A couple of weeks ago, it was brought to our attention that ASOS.com is currently trying to encourage men to wear leggings: and no, we don’t mean “under trousers, when it’s really cold” or “under shorts, for long-distance running”, we mean every day. As fashion items.
Now, in the spirit of equal opportunity, The Fashion Police would have to say we can see no reason why men shouldn’t wear leggings if they so desire. If men DO want to wear leggings, however, we think they should abide by the same basic “rule” we ask women to observe. Yes, we’re talking about the Leggings Are Not Pants rule. Guys, this applies to you, too. Please don’t wear them as pants. It’s just too much information, trust us.
Of course, trust ASOS to have a solution to this issue. Here’s their suggestion for getting around the TMI issue created by “meggings”:
Ah, the metrosexual male! He’s like a little lost lamb there, isn’t it?
Is this the look you’re aiming for, men? Ladies, do you want to rip this guys clothes off? (And if so, is it just because you want to replace them with something other than meggings?) Click here to buy some meggings of your very own.
Rocha John Rocha Navy dual shackett jacket, £65 at Debenhams
Nope, not a “sheer jacket”, as per the usual pattern of Fashion Police terminology, but a jacketthat shares elements in common with a shirt. A shirt-jacket. A shacket, see?
Shacket: A cross between a shirt and a jacket, similar to the apparel of a builder’s.
With us so far? Because this is where things began to get confusing over at Fashion Police HQ…
River Island’s brown (really?) chiffon (perhaps…) flower (so that’s what they are!) shackett (hmmph): £39.99, available here, and also in white.
Ignoring everything that’s wrong with the description of this piece (not to mention the spelling of “shackett”) can anyone inform us which parts of it resemble a shirt? It all looks suspiciously jacket-shaped to us…
The shacket got its first foothold in 2009, championed by Topman as the must-buy season update from their AW09 menswear collection. Its crossover into womenswear doesn’t yet seem to have taken a firm grip, with many designers and stores prefering to stick to the far less confusing “lightweight jacket” and “heavyweight shirt” rather than throw yet another dubious fash-pack term into the already heady mix.
The Fashion Police insist that the term “shacket” be allowed to fade back into the ether, and that all sh— affix compound words be run past them in the future.
You say tomAYto, we say tomAHto… readers, let’s just call the whole thing off, OK?
OK, so maybe not. There are so many differences between UK and American English when it comes to fashion, though, that it can get mighty confusing sometimes, so we’ve rounded up some of the most commonly confused terms below, to try and shed some light on things. Of course, just to make things even MORE confusing than they already were, there are regional differences in terminology in both countries, and the word you use for a certain item can depend, not only on what part of the world you’re from, but where exactly you live, what kind of upbringing you had, and what your family and friends call it. Oh, and some terms can make their way across the Atlantic in either direction, too: we can think of quite a few US phrases which have become reasonably common here in the UK, probably because we’re so used to hearing them on American TV shows.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, then (and we haven’t even started on the differences in terminology in other parts of the world) so feel free to drop us a comment with any words we’ve missed, and we’ll add them to the list!
UK: Jumper US: Sweater
UK: Pinafore US: Jumper
UK: Trousers US: Pants
UK: Pants US: Panties/underwear
UK: Tights US: pantyhose/hose/stockings (although opaque tights are still referred to as “tights”)
UK: Trainers US: Sneakers
UK: Court shoes US: Pumps
UK: Waistcoat US: Vest
UK: Vest US: Tank top
UK: Wellington boots/wellies US: Rain boots
UK: Braces US: Suspenders
UK: Suspenders US: garters/garter belt
UK: Tracksuit bottoms US: Sweatpants
UK: Shirt (a garment with a collar that buttons up the front) US: Shirt (can refer to any item worn on the top of the body)
UK: Bag US: Purse/Bag (in the UK a “purse” is used to keep coins and other currency in, and is never used to refer to a larger bag)
The Foot Snatcher is a dangerous fashion criminal who gets his (or possibly her) kicks from depriving other people of theirs: in other words, the Foot Snatcher steals feet, so run, don’t walk – if you still can, that is!
Poor Kelly Clarkson, above, was a victim of the Foot Snatcher back in May 2009. As you can see, the Snatcher showed no mercy here and left Kelly’s pants trailing inches beyond where her feet would be, if she actually had any. It’s amazing she didn’t trip over those things!
The Foot Snatcher prefers to target celebrities, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us can consider ourselves safe:
FASHION VICTIM: A fashion victim is someone who rigidly follows fashion, even it means dressing in clothes that don’t suit her, or just look plain ridiculous. Fashion Victims often look like they’ve been “victimised” by various fashion trends or brands, as in the image above, in which poor Daniella Westbrook took a sound beating from the Burberry stick.
Fashion Victims are the people the glossy magazines aim all of those “How are YOU going to wear this season’s sheer harem jumpsuit?” articles at. The rest of us would simply shrug and say, “Er, we’re NOT going to wear them. Because they’re sheer, harem jumpsuits, you know?” The Fashion Victim, on the other hand, takes the advice to heart. She wears the jumpsuit because she has to be seen to be “bang on trend” – a phrase developed by, and for, fashion victims.
At the centre of the Fashion Victim’s belief system is the idea that anything made by a designer label is automatically good. The Fashion Victim believes this to be true because she actually has no real style of her own: she simply follows the herd and wears what she’s supposed to, and, in the absence of any kind of critical faculty, is forced to depend on designer labels as a sign of good taste. The Fashion Victim uses highly visible logos to demonstrate how “fashionable” she is. This is because she tends to confuse “money” with “style”.
It’s also why the Fashion Victim loves Louis Vuitton:
Is this a sweatshirt or is it lingerie? Can we call it a shrop (sheer-top)?
The existence of the “shrop” begs many questions. If it’s a sweatshirt, why is it see-through? If it’s lingerie, why does it have thick sweatshirt sleeves? In case your arms get cold? The sheer section is silk, and therefore the entire garment is dry clean only. Not exactly conducive to gym wear, dry clean only items, are they? Another thing not conducive to gym wear (or lingerie for that matter) is the price tag. Be grateful it is in the sale and is reduced to $298. It formerly cost $425.
What do you think though readers? Is this just the job for your next workout? Or can you see yourself lounging around the bedroom in it? If so, you can buy it here.
The Dress Like a Toddler Trend is a fashion movement which, although not particularly widespread, has still proved to be popular with some people. Some people who feel that adults should dress like toddlers, that is.
A large part of the Dress Like a Toddler Trend involves the wearing of adult onesies:
These guys think they look really cute, quirky, and, like, totally adorable. They don’t have girlfriends.
If they were in the comfort of their own home, it might be OK. (Unless, of course, they were hoping to get lucky that night, if you know what we mean). We’re not saying you can’t ever choose comfort over style, you see: we’re just saying that when you’re wearing the same clothes as your 11-month-old, you might want to reconsider…
(Our post earlier today about Christian Dior’s $500 socks reminded us to continue updating our Fashion Police Glossary, explaining some of the terms used on the blog. We resume today, then, with the definition of a SOCK HORROR.)
A SOCK HORROR, it goes almost without saying, is some kind of sartorial disaster involving socks, tights, or some other form of hosiery.
