Aha, so this is where Pocahontas buys her clothes these days!
Two things about this:
1. If you look closely, you'll see that the part of this skirt that actually IS a skirt, as opposed to long fronds of material, extends only to just below the crotch line. So if you want to preserve your modesty AT ALL in this, you're going to have to either wear it on top of something else or just really, really hope a stray breeze doesn't come along and lift your skirt.
2. Who wears sensible black court shoes with their multi-fringed, dip-dyed skirt? Seriously, WHO?
And that's without even mentioning the fact that it's a multi-fringed, dip-dyed skirt. Oh no, wait, we kinda did. Did we mention it costs £172? Get it here.
It's not the fact that they're harem pants. It's not even the fact that they're harem-pants-that-can-also-be-worn-as-a-dress.
No, it's the fact that they're harem-pants-that-can-also-be-worn-as-as-dress that the Golden Girls would wear. If, of course, The Golden Girls, God bless them, had ever decided to wear such a thing.
That's what qualifies these as a crime of fashion in our book.
If you disagree, you can buy yourself a pair for $245 from Shopbop.
Following a tip-off from The Style PA, the force attempted an undercover mission to or local Asda last week to check out the Spring/Summer offerings. To say we were impressed would probably be an understatement: let's just say our credit card is currently in rehab.
This dress will be waaay too loud/kitsch/girlie for many of you, and we'd happily live without the bubble hem (actually, we'd happily live without seeing another bubble hem EVER, but that's just us). If you're able to pull this off, though, more power to you: it has yet to appear on the George website, but it's £18 in store.
Yes, folks, the curse of the tux-that's-not-a-tux is not confined to just Alexander McQueen and Stella McCartney pieces: Jean Paul Gaultier has also allegedly been perpetrating these crimes (We say "allegedly" – this item was found on eBay, and while we've no reason not to believe the seller, we can't vouch for the identity of the designer personally), and you see the evidence above, in the shape of a tuxedo bodysuit.
A tuxedo body suit. That's… confusing. We understand, of course, that "normal" body suits are worn so as to give the appearance of a top tucked into a skirt or trousers, and to prevent that annoying "top coming untucked" situation that so often arises. The existence of this item, however, would seem to suggest that there are people in the world who like to tuck their JACKETS into their pants. And all we can really say to that is, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
The other alternative, of course, is that the tuxedo body suit is intended to be worn exactly as it's shown on this mannequin, with NO pants, skirt, or, indeed anything other than a pair of tights, perhaps.
We live in troubling times, clearly. Very troubling times.
OK, readers: we know we can't agree on everything, but can we at least agree that the words "sequined" and "balloon trousers" should never appear in the same item description, ever? Actually, come to think of it, can we agree that the words "balloon" and "trousers" should never appear together?
While we're at it, can we also agree that this cardigan:
should probably not be worn with the aforementioned balloon trousers, unless you want to look like some kind of performance artist. Like maybe a mime or something. (No offence to any performance artists reading this.)
OK, good. Now could someone please tell Armand Basi about what we've agreed?
Wow, indeed. And "eye bleach". We like that. In fact, we think it should be standard issue for everyone on our fashion force.
And we should say again: there's an idea that goes around that The Fashion Police hate all forms of crochet. No, no, no! We don't hate crochet at all: unless, of course, it's bright orange, and has been added to a bikini, in an apparent bid to make the wearer look like a fluorescent spider came along and spun a web between boobs and briefs while she was sunbathing. That kind of crochet, we hate.
