It’s time for our weekly roundup of all of the suspected crimes of fashion we’ve come across in the past few days. This week, our roundup mostly focuses on see-through clothes, and other ways to look like you’re naked when you’re actually fully (or at least partially) dressed. It’s not going to be pretty, so we’re just going to dive right in and get this first one out of the way, so we can all wash our eyes out with eyeball bleach, and then get on with our lives…
Fashion Crimes of the Week | See-through clothes edition
Look. We’re not saying you need to wear a burka to the beach, and we’re not totally opposed to the “if ya got it, flaunt it” theory of dressing. These $92 bikini bottoms are taking “flaunting it” just a little too far, though, because by “it” we mean… we don’t need to be as obvious as these are, do we?
We don’t even want to admit how much time we just wasted looking at these photos and trying to work out whether the model was wearing underwear or not. And let’s face it: it doesn’t really matter how much time we spent, it’s TOO MUCH. We’re sure we won’t be the only ones who have the same reaction, though, so we guess the question is, do you WANT people to be too busy trying to work out what colour your knickers are to actually hear what you’re saying? It doesn’t matter whether you buy a $600 designer dress, like this one, or the tackiest piece of market-stall tat: when it comes to see-through clothes, they’re all the same.
We’re willing to concede, however, that this COULD be worn with something else under it, which would allow us to set it free. We’ve never been keen on clothes that require OTHER clothes to be purchased before they can be wearable, but we wouldn’t necessarily arrest them as crimes of fashion either, so we’ll leave that decision to you.
Also by Alexander Wang, who we hereby name The Kind of See-Through Clothes, comes these trousers. These have clearly had a lot of work and thought put into them, we’ll say that for them. That’s ALL we’re willing to say for them for now, though.
If a sheer dress is a “shress” and sheer pants are “shants”, a sheer sweater must be a “shweater”. Again, this is probably designed to be worn with something underneath it. We can only assess the evidence as it’s presented to us, though, and this evidence suggests that if the model on the right tugs just a little harder, she’ll be able to describe herself as a “glamour model”, rather than a fashion model…
To finish what we started in point four:
Sheer dress = SHRESS
Sheer pants = SHANTS
Sheer sweater = SHWEATER
Sheer jogging pants = SHOGGING PANTS
Of all of the made-up words and phrases we use to describe the phenomenon of see-through clothes, we think “shogging pants” is definitely our favourite. That doesn’t mean we’re going to let these off, though: as you can see, The Peep-Toe Boot Rule is in effect here, which makes this an automatic caution for us. What about for you, though?