Fashion Police Glossary: “Shress”

Shress Definition: In the language we like to think of as “fashion-speak”, a “shress” is simply a sheer dress. Sheer dress = “shress”. See what they did there?

(See also: “Shants“)

The “shress” first came to the notice of the Fashion Police in the 2007/2008 season, when various designers (Dior, Christopher Kane, etc)  began parading them down their runways. Clearly these designers were (mostly) just having a laugh, but some retailers decided to take the so-called “trend” seriously, and tried to flog the “shresses” to unsuspecting buyers, thus creating an “Emperor’s New Clothes” type scenario in which people would be expected to pay a small fortune for… well, nothing really.

And still it goes on. The Fashion Police have yet to hear of anyone other than Agyness Deyn (who doesn’t really count) actually wearing a “shress” in real life, but some retailers continue to offer them for sale. The one on this page is a particularly good example of the breed, allowing its wearer to essentially walk around naked, having paid £180 for the privilege. We wouldn’t really class it as “not safe for work” because we think the model’s wearing a flesh-coloured thong, but we’re putting it behind a cut, just to be on the safe side.

Shress_yooxIt’s £180 from Yoox.

14 Comments

  • January 21, 2009

    EJ

    This post might not be classed as ‘not safe for work’ … but that dress definitely is!
    Hideous!

    View Comment
  • January 21, 2009

    Rock Hyrax

    This is the worst so far – I didn’t even believe it wasn’t just a piece of netting draped over the model and held together with pins, until I saw its cousin here: http://www.yoox.com/item.asp?cod10=37125443&TP=11227 where you get a better view of the “rear zip closure”…

    View Comment
  • January 21, 2009

    The Fashion Police

    It genuinely perplexes me. I mean, even assuming you wore it over the top of something, it’s not like it would really add much to the outfit, would it?

    View Comment
  • January 21, 2009

    Evelyn

    Ew. Just. Ew.

    View Comment
  • January 21, 2009

    gokarm

    The fashion industry has universally read “The Emperor’s New Clothes” and thought…hey…they might HAVE something there! Cut costs to almost 0 and charge an arm and a leg…awesome! It’s not like we could go to the grocery store and wrap ourselves in colored cellophane and achieve nearly the same look for 5 dollars. 😉

    View Comment
  • January 21, 2009

    Theresa

    Wow, the fact that this dress is sheer makes it awful, but the actual design of it is really god-awful.

    View Comment
  • January 21, 2009

    Caroline

    The only reason I can think of for wearing that is the bedroom…and that’s it…

    View Comment
  • January 21, 2009

    Celeste

    I can only imagine shresses as a sheer overlay for other dresses, since some dresses actually have that sort of thing build in. Unfortunately I’ve never seen it marketed as such, and it would probably still be ugly, so I have no idea why someone would wear it.

    View Comment
  • January 22, 2009

    Yo

    HAHAHAH

    View Comment
  • January 22, 2009

    kevie

    £180? Really? I keep overestimating consumers.

    View Comment
  • January 23, 2009

    Inox

    When I first saw the little picture at the top, my first thought was that the model was draped in the nasty hairballs you pull from the shower drain. Gag.

    View Comment
  • April 14, 2009

    Roseanna

    just walk around naked, You might as well.

    View Comment
  • February 12, 2010

    Joey Sauer

    So ugly.
    .-= Joey Sauer´s last blog ..Survived Year 13 Camp (+ YouSayToo Awards) =-.

    View Comment