|
|
Did people really learn NOTHING from the story of the Emperor's new clothes? Because Miuccia Prada must surely have laughed all the way to the bank the day she realised she could charge people £228 a time to basically walk around naked, no?
(And OK, these have been reduced to £155 at Yoox.com, but that's still about, oh, £155 too much for us...)
By day, they were a an ordinary pair of pants:
But by night the Secret Skirt came out and they became....THE PANTS SKIRT:
From what we can gather, the skirt can be removed at will, allowing these pants to live a double life, but we just can't for the life of us figure out why anyone, male or female, would want to wear a skirt over pants. And far be it for us to suggest that men shouldn't wear skirts: it's always been the opinion of The Fashion Police that if women are allowed to wear pants, men should be allowed to wear skirts - fair's fair, after all - but if we wouldn't like this look on a woman (and we wouldn't) we're not going to pretend to like it on a man either. Nuh-uh.
What do you think, folks? Are you fans of the Pant Skirt? Enough to pay $798 for one? If so, walk right this way...
[Thanks to Matthew for the report!]
At first we were alarmed.
Then we thought, "Well, maybe if you DIDN'T always strike a pose like a 70s disco dancer, it could just work, because they would just look like a long, pleated skirt?":
Then we remembvered we don't really like long, pleated skirts anyway, so we're going to leave it up to you. Are Garth Pugh's pleated culottes a crime of fashion? Or are they worth every cent of the $1,967 they cost? Tell us!
BUY: Gareth Pugh pleated culottes
On the plus side, at least this model is actually wearing underwear. On the minus side, though... we can see it. Clearly. And we don't know about you, but there's not many people whose underwear is of a huge amount of interest to us, especially not when we're out in public.
Yes, folks, just when you thought it was safe to go back to Yoox.com, the shants are back, and they're just as confusing as ever. These ones are by Chloe, and going by the design, they don't really look like they're supposed to be worn underneath something else, but we're really hoping they're not supposed to be worn like this either, because as we're sure you're all aware, not all butt cheeks are created equal, and there aren't many we'd fancy coming face to, er, cheek with as we go about our daily business.
If you'd like to show the world your wares, though, these will cost you £190, and you can buy them here.
And the must-have fashion item for this season is... a pair of wooden legs! And by "wooden legs" we mean "legs that look like tree trunks"? Or maybe not. These wood print pants are by Michael Kors, but given that "tree trunk legs" aren't exactly something many of us aspire to having. we're wondering how much of a hit these will really be. Especially considering they cost $995.
What do you think, readers? Tree trunk trousers: are they a crime of fashion, or are you getting your credit card ready for action as we speak? Tell us!
If a sheer dress is a "shress" and sheer pants are "shants", we can only assume that a sheer jumpsuit must be a "shumpsuit". And so that's what we're going to call this: a shumpsuit.
Luckily for all of us, this shumpsuits isn't quite as sheer as some of the items The Fashion Police have been forced to arrest since the sheer "trend" kicked off, but wear it on a bright day with nothing underneath, and you can definitely expect some stares, if not a caution from the actual police.
Presumably this shumpsuit isn't actually supposed to be worn with nothing underneath it, though, in which case, good luck with styling it, and you can pay your £917 to Intermix, who're selling it. Yes, £917. And worth every single penny, we're sure...
So, you know how sometimes you're wearing your leggings as pants (like the cool kids do, you know?) and suddenly you don't know what to do with your hands? "God," you think, "If only I had a handy belt-loop type of arrangement that I could casually loop my thumb through! Maybe in the region of my crotch, say? Yes, that would be ace!"
Thank goodness someone out there was listening to your plea and creating that very thing, eh? Because even although these leggings cost $180, we know you're going to want to rush out and buy them, in which case you'll need to go here.
... you know the jumpsuit is a crime of fashion.
And that's without even taking into account the droopy hips that seem to be a feature of so many jumpsuits at the moment. And for £729, too!
As soon as this foil jumpsuit appeared on the Topshop website, the emails started to arrive, from people asking us to please, please for the love of God, just arrest it already!
The most recent email on the subject came from Fashion Police reader Rose, who wrote: "Will you please please please be so kind as to arrest this horror while I will start distributing brain bleach to the poor witnesses of this crime?"
Well, how could we possibly refuse a plea like that? Especially given that what we're dealing with here is an item of clothing which even emphasises the mannequin's lumpy bits.
Jump suit, consider yourself under arrest.
A guest post by Ashley Reiner of the Houston Fashion Trends Examiner. Ashley writes...
"Leggings have been all over the place for several years now. Designers are finding every way possible to make them their own-- whether through different fabrics, lengths, or prints.
And, if you also have a strange affinity for body parts, then Mishka has got you covered.
The Keep Watch Leggings are depicted with a rather creepy eyeball print. But these babies are not just any eyes; no, that would be too normal. These overly rounded, floating eyeballs are bloodshot red. They take "eyes at the back of your head" to a whole new level. Can you say disturbing?
For those of you mass murderers and scientists that may find them of interest, you can find these peepers at Karmaloop for $67."
Author Bio:
Ashley Reiner is currently a fashion design student in Houston, Texas. Saying she has a love for fashion would be an understatement. Follow her blog here.
|
|
