracksuit to the shop at 11pm we are still lolitas.

Conversely it can then be argued that the clothing is infact then only supplementary to being a lolita.

If "state of being" is argued to be irrelevant, then we cease to be lolita the moment we take off the clothes. Which prompts the question, "what creates the state of being"?

It is at this point we conclude that to be "a lolita" you need to combine both state of being and lolita clothing.
This becomes Identity and expression of identity. Without Identity you cease to be a lolita the moment you remove the frills. And without clothing you lack the tools to express your identity and belong to a group with similar interests, motives etc.

So who is a REAL lolita? Ask yourself: what is lolita to you?
>Is it just clothes
or
>is it an expression of your identity

And as much as you don't want to hear it, people who answer B) are more likely to introduce elements of life styling.

Someone who actively purchases lolita items, wears or photographs them, and participates in events or activities that support the communities at large (ie. attending meet ups, buying from burando or indie).

I'm really not picky, and I totally understand if someone has a bad year and doesn't wear lolita as much. I don't even mind if people want nice occasions to wear lolita because, hey, not everyone has the time or the job to get dressed proper (I'm not gonna be at my job in lolita for 10 damn hours). I just get sick of people who own NOTHING lolita and try to bash their way into communities like they know better over veterans.

>>9319105
You made a really good point there.
I, and most of my close friends, fall into category B. We spend a huge amount of time interacting with the online community, wear it several times a week, decorate our homes accordingly etc.

I am >>9318122 and still believe that statement to be true, but I guess it goes further than that. Everyone who wears lolita is a lolita, but some are -more- lolita than others.
It's like with most things. If I like to go skiing and do so a week every year, I am a skier. But undeniably, someone who lives on a mountain, goes skiing every day in winter and has a youtube channel showing off their tricks and jumps, is MORE of a skier.
In lolita, some use the term "lifestyle lolita" to distinguish between "being a lolita" and "lolita being an important part of your identity".

Normally, we just don't go into that depth when discussing "when is someone a lolita" because as soon as you mention that, a newbie ita jumps out from somewhere and starts screaming about elitist bitches.

>>9319105
I agree with what you said. That's an interesting point.

>>9319105
I like you.

File: 1443306689693.gif (869KB, 400x265px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 400x265px

>>9319105
>the other is a state of being
This is what happens when you try to be philosophical but it's just another corny statement about clothes.
>inb4
Don't pretend you wouldn't cringe at this coming from a goth.

>>9319151
Goth isnt just a fashionstyle tho, its a subculture which is heavily linked to the music (which lolita isnt).

I would say that a lolita is a person that is interested in the style and it's history. Someone who is not a lolita could be a persone that dresses up in lolita clothing a couple of times just to try it out is not interested in the style overall.

>>9319156
Fine, emo it is. And I cringe again.

You are a lolita if you have at least one outfit that you did wear at least once and if you participate in at least one aspect aside from just wearing (like meet-ups, online discussion, sewing, worshipping brands etc.).
If you just participate without wearing you are only an enthusiast.
If you only wear it without interest (which is not likely) you only wear lolita fashion. For example my sister sometimes wears my lolita clothes to try it out and I even bought her one dress and the likes. Still, I wouldn't consider her a lolita, because she is not interested in any prints, history, coords or anything else.

>>9319151
I just used 'state of being' because I couldn't think of a better word at the time and didn't want to throw 'Identity' in there too early because, well identity politics is a thing now so I skirt that word as hard as I can. I swear I wasn't trying to go all ultra deep philosophy mystic on everyone.

>>9319156
I thought that the whole subculture argument would probably come up to, and well, people should stop using the gothic subculture as a yard stick for what is and isn't a subculture. Because there is a fashion element involved people find that maybe helpful to draw comparisons but as we know they are not the same. There is a definition of what a subculture is and it doesn't say "refer to:Goth".

subculture: a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture.
Lolitas (those who's identity is expressed through lolita fashion) are indeed members of a subculture, as they gather to discuss common interests, form social groups, engage in activities and share hobbies that are outside or different to the parent culture. If you pay close attention to the census threads we have every so often, you will often also see that many of the denizens of /cgl/ also share similar careers, and career aspirations as well.

Just like other subcultures (of which there are countless), 'Lolitas' have different levels of activity or engagement, much like anons skiier explanation. If you drew a diagram that looked like a bullseye and put the highest level of involvement in the middle and gradually went outward with less involvement, it becomes easy to see what sort of people are in the middle, and at what level of involvement people stop being engaged in the subculture. Where the outliers start, would also be where the "it's just clothes" and "It is an expression of my identity" would also meet. I.e weekenders & poseurs. Much like other subcul. with an attached fashion style.

