Talk:Lolita fashion

needs more history

I think the article could use more REAL history of the clothes, including how it is actually the japaneese emulating the erotic children's magazines of europe (since we all know the the modern japaneese are just fankids of the western cultures).

~aradia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.162.203 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

out of style

I live in Japan and have noticed a sharply falling number of gothic/lolita inspired fashions. Even at the famed Harajuku bridge on Sundays, one rarely sees more than a handful of the cosplayers that used to litter the place daily from the mid 90's to mid 2000's. I have a theory that the style influenced a particular age group some time ago that has since grown out of it and the fashion has failed to take hold with the next generation. 

I feel as though the western idea of Japan is actually lagging several years behind what is actually happening here.

Does anyone know of a reliable source that touches on this topic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.220.20.43 (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 

untagged comments w/o signatures

Well there's Gothic & Lolita fashion, which actually is a single genre, so maybe someone had mistaken it for two separate fashions?

A friend of mine in Japan explained this to me a while back; it's actually two styles, but is referred to as GothLoli anyways. Lolita fashion is thought of as the antithesis of Gothic style, and that's often why you'll see Gothic style, which is just like Western Gothic, in the G&L bibles in addition to Lolita style.:

From my experience that's actually incorrect. Lolita fashion is not necessarily the anti-Goth. After all, Gothic Lolita embraces several components of Western Gothic fashion quite readily. 216.9.11.111 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Since we already have a Gothic Lolita article with the same two images, it might be useful if anyone has images of non-Gothic Lolitas, so the difference is clear at a glance. Also the first image is confusing - the information for the image, and the Gothic Lolita article describe it as two Gothic Lolitas, but this article says one of them is Classic Lolita... Mdwh 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; there's work to be done here. I might tackle it if I wasn't already up to my nose in cleaning up some other things. --DanielCD 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think the photo is a poor representation of modern lolita and should be updated with something more subtle and realistic. --Kuroloki 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge the 2 articles, may as well put it under "gothloli" because that is best-known, and give a simple example of the variations to be found. Most girls in this style in Japan don't strongly differentiate between what "genre" of loli they are. Terms like "punk-loli" might be used in magazines to give girls ideas about interesting variations, but that's about all.

They do recognize and use the different names of the styles. To put everything under Gothic Lolita is to have the fashion style misinterpreted more than it already is. Ahmanni 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken but on the picture labeled "male and female examples of Classic Lolita" the male seems to wear a coat by Moi-meme-Moitie (you can see a bit of the blue lining) and overall looks like Aristocrat. I think it would be more accurate to label it "Classic Lolita and Aristocrat". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.112.175 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision needed

Somebody has updated this article with incomplete sentences, poor grammar, and hearsay. This is most noticeable in the intro and the first few lines of the culture section. I've tagged this article because I think someone should either verify this info or rewrite it.

I took a whack at updating the intro and cleaning up grammar, but haven't got time to wade through the stylistic issues. Agreed on the photo, though. --Kate 18:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Classic Lolita Argument

Though this article needs a lot more cleaning up in more important areas (citation, images, description), I figured I'd bring up a topic. The information in the Classical lolita section seems to not encompass the entire classical style, and instead focuses on aprons, which are also used in the gothic and sweet styles... Does anyone know a better way to describe this? I've tried, but gave up. Accelagirl 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

This article contains incorrect information about the male lolita categories. Kodona was a word made popular in the west to describe "Ouji-sama" or prince fashion. It is not a seperate style from what they have listed as "Dandy", which is actually also prince style. The word "kodona" is not actually used in Japan.

Also, the "classic lolita" section is incorrect. Aprons are in no way ever considered classic lolita, and neither is Alice and Wonderland. The actual "classic lolita" article on wikipedia is much better written and should be put in the classic lolita section instead of what is currently there.

