We know there has to be a plausible explanation for these. Has to be. But right now, we're dammed if we know what it is. Why do they exist? For what possible reason would you need a pair of cuffed pants (Yoox.com call them "leggings", but they're a little too wide for that label, we think) in a fishnet fabric? And, perhaps most puzzlingly of all: WHY WOULD YOU STYLE THEM LIKE THIS?
There is one small comfort in all of this, though: they're not actually attached to the shorts. At first glace, you see, we thought this wasn't just a case of Baggy Fishnet Leggings: we thought we were ALSO dealing with a Clothes-That-Are-Joined-Together Crime. But no: the shorts aren't attached to the leggings, the model is just wearing the shorts under the leggings. Yes, under the leggings. Which is a whole other mystery in itself, because while we understand – and are grateful for – the desire to protect the model's modesty, if these are supposed to be worn underneath something else (and surely to God they are?), why not just show them like that?
We may never know. If, however, you care only about how to get your hands on them, they're £82 from Yoox.com.
I saw someone wearing these today, no joke…with a white tunic and espadrilles…wow
If you get stranded on an island in these they could be used for fishing and be key for survival…
lol. I saw these here in Vancouver as well. Granted they were on an old lady… Not that older ladies have bad style, but I’m just saying, it wasn’t a young trendy hip model looking girl.
They remind me of the vests some men wore in the nineties.
I do live in place with veeery hot weather (almost infernal) the whole year, but the only place I think I can wear this and not look like crap, its in the beach, and I wont.
What confuses me most is the cuff. It’s sort of like Victorian values in reverse. You can show EVERYTHING except that bit of leg.
this reminds me of the fishnet hoody I wore in high school. (shudder) I have reformed since then.