>>9318969
How the fuck is that bait if it's literally just answering the question

>>9319189
Bullseye is a really good description. Going to have to use that sometime, thanks!

Imo, the original definition of lolita at heart is a person who owns/wears literally no lolita but is still active in discussions within the community. (Like Rufflechat) basically they aren't actually a lolita, but they're "so totally a lolita at heart, desu!"

It's probably changed since with more availability to lolita stuff, (this was back before brands delivered overseas) but still essentially the same: people who feel entitled to participate in a hobby that they don't actually do. The lolita community is so weird at how much shit we put up with. A car club wouldn't accept someone with no driver's license.

>>9319268
By the way, I wasn't using Rufflechat as an example of an old community, I was using it as an example of a comm riddled with lolitas at heart.

>>9319170
Kek, theres a big difference between emo and goth dont even

>>9319189
I didnt say that lolita isnt a subculture, because it is. I meant that goth revolves more around the music rather than the fashion, while in the lolita subculture there isnt really "lolita music", and the subcultre revolves for the most part around the fashion. Thats what I meant with that the "lolita isnt"

Okay, what about a person who has a lot of lolita, but doesn't wear the clothes out anywhere? Like lets say SWIM has like 34 brand and indie main pieces, and enough side pieces to make nice outfits.They care about the community and understand the history of the fashion...but they don't actually wear their stuff. Are they a lolita still?

>>9319517
I'd say yes. I mean, they would never be able to attend an actual meetup because you're generally required to wear lolita for those, and meetups are a pretty central aspect to lolita fashion, but since lone lolitas exist and are legit...? However, it's a very weird and unlikely situation, because why would you buy all those clothes if you did not wear them?
Unless you are talking about someone who only wears it at home. Then yeah, still a bit weird, but definitely lolita.

>>9319517
If they wear their clothes at home, I'd just consider them a lone lolita.

If they don't wear their clothes at all, I'd say they're just a collector and not a lolita.

>>9319517
Why not? Are they enormously fat or something? If someone doesn't wear the clothes at all, I wouldn't consider them a lolita.

The only people who give a shit about conlolita vs lifestyle lolita is here on this thread, literally no one irl gives a shit about how much you wear lolita or puts a label on it.

Lifestyle lolitas aren't better than con lolitas, girls who have 30 prints aren't better than the girls who have 3.

If we look at this as we would examine a subculture, then to be considered a lolita you need three things, participation within the subculture, identify aesthetically, and associations within subculture.

So by this definition a real lolita goes to meets, wheres lolita, and has friends within the subculture.

Lolita at heart is bullshit, you either are or you arent.

Idk how I feel about the break down of participation in a comm being important to the distinction of being a "real lolita". I rarely attend meets, don't have an online presence, and never do any organizing for anything in lolita communities, but I wear the fashion almost daily. And I'm sure some girls who are more active in communities or online probably look down on me for my lonelita tendencies when they themselves are little more than conlitas who only wear their clothes to meets and cons. It just seems like an odd qualifier to include to me.

I consider someone a real lolita if they have have nice dresses (not cheap looking or cosplay shit) and actually wear it even if it's only to events.

And the lolita at heart thing is bullshit. You have the wear the fashion to be one, and either you wear it or your don't. You can't be a lolita at heart because it's a fashion, and you need to actually wear the fashion.

>>9319647
But to some degree you are participating in the community by engaging in this thread, are you not? And have you or do you ever lurk online lolita communities? I think, as minimal as that is, would still qualify as participating in the subculture.

>>9319468
Not the point made, baka.

>>9319663
Oh, absolutely, I would agree with that, but I'm opposed to the idea that someone who doesn't engage in the subculture but who wears lolita on a near-daily basis is somehow "less of a lolita" than people who actively and frequently engage in the community aspects of the subculture but only wear their items to meets or cons. That's all I meant to express.

>>9319548
Eh, not entirely true. Nobody would say it to the lolita with only 3 dresses's face to not make her feel left out, but if you wear lolita more often and have more stuff, you'll likely have more experience and be more immersed in the fashion. And that matters.

a real lolita is somebody who 1) wears lolita and 2) invests themselves in the culture that we've built around the style, whether it be alone or with a group

what that culture IS exactly is up for debate--some examples would be keeping up to date on brands, being involved in the online lolita community (be it here, FB, whatever), or participating in "lifestyle lolita" type activities. not limited to just those, but those are the things i can think of off the top of my head. at the same time, i don't think anybody needs to be doing all of these things at once to be a "real lolita." just SOMETHING that emphasizes how lolita is actually a part of what makes them, them.

while "lolitas at heart" typically focus ONLY on the culture part and don't ever wear the clothing. they try to include themselves in lolita communities and try to express their opinions on lolita-related things, but they're invalidated (rightfully) because they aren't lolitas.