I have never seen Dandy described as Oujisama, nor have seen Oujisama with canes and other 'mature' accessories as can be seen with Dandy, so I think they should be seperate, though I'm not sure what's the Japanese term for the English term 'Dandy', if there is any. --Knowi7 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Find a source and change it! Be bold? Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Total Revision

This article needs a ton of work. I'll be trying to revise it. For anyone editing, try to keep a NPOV, because a lot of this article sounds like a bunch of opinions. Some parts of the Japanese vs Western like Kodona (I should have edited that earlier, though I was lazy at the time about it) should be pointed out, but every minute detail doesn't need to be noted, since that is more opinion than anything else and it makes the article unreadable and sound very sloppy. --Knowi7 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture Updates

Most of, if not all of the pictures offered in the article at the present are extremely outdated. The fashion has changed considerably since those pictures were taken. I think the hook image should be of a classic gosurori and an amaloli, just to give a better idea of the style. I will try to update the images this week and also contribute to the rewriting of the article. Also, I think we should include a better section on the Western lolita community. --Iriseyes 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The current picture of Mana is a bad way to represent gosuloli, as he doesn't really follow the "rules". He's more like erololi, but most people think he's gosuloli on that picture.

I agree. 68.96.251.14 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I changed the opening picture and I will start phasing in those taken two weeks ago in Harajuku. --Iriseyes 03:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken but on the picture labeled "male and female examples of Classic Lolita" the male seems to wear a coat by Moi-meme-Moitie (you can see a bit of the blue lining) and overall looks like Aristocrat. I think it would be more accurate to label it "Classic Lolita and Aristocrat".

Still needs more

This article continues to have conflicting information and a lot of POV (which is partially why it's conflicting). Terms mainly used in the west should be noted, but it shouldn't be used as a cover of POV (which is very obvious in some parts of this article). --Knowi7 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Guro Lolita

Does anyone know anything about this form of Lolita? It appears to be quite a recent emergence on the loli scene; it seems to entail dressing in basic Lolita fashion, "gored up" with the addition of fake blood, bloodstained eyepatches, bandages etc. - basically looking like a mutilated doll or "Zombie Lolita"; there is only a very brief mention of gurololi in the main article. My own encounters with it have been through the BJD scene, so I don't really know enough about it to add to the main article. Arkady Rose 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally detest that movement of lolita and it's a very very small one...my vote is to keep it out of the article altogether. --Iriseyes 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't deserve mentioning. Gurololi is much more common than Qi Lolita but that's mentioned. Anyway, personally, I love Gurololi. (NOT the perverted kind. Get it? Guro and Loli?)~Sana (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Qi Lolita

I couldn't find any substantial information on this. Doing Google search[1] only reveals 30 hits, mostly list of definitions type pages. No mention in the Japanese Wikipedia either. Is this just an obscure neologism that isn't really used? If so, maybe it should be removed from Wikipedia.—Tokek 07:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated the Qi Lolita article for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi Lolita. —Tokek 07:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason why it's so rare is because most people tend to not thik of it as Qi Lolita, but rather just another branch of Wa Lolita. Essentially, Qi and Wa are just regular lolita combined with Asian elements, hence the reason why most people don't bother seperating the two. 64.121.36.5 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New Pictures

I did some picture overhaul tonight; I hope you all approve of the new images. These were taken last week and the week before in Harajuku by my sister. --Iriseyes 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have an idea for cleaning up the external links (since it's been tagged for a few months)--removing all the links to stores will keep the article from violating #4 on the list oflinks to be avoided. The LJ community might count as a social network too, but Avante-Gauche could be acceptable as a directory.--Spiderchan 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Avant-Gauche seems to be the only link that is acceptable according to the policies. Linnell 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have all the External Links been removed? 69.145.215.236 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in any case I added a few appropriate links 69.146.15.115 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lolitapedia

Please stop removing this link without comment. This could be construed as intentional vandalism after repeated, uncommented deletions. This site, when viewed, appears to be perfectly legitimate (moreso than others on the article especially) and easily should be included. If you have a personal beef with the site or some undisclosed rationale for it not being there, let's Talk-page about it. I have yet to see a single reason for removal. I'm readding it and expect that it will stay there, be discussed, or IF removed, done so with very good rationale in comment and here on the talk page. Many thanks! VigilancePrime 04:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm new to this. The reason why I was deleting it, was because that site is basically less than half-assed. Most of the information text on there was stolen from the Lolita Handbook, and the info on there is misleading and the information is not accurate aside from whatever was taken from the handbook site.

The original poster had previously commented on that site to ask about her text being taken and used without permission or credit, yet the site owner just deleted her comment without any response. Those who are dedicated to Lolita fashion has shared views about this site, as well.

