The Topless Bikini, by Victoria’s Secret: exactly what it sounds like

The Topless Bikini

Over the past couple of days, The Fashion Police have received a number of reports relating to a certain “topless bikini” being sold by Victoria’s Secret for the sum of $68. Well, we sent a couple of our officers to investigate, and yes, it’s true: you can see the evidence before you.

Now if, like us, one of your first instincts here was to quibble with the description of this, er, garment, as a “bikini”, let us first of all set your mind at rest on that score:

Yes, it IS, in fact, a two-piece swimming costume. The amazing thing about THIS, though, is that the top… wait for it… is removable! Which makes it, um, exactly the same as any other bikini, just uglier. And if you DO decide to whip off your top, you’ll still get to look like your knickers are suspended from your neck. Doesn’t everyone want to look like their knickers are suspended from their neck while they’re at the beach? No?

Actually, we’re almost as concerned by the existence of this garment:

Won’t someone please think of the TAN LINES? And the amount of eyeball bleach we’d all need to stock up on, should this type of thing become the norm on beaches around the world?

The monokini has a helluva lot to answer for, that’s all we can say…

23 Comments

  • February 9, 2010

    Brie

    I suppose it is good for the topless/nude beach.

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Leia

    Ouch…!

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Rose

    Gosh they all just look PAINFUL.

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Hoshi

    I’ve always wondered why people feel a compulsive need to cover their bellybutton and not much else…

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Natasha

    Doesn’t the first one just completely miss the point of sunbathing topless – which, at least in part, is avoiding tan lines? This way you get a great big ugly one smack in the middle of your stomach. The other one is just too ugly and porn-like for words.

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Chelsey

    Why has no one commented on the prospect of overly chubby people deciding the second one is ‘cute’ and squeezing into one two sizes too small because the manufacturers were trying to get said overly chubby people to avoid this specific style? It would be like…. muffins… Muffins EVERYWHERE! Aaagh!

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Jess

    The first two pictures are EXACTLY THE SAME.
    Right down to where her fingers are, facial expression, EVERYTHING.
    Nice use of photoshop here guys.

    View Comment
    • February 9, 2010

      The Fashion Police

      Not sure if that’s directed at us or not, but there’s been no photoshopping on our part. There may well have been on the part of Victoria’s Secret, of course: can’t vouch for them, but the two photos come from their site.

      View Comment
      • February 9, 2010

        Rock Hyrax

        That was well spotted! I reckon it’s directed at the shop, and that the version without the top is the photoshopped one.

        I have a horrible feeling the first garment was inspired by the mankini. And as for the second one – it could be used as a picture to illustrate the word “trashy”…

        View Comment
        • February 9, 2010

          Bethany

          I think if you look closely, you can see that the SECOND picture was censored. Some of the ends of her hair was chopped off. As for covering one’s breasts with one’s hair, I tried to play mermaid like that when I was small. It doesn’t work.

          View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Nyka

    Lots of people seem to think you can’t go wrong with VS. Oh you can go wrong folks. It can go way way wrong. But ole vicky has given us alot of good too.

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Areya

    WOOH I helped report this! And… it’s still hideous, even with the top part. Amen to the person who pointed out the limitless opportunities for muffins in the second bathing suit!

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    Shinygirl

    EWWWWWW!
    Beach-trash!!!

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    AJ

    Please put a warning on this article. Something along the lines of “Warning: May Need Eyebleach After Reading This” would do nicely.

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    kevie

    Please, just go find a nude beach and take off ALL your clothes! That is far less trashy than these bondage get-ups.

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    Carmen

    Anybody remember Rudi Gernreich’s topless swimsuit in the 60’s?

    View Comment
    • February 11, 2010

      Lydia

      Yes, and they never caught on, thankfully.

      View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    Diandra

    I actually kind of like the first one with the top attatched. It’s pleasing to the eye but also elegant to me. But why make it a two-piece? Maybe to take it off easier, or maybe to tan your boobs? who knows. I do like it though! (also: what would it look like from the back???)
    The second one though, tan lines aside, it’s just UGLY!

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    Charlotte

    I wouldn’t mind being as pretty as that model…

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    Kate

    The second one, on many people, would turn into pushing dough through a basketball net. NOT my idea of attractive.

    View Comment
  • February 11, 2010

    EricB

    I’ve seen swimsuits like this before in online clothing stores specialising in fetish fashion. So these are not new ideas in fashion design in any way.

    View Comment
  • April 7, 2010

    me :)

    the worse part is the second one is actually more conservative then the first one. and some bathing suits out there

    View Comment