Look, ma! No pants! Maurie and Eve’s singlet with chiffon

Look, no pants!

Important Announcement: attaching a piece of chiffon to  tank top does NOT make it a “dress”. We repeat: does NOT make it a dress. Apparently there’s some confusion about this, although, to be fair, that confusion doesn’t come from Maurie and Eve, who were at least honest enough to describe this garment simply as a “singlet with chiffon”.

We’re still confused, though. Why would you need a singlet to be “with chiffon”? If you wear something like jeans, or even leggings, with it, in a bid to make it a little more respectable, the chiffon part won’t be particularly noticeable, but if you wear it as shown, well, you’ll look like you forgot to put your pants on, for that singlet should in no way be mistaken for a dress.

We’re forced to conclude, then, that this garment is another one of the great unsolved fashion mysteries of our time. If you think you can solve it – and, more importantly, wear it – however, it’s $121 and you can buy it here.

5 Comments

  • March 25, 2010

    naomi

    hmmm…maybe its a “naughty” singlet with chiffon to be worn in the privacy of one’s own home? one can only hope that is how the consumers of this product will interpret it…

    View Comment
  • March 25, 2010

    Lola

    Maybe it’s meant to be worn underneath a long dress or a skirt for like, extra warmth or to make it less see through or something?

    That’s all I’ve got.

    It’s ugly anyway 😛
    .-= Lola´s last blog ..So =-.

    View Comment
  • March 26, 2010

    Amee

    I like it. I just don’t know how on earth I’d wear it. It looks like its supposed to be a mini dress..perhaps contrasting leggings is the key here.

    View Comment
  • May 13, 2014

    Catherine

    This I could wear. At 5 foot 2 inches the singlet part would just come to above the knee. I’d need to hem it tho….wait, you mean it’s not meant for the vertically challenged?

    View Comment