Ahmanni 05:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wiki! We were all new at some point. No big deal.

Where are all these discussions? They should be here, on this page, if we're to have visibility on them. The site itself is very in-depth, though that can be a function of pasting from something else. That said, though, Livejournal pages usually would not be in a Wiki article either...

We just have to have the discussion. Especially when the same thing gets pulled and replaced over and over. It's just easier that way, you know?

Again, welcome to Wiki. Check out Wiki policies when you have some time. That will save you a lot of the angst others (like myself!) have gone through! You can even get to a bunch of them (the ones I think are most relevant) from my user page if you'd like.

VigilancePrime 06:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :'D

I'll look for the discussion pages on Livejournal. If you can't see them, I'll try to make a cap of it.

EDIT: this is the thread where most of the LJ community discovered it. And then here and here the creator of Lolita_Handbook (Carnet_atelier) talks about how things were taken. I don't think she's logged on yet to see that the Admin of Lolitapedia deleted her comment. EDITAGAIN: Nevermind. She posted right here.

Ahmanni 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

EDITONCEAGAIN: Here is the cap to Carnet's comment. Lolitapedia's forum was shut down because of drama that the admins didn't handle in a mature manner. Carnet along with the other people who's work was stolen tried to ask them to remove the items, but they either deleted it or remove their comment, so now the site is being reported for image theft and other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmanni (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Carmen Nyuen

At first inspection the blog seemed perfectly fine with some of the styles accurately depicted and explained, but some of her examples found in the blog border on cosplay or just plain mismatched pseudo-lolita. I felt that it did not explain the holistic element of the fashion in an accurate light and therefore I deleted it off the page. If there is a problem, feel free to PM me. Redredrobin 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mainichi Shimbun

Who put this up? I don't find this information accurate at all. Sweet Lolita has no relation or history with Gyaru fashion. Lolita fashion, whether gothic or sweet, is not connected to Gyaru fashion. Sweet Lolita and the Sweet Lolita brands existed about a decade before Gyaru fashion appeared. I'm taking this article down, if anyone have any objections please explain. But this news article is imho bull and it's misleading.

--Ahmanni 05:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ahmanni. I put the article up as evidence of Sourcing and Notability. I've stated my piece for its inclusion here: Talk:Gothic Lolita. In the subject area in which I usually edit, an article lacking sourcing and coverage, whether accurate or not, would be quickly deleted. It's interesting, but not entirely surprising, to see that's not the case in all subject areas... 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekkappai (talk • contribs)

Christian Lolita LJ community

I'm taking this down, it doesn't bear as much relevance to the fashion style. Anyone who's interested in joining it can go to EGL to join up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmanni (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kitty and Vivienne Westwood References

Um... Hello Kitty is no really marketed just to children in the West anymore. There's tons of Hello Kitty Designer merchandise out there; by Designer I mean diamond jewelry that can cost as much as a new car. Also Vivienne Westwood only has one collection exclusive to Japan, and it's small accessories not clothing. Really it's nothing that would stand out as exclusive to one sub-culture or even noticable. You should say her Seditionaries (mostly Punk), Mini Crini (Rocking Horse Platforms, Cutesy School Uniforms), Portrait (Tops and Corsets with Famous Art Prints), and Salon (same as Portrait) Collections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.206.124 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

On second thought, list Anglomania Collection, that's pretty much the brand that is the "affordable street wear" brand that carries alot of Lolita style items (at least one puffy skirt or Mini Crini each season). I know several people who have worked directly with Vivienne Westwood of the years and they all tell me there is no exclusive Japan label with the exception of some tights, tees, and undies available on her Japanese store. Even those are going to be available in Western Countries next season through her online store. Malcolm McLaren has done three collections exclusive to Japan, but they've been discontinued for years now.

I haven't heard of this store.

