Pet Peeve and a Petty Rant about Bustles

For the most part I try to avoid projecting needless negativity out there. It accomplishes nothing and I have enough private channels to vent things. Sometimes, however, none of those hit the spot and that is when writing a petty post turns at least slightly therapeutic.

One of my bigger pet peeves in lolita fashion is the use of bustles, particularly back bustles. I currently own one dress that has a front bustle and one that has side ones, as well as used to own one dress with a back bustle. So a dislike of bustles may seem odd, considering how I own pieces with them, but in all of those cases it was a matter of everything else working hard enough to make me forgive the bustle. Because every other time as soon as I see a bustle on a dress, I am immediately turned off unless it is a truly exceptional design overall - and here is why.

1. Why tho?

For the most part I feel that over half of bustled dress designs are done with no rhyme or reason to it. And it breaks my heart a little to say that Meta is one of the worst offenders here. I can understand how a bustle fits into an overall quite classic and elegant design, such as Marguerite Wreath JSK or even something wa-themed like the Snowy Rabbit Bustle Lace Up JSK. But why is there a bustle on their Marine Bear JSK? Or on the Patissier in the Forest JSKs? Or on the Vintage Fruit JSK? Why? None of those prints are aiming for the sort of classic elegance where such a rich design feature would naturally fit into it, it makes no sense to me at all.

The top designs make far more sense with bustles than the bottom ones.

2. Feels lazy

The point above leads me to this one: in many cases a bustle feels like a lazy copout at best and a blatant attempt at cost-cutting at worst. This is particularly obvious in the examples from Meta I’ve given, where the themes of the print and the overall feel of the design is far removed from what we’d associate a bustle with. There is no need for it thematically and whilst in practice adding a bustle can be one way to alter a dress to be larger with limited fabric, this is how those dresses are brand new. Meta’s shirring is always generous enough to not need inserting a plain fabric instead of carrying on with the printed one to accommodate the full range of sizes that fit within that stretch. Except for cutting costs reasons. Or because at some point in the process someone decided that the overall look was too simple, so a bustle could be easily added without messing with the whole design, especially if it was at the back. That just reads as lazy and cheapskate-ish to me.

These cuts are so simple that the bustle is almost the only structural detail there. And since it doesn't fit the theme, the only reason for it to be there seems to be to save on having to buy more of the printed fabric.

3. What about maintenance

Ok, this one is admittedly a bit more petty, but I find the maintenance of bustles practically a bit too much. It’s not so bad these days with most bustles being made out of polyester chiffon and therefore not creasing as easily. However, my first and only back bustle was a Shirring Princess JSK, where the bustle was cotton. Ironing that was not fun and it never lasted long. And let’s be honest, just because polyester chiffon is more crease resistant, it’s not fully crease repellent. Extended improper storage could easily cause some creases and because of the tiered nature of bustles, ironing those is fiddly (though with polyester chiffon you have to use a garment steamer, which also not everyone owns). Unless such a design feature is added to a dress which is already a bit more OTT and therefore prepares its owner for a bit more upkeep, it could be a chore for something that should have been a bit easier to throw on for regular wear.

Each of these could've easily been worn quite casually - were it not for the fancy bustle that needs extra ironing after every time you sit down.

In other words, if brands, especially Meta, could just stop adding a bustle to everything that they can think of, then that would be great, thanks.