OK, sure, if you wear them exactly as shown above, then you can expect to be hearing from our officers. And probably the officers of the actual police, too, because what you’re basically looking at here, fashion jurors, is a pair of footless, fishnet tights with a tatoo print on the upper part of the leg. It’s not something we’d necessarily wear ourselves, but if you wanted the look of tattooed legs, say, without the actual “getting a tatoo” bit, and if you were prepared to wear something with them to cover your crotch (for let us never forget that tights are not pants, readers), we can see how these might appeal to some of you.
What we can’t really see is why they need to cost $435. Are they woven from unicorn hair? Do they posses magical, thigh-slimming properties? Or has the Emperor been doing a spot of shopping again? You tell us…
We just spent way too long looking at the close-up of these pants on Shopbop, in a bid to establish whether or not this model is wearing underwear. Way too long. We’re never getting that time back, people, but it’s OK: we stare at the model’s butt so you don’t have to .
Conclusions:
1. Yes, she is wearing underwear.
2. Pants that prompt people to stare intently at your nether regions because they can see right through them are an automatic fashion violation in our book. You may not pass ‘Go’. You may not collect $200.
Oddly, they look a little less see-through in white…
Indah ‘Moreno’ sweater pants, $80.50 at Shopbop: click here to buy them.
We’d like to propose a motion that any time the words “crochet” and “bell bottom” occur in the same product description, it should be considered an automatic crime of fashion, and anyone caught committing such a crime should instantly lose their licence to wear pants. And we know what you’re thinking: that would surely lead to a whole lot of people walking around without pants. You’re right. It would. But we reckon NO PANTS would surely be preferable to these pants, by Nightcap Clothing. And until people can prove they can wear pants responsibly, well, they’ll just have to go without ‘em…
There’s so much wrong with this outfit that we think we might need some extra space on our citation pads to deal with it.
Seriously, these shorts would’ve been bad enough without the fringes. But they do have fringes. And they’re being worn with peep toe sneakers, which is clearly the summer-appropriate version of the peep toe boot rule: not that we’d have needed to consult any guidelines to establish whether or not this was a crime of fashion, of course – that truth is self-evident in this case.
Then there’s the rest of the look:
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, hey?
These are all by master fashion criminal, Jeremy Scott: click here to buy them.
We’ve never been big fans of the idea of “age appropriate” dressing, but we think it’s safe to say that if you’re older than 3, say, you’re probably too old for these D&G bloomers. Or any bloomers, come to think of it…
Oh, hey, has anyone seen a Delorean around here? It’s just that we’re pretty sure Hammer must be looking for his pants now that they’ve somehow made it to the future…
[STOP! Click here if it's Hammer time where you are.]
If a sheer dress is known as a “shress“, we guess a pair of sheer shorts must be “shhorts”. Or, alternatively, “a hot mess”.
These are by Cheap Monday, and are currently on sale for $41 at Alex & Chloe. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to come up with a plausible scenario in which you’d actually wear these in public. We’re not going to hold our breath, though…