Are you sure that this "affordable street wear" brand carries the kind of quality that Lolita fashion usually demands? The only affordable site I've ever seen from overseas that is quite favorable is Anna House Fashion in China. Ahmanni 09:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vivienne Westwood is not a store, she is a designer, like Christain Dior, or Coco Chanel. Her company logo is a Sovereign Orb with a ring around it called the Satelite Orb, it shows up in Lolita Magazines and Books all the time. I'm abit stunned that someone who is contributing to this article is not aware of Vivienne Westwood, and would go so far as to ask if it "carries the kind of quality that Lolita fashions usually demand," to answer your question, alot of the Lolita brands do not carry the quality that Vivienne Westwood demands. She is a Grand Coutier, in other words, she has been Government certified to call her wares "Luxury Items". Affordable street wear is in quotes because it's far from affordable, a single piece from the Anglomania label can cost upwards of 200 GPS, that's around 400 USD or 4,000 YEN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.206.27 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Lolita

Hadn't we ought to mention Sailor Loli?
I just wondered, as we have a sub-heading for Pirate Loli, which is less common, and Meta is mentioned as having "nautical looks, which derive from pastels instead of pirates", but not specifically Sailor Loli.
Several brands have released Sailor inspired pieces, including Putumayo, BtSSB, Innocent World and even Mary Magdalene.
--Torika 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think both Sailor and Pirate Lolita are big enough in the scene that they deserve a mention. We had a section on Pirate Lolita previously, but I see that was removed. BtSSB has a line called Alice and The Pirates, which caters specifically to Sailor Lolita and Pirate Lolita clothing. 216.9.11.111 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

References

The Wall Street Journal, Friday Septemeber 17, 2004 (front page and page A10) - "The Little-Girl Look Is Big in Japan Now - Among the Brave" by Ginny Parker is a well researched article that has would be useful as a reference here. Some quotes:

"The look originated in Japan over 30 years ago and has flowered several times since then. The current boom is particularly intense."

"Despite the nation's reputation as a culture with a love of all things cute, many in mainstream Japan are contemptuous of the Lolita look. Fans of the style talk about being called stupid by strangers, getting mean looks and having chewing gum stuck to the backs of their dresses. Ms. Otani, the store clerk, says her clothes get so many stares that her boyfriend, who dresses in punk fashion, won't go out with her unless she wears something else."

"Many Lolitas lead a double life, wearing normal clothes when they work or go to school, and "doing Lolita" in their free time."

"Within the group of Lolitas, there are suble differences. One faction prefers the "sweet Lolita" style-characterized by soft hues of pink, blue and cream. A growing number of fans are also exploring the "Gothic Lolita" style-a macabre take on the trend in which women dress themselves in ruffles and lace of all black." Denaar 07:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this article very interesting, as I was not aware of such predjudice. It's a little surprising, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.228.234 (talk) 17:02, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Major Consolidation and Clean-up

It made no sense to have this article linking to a bunch of stubs that were smaller than their matching section on this page, so I redirected all of them (except Gothic Lolita, which had a good-sized article of its own) and added that content to this page. I also tried to do some clean-up. What still needs to be done: Referencing, Consolidating (removing redundancies that, in part, I introduced in the consolidation), and Phraseology improvement (making it sound better... "more encyclopedic" as the Wiki admins would say). Have at it... more/better images wouldn't hurt either. VigilancePrime 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead Image (moved to correct discussion area)

The top image is not a good representation of the fashion. I am not apt to replace it or write in discussion properly, but it would be best to have no image at all than that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.39.83 (talk • contribs)

This image has (suddenly) been pulled and replaced many times, always without comment. The only thing said yet was recent that this is not a good representation. Howso? The comment made above is a clear POV. The image has been there for a good time and unless justification (and preferably a consensus) shown for why it shouldn't be there, I think that the general agreement would be that the removal is a single entity (and as an IP user) and carries less-than-ideal credibility. I would much rather have a discussion on this matter if it in fact is not a good, representative image, but without such rationale, it's going to be readded and retained. VigilancePrime 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

76.19.39.83-If you are "not apt to replace it or write in discussion properly", then we are not apt to let you continue to do so, and you will be treated as a vandal. Chris 03:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said. VigilancePrime 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL INTERNET SERIOUS BUSINESS, no really- since you have no idea on the subject why do you argue? It's fashion and most people will be blind to the subtleties. This picture appears to be of someone most lolitas would ridicule for her "cosplay" fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.39.83 (talk • contribs)

You must be trying to cover something, 76.19.39.83, by removing your IP address several times like that. Don't worry, we'll be responsible editors for you. Chris 04:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ero Loli

Hey I found another sub category - Erotic Lolita, or Erololi - characterised by more overtly sexual dress mode, such as suspenders and stockings and basques, corsets or waist clinchers.

