Often it depends on the subculture and how extensively it has been assimilated into the culture. It is also a matter of extremes. There are those who adopt goth or punk styles that are more a caricature and therefore costuming to me than style. Then there are those who truly understand the meaning behind aspects of the appearance and manage to turn it into what I would consider style. For me when someone copy cats to infinite detail, its costuming. When they integrate common attire and elements clearly conveying a message, then you have style. In other words for it to be style (as aoopsing to "styling") you must bring your own personality and creativity to the look. Otherwise you are simply mimicking someone and adopting their style as your costume.

I deal with that vague delineator all the time with the leather community. One person can be wearing full leather and be nothing but "styling", a second one be pure costume, and a third be a person who conveys key elements of the leather-S/M community with style. Its especially true where specific items are adopted by more than one subculture. A dog collar is a prime example of a piece that has multiple meanings and it all too often worn by the totally clueless as a mere, stupid, fashion statement.

Even the changing of elements of my leather wardrobe by one or two pieces can shift me between these levels, and only someone experienced with fashion and the community may see the difference. But if have my leather cap, labrys earring, bar vest and chaps on, the only place it would not look like a costume to someone would be in a very closed environment (leather bar, event, dungeon). If this array didn't fit me personally and my own style, it would look like a costume both in a leather bar and on the street.

I feel the same way about Lolita, Goth, Punk, and the rest. In a specified environment the intensity of a look that would be considered extreme and costume on a public street, would be style in the limited confines of a specific gathering of those with similar interests. And it works in reverse. Having only token symbol of one of the look while attending something specifically for that lifestyle would look like mere "styling" or a fashion statement if they were on a public street.

In the pic of the girl in blue lipstick, there were several elements that made it look more like costuming than someone truly part of a subculture. Yes, the PVC tends to conflict with Lolita. Though I have seen them combined well, its a very rare talent. The bright blue lipstick was a different trend than either Lolita or the PVC. The pastoral setting would have gone with the Lolita, but the PVC, bright blue didn't. And then there was the collar and leash. Sorry but it looked like an afterthought and I immediately wondered how soon it would damage the PVC (that stuff is not as sturdy as it looks). Her size had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the image, only the combinations.

@TalnSG

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. I agree to some extent with what you are saying. Do you think that if a Lolita designed and made his/her own clothing (that isn't an obvious replica), this would be a style rather than a costume? Or combined Lolita with other elements?

PVC/Leather can sometimes (but rarely) be encorporated into Lolita, particularly with the 'ero-loli' look. I've seen a few examples were leather works well in this instance but I can't recall seeing any decent examples were PVC was used.

The girl in the picture is what the Lolita community refer to as 'costume' or 'cosplay' Lolita. They define it like this:

Do you feel you have to encorporate certain lifestyle elements related to the style in order for it to count as a style rather than a costume?

Thinking about it, I find it hard to distinguish the definition between costume and style. Personally, I think Lolita (when not 'cosplay lolita') is a fashion, but it's hard to explain why.

But a costume is when you are dressing up to try and be someone else. A tuxedo can be a costume if I am trying to be, say, James Bond.

I don't think the clothes themselves define whether an outfit is a costume or not, but the intentions of the wearer.

Lady Gaga's outrageous outfits are not generally called "costumes" because they help define her own personality.

Therefore if someone dresses in a lolita style, if she is dressing that way as an expression of her personality, I don't think it is fair to call it a "costume".

It a great idea and one I agree with, but it doesn't always work like that. Sometimes what makes people happy to wear is offensive or inappropriate. For an every-day perspective, the girl in the photo would have to change her clothes before she was allowed to do any one of the three occupations I have.

I think MMM brings up a great point about the intention of the wearer. However, doesn't Lolita often pull on aspects of victorian maid, dolls, little girl, shepherdess, princess type images. In many respects, dressing in Lolita is about creating your own character that is separate from your 'normal' self, so while maybe not a costume per se, it is costumish. Then again Casual and Classic loli's are pretty tame really and aspects of them have been in and out of mainstream fashion for years. You could probably put together an outfit in that style without ever leaving the High Street. The more purchase specific and extravagant a style is, the more it seems costumy to me even if it's not deliberately a costume.

Girls that eat, are a treat.......that was lame..

but seriously. Bigger girls are better than these skinny twigs walking around. Much more attractive to me.

That's kind of offensive, for both bigger and smaller girls imo. Why assume that skinny girls don't eat, and bigger girls eat their hearts out? Also, I'm skinny, and being called a twig is as offensive as calling a bigger girl a cow. Have your opinion if you want, but please refrain from offensive terms.

Besides, the point isn't who you find attractive, it's who can pull off this particular fashion style better.

If the wearer is trying to pretend to be something else, then I think it is safe to call Lolita a "costume", but is she is wearing the clothes as an extension of her personality, then I don't think this would be fair.

I guess it is hard to decide it is good or not or overweight girl wear lolita, it depends on the design of the dress and the whole look of the person who wear lolita.

I definitely agree from the wearer's perspective. But the wearer and the observer may have completely different perspectives of the same image. For Lady Gaga her attire is her style. For viewers its sometimes more of a costume.

Its not fair, but the term "costume" carries a negative connotation it doesn't always deserve. I will put on something I could not describe as anything but a costume and look quite appropriate to my surroundings. There is nothing wrong with it being a just costume, as long as I don't use the costume to make others believe something is real that is not.

Maybe the negativity arises because some people adopt a costume to fit in with something or someone they have no real understanding of. Some people have no sense of respect or conscience about misrepresenting themselves in real life (as opposed to costuming such as at anime conventions).

Deciding when something moves between the two is very subjective, and heavily affected by the person's own thoughts, feelings and even previous experiences. And as Miss Misa mentioned - extremely hard to explain to others at times.