![Spl68252_006[1]](https://www.thefashionpolice.net/images/6a00d8341c873353ef010536e726c0970b.jpg "Spl68