Lincolnshire Poacher 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ero-lolita isn't detailed well enough or done correctly enough times to actually describe what it is without adding up the misconceptions dealing with Lolita fashion.

Ahmanni 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Lolita"?

Is the word "Lolita" and allusion to the book? --Seans Potato Business 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read any of this article before asking this question? VigilancePrime 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I had read parts but evidently, not the right ones. So the use of the word "lolita" predates the book? --Seans Potato Business 01:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the article on the term: Lolita_(term)#Origin, the book is the origin of the word, so I still would argue that the idea of describing a "cute young girl's" clothes as 'lolita' is derived from the book... --Seans Potato Business 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lolita has been used a nickname before the novel was released. For example, Lolita, TX was named sometime between 1905-1909, after a General's grand-daughter who was called Lolita, and unlike the "definition", she was said to be a very sweet girl. Lolita is simply an innocent nickname (any name-meaning sites will show you that Lolita is the pet name to 'Dolly' or 'Dolores') that was changed into something with a vile meaning because people couldn't tell that in Nabokov's novel 'Lolita' was a name and only a name, not something to define the girls he had a sexual attraction to (the correct term being 'nymphette'). Lolita fashion has no connection to Nabokov's work other than the fact that they share a simple name. Ahmanni (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Significance of "Word on the Street" Page?

I don't know how POV statements have any significance to defining the aesthetic of the fashion. Also, someone tell me if that violates the policies? Redredrobin (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks plagiarized to me. (168.215.149.2 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Shotaro Fashion?

Is there a male equivalent of Lolita fahsion? Haldo! (talk to me!!) 18:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's called ouji/kodona/aristocrat[unisex]/dandy 65.92.67.90 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)sarah

Poor Fashion?

IS there an ota loli fashion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.29.121 (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. Those who copy the costumes directly from the anime (the original) and those with cosplay-esque quality materials. -121.54.29.121 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Isnt that called costly lolita or cosplay or something like that????? i suggest we add costly lolita and its reputation of being a low-class lolita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deathnote, Rozen Maiden, and the carrying of dolls and teddy bears

Deathnote is not an example of lolita fashion, just goth fashion. Rozen Maiden is not an example of lolita fashion, just Victorian fashion. Lolitas do not "commonly carry dolls", and the carrying of stuffed animals is pretty much the domain of cosplay-lolitas or otherwise poor-quality lolitas. Most lolitas do NOT do these things.

again...cosplay of lolita fashion exist. not all lolita dresses look the same, specific lolita dresses that only exist in manga or anime proves to be cosplay, not an actual fashion design (original).

also....pandora hearts seems to have a lot of lolita fashion. mainly on the males. so do any of you know what lolita looks like for males? half of the males in pandora hearts, are in lolita fashion.

so I'll add pandora hearts in. not to mention a few girls where lolita in the manga aswell.DeathBerry talk 17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Momoko? Shirololita? Kuro? Country?

Why are these things up? Shiro/Kuro and those other things are not sub-genres, they are just an example of a one-color outfit. I'm going to remove these because it really seems like unneeded information. Plus they are not strictly gothic or lolita; this is incorrect.

And as for Momoko, it is said that she likes "likes to spend her time acting like a sweet and innocent child". Had the poster read the book, she states in the book that she is far from that and states as such. I'm going to remove that piece from the article as well.

Who put all this stuff in there? The article looks jumbled up and confusing with this information being all over the place.

Also making minor word edits.

Ahmanni (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The caption of the first photo uses the term "kuro" but does not define or explain it, and it appears nowhere in the article. This is basic stuff, people... 76.23.157.102 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Gothic Lolita merge proposal

Hi. As of now, I am requesting that the Gothic Lolita article be merged into the section on Gothloli in this article. It's unnesecary and just makes more confusion. It's just a subst of Loli, much like the other styles. I realy don't see why it needs it's own article. ~Sana (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. The overlap is significant.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sooo...how long do I have to wait until I can do it? I'm getting tired of this.~Sana (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Give it 5 days... there is no rush. Wikipedia is forever, right? If you're REALLY bored, your can work on the merged page in your sandbox, so it will be ready for the big move. Knulclunk (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Done and Done-er. Finally. ~Sana (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)