>>9319638
So since I'm a lonelita who doesn't go to meets or have lolita friends I'm not a ~real~ lolita? Even though I wear lolita almost at least 2-3 a week and have over 50 main pieces?

That doesn't make much sense. I prefer to participate in the online community and remain anonymous (for the most part). I'm awkward and I make people feel uncomfortable and I'd prefer not to go to meets.

>>9321864
>a real lolita is somebody who 1) wears lolita and 2) invests themselves in the culture that we've built around the style, whether it be alone or with a group

I agree with this. There are people, myself included, who invest a lot of time and effort into the fashion but for whatever reasons, just aren't able to wear it as much as they'd like to. Yet, they devote a lot of time to the fashion and the subculture and even contribute to it.

Wearing and owning it should be important. But that's sort of the crux of having the money to buy these things but not having the time because of your work. Most months, I'm lucky if I can make it to meetups or my schedule and a friend or two's align in such a way that we can get together and dress up for lunch or shopping. For me, lolita is a very social thing and it's less enjoyable and frankly stressful/fussy wearing it alone. But another person might be able to and comfortable wearing it 5 days a week by themselves. I don't think that makes one person more lolita than another.

Not that I would consider people who wear lolita fashion and do not participate in the community fake lolitas or anything, but there is definitely a subculture in place that revolves around doing these activities as well as dressing in the fashion. I came to the realization a while ago that not only were all my purchases lolita related, but everything else- my furniture and decor, makeup choices, and other aspects of my identity were centered around keeping to this aesthetic. Not only that, but many of my trips are, if not centered around a lolita event, includes time to do lolita-related activities, and most the people I meet and talk to online are lolitas.

I know there's always that argument that "people shouldn't change who they are to try and be more lolita!" which was the backlash against "lifestyle lolitas". However, most the people I know aren't doing it because they're trying to be someone they're not or subscribing to an idealistic identity. They're just people who love the fashion so much that it's become a part of their identity.

As for what "lolita activities" entail, of course it differs from person to person, but there are stereotypes that apply to many people, which arguably, are enough to consider the fashion a true subculture. Another thing to consider is that lolita as a worldwide community is quite old now, so we do have many members of the community where it was just natural progression to where their activities and friends were centered around the fashion and the community.

So yeah, I usually take the route of "it's just a fashion!" but based on my own experiences I've come to realize it's a lot more than just wearing the clothes to many people. Again, not to say people who don't do this are not real lolitas. I suppose the difference would be being a part of the lolita subculture vs just wearing the fashion.

>>9319530
I am that lone lolita. We have around 30 plus main pieces complete coords, plus other jfashion but due to circumstances can't wear it as often. But we take part in meets a few times a year and hold active Tumblr/Instagram accounts. We just don't get to come out to play cos we're far away from the nearest comm (I'm talking busy working offshore somewhere). But yes, we actively buy & own, wear when we can.

>>9329212
>I am that lone lolita
>We
>We
>We

??? Do you have some kind of smeagol/gollum split personality dynamic?

>>9329212
Are you a system? So weird coming across that here and not on tumblr if so

>How many things should a lolita own to be considered a real lolita/How big should her wardrobe be at the very least?
I don't really consider someone a lolita if they only own one outfit, even though that's the standard a lot of people have. Personally, I think you need at least four.
>How often should she wear it to be considered as such (aka not a conlita)?
At least a few times a month.
>What's your opinion on the whole "lolita at heart" thing?
They're not lolitas, they're aspiring lolitas.

>>9329234
the person before said something about lone lolitas and then another thing about lolitas who wear lolita at home. she said "I" to identify herself as a lone lolita who wears it at home, and "we" as a way to describe the way these lolitas function whithin the cmmunity
>Can you tell how much I fucking love grammar

>>9329782
**community
>guess you don't love grammar that much

File: 1478984765822.jpg (45KB, 410x391px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 410x391px

>>9329784
you got me, anon

>>9329787
>>9329784
also in >>9329782
>whithin

>>9329782
Not that anon but the "we" things they said sounded too specific to be describing a whole subset

>We have around 30 plus main pieces complete coords, plus other jfashion but due to circumstances can't wear it as often

I mean, I guess it makes more sense if that's what they meant, but weird choice of phrasing. I didn't get it either way, so I'll overlook your grammatical screwups too.

>>9329784
The person never said they liked spelling though.

Can someone give a quick explanation of "lolita at heart"? I've only ever looked at egl on lj and here for lolita-related news and information, so I have no clue what that's all about.

>>9331311
Someone who doesn't wear lolita but considers themselves a lolita due to interest in the fashion and lifestyle. They can be, but are not always, involved in the community - their one shortcoming is that they don't own any dresses. They're often quite preachy and due to lack of experience have incorrect information.

>>9331327
Why are so many of them so preachy anyway? I really hate when these people pipe up to give information, especially if it's to an easily impressionable newb or non-lolita. Like, no one's asking you, bitch.

It's like they think people will see them doing this and go "wow, I can tell that person is a real lolita because they know stuff and have opinions!"

I dont think you are a Lolita if you only have 1 coord with no intention of getting more. You are a Lolita if Lolita is your clothing style, simple as that

>>9329212
>we take part in meets a few times a year
So not a lone lolita

>>9318144
This covers it best in my opinion. To "be" (read; wear) lolita you have to own and wear lolita at least some times. No community involvement necessary, online or off. No need to exclude lonelitas or set an arbitrary amount of times you should wear it. "Lolita at heart" types have no lolita coords (or a half-assed smattering of goodwill "loliable" finds they threw together instead of anything actually resembling the style) and often like to loudly voice their uninformed opinions on things.

>>9329895
>What is the "royal we"

>>9331327
Thanks for clearing that up. That sounds almost close to -kin beliefs from your explanation.

>>9331386
I'm the anon you are responding to and I used to be a lolita at heart.
It's because they wish to be a part of the community so bad, they feel interacting and using their "knowledge" makes them part of it. I used to spend hours on yahoo answers pretending I wore lolita and answering beginner questions, used to lie and claim that certain prints ran, etc, to make myself seem more knowledgable. I also used to spam lolita tips on tumblr with questions pretending that I owned things. It really made me feel part of the community, even though I didn't own any clothes.

>>9331990
I used to do this as well, not when I wasn't a lolita at all but right after I started/bought my first items. A lot of groups get spammed with newbie questions experienced lolitas are tired of answering, so it's easy to feel like you're helpful or knowledgeable just because you know the difference between an A-line and a bell-shaped petti and can explain how to navigate Taobao.

>>9319105
It's an interesting point, but I think the difference is that I might be wearing a tracksuit, but I still own the clothes back at my home. I think the physical ownership is what matters for a lot of people in this instance, and then on top of that, wearing the clothes from however often, combined with participating in the community in some sort of way. I am a lolita even though I'm wearing a hoodie and sweatpants right now because I have the clothes and I wear them. I know for me at least, the owning and the wearing of the clothes is very important in being able to claim that title, and those levels make a difference for me too.
(Gonna put my next point in a second post or else this one will become a blog post)

>>9319105
>>9332088
(continuing on)

Let's compare it to athletes.

>If I say I'm a soccer player, what is it exactly that lets me claim that title? Is it the simple act of playing soccer? Am I a soccer player because I kick the ball around in my backyard with my friends once in awhile or is it because I'm on a pro or semi-pro team? Does "I'm a soccer player" mean something different from "I like to play soccer"?
>If I play FIFA 17 on my playstation an hour every day does that make me a soccer player still? If I collect soccer balls in my garage?
>If I watch soccer on the TV every single day and attend both pro and semi-pro games and maybe I'm even friends with some pro or semi pro players, does this make me a soccer player too?

I think the last question is the most important to this discussion - I'd like to think all of us would say no. Although you may be very involved as a fan in soccer, watching all the games and going to them and reading all about it doesn't really make you an actual soccer player. At it's most basic level, you need to *actually* play the game somehow - whether it's with your friends or on a team or what.

If you're a "lolita at heart", at best you're just the huge soccer fanatic. Logically here, what would make someone a lolita is, ultimately, their active participation in the fashion itself. The community comes next, and the order is important.

To make it simpler:
You can bake batter and have a cake. It'll be a plain cake, but you don't necessarily need frosting, and the frosting isn't necessarily intrinsic to the identity of the cake. On the other hand, if I have a bowl of frosting, that doesn't mean I have a cake, as opposed to just an ingredient - I need the actual cake bit in order to for the whole thing to be a cake.

>>9319548
I disagree. Lifestylers are normally the ones who, run the meetups, moderate the groups and create the OC. Not "better" in the sense that people normally think, but they do contribute and give back to the subculture.

>>9319548
I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion but I prefer lifestylers to conlitas and I judge peoples' wardrobe sizes. I'll give more 'lolita merit' to somebody who has 50+ main pieces and wears them on the daily than I would to somebody with 3 main pieces who wears lolita once a month.

I'm biased because I'm a lifestyler I guess.

>>9319548
Why are you phrasing your opinion as fact?
>literally everyone irl agrees with me, people who don't agree with me are only in this thread and literally don't even exist irl, only people with the same opinion as me are real
Don't you see how dumb that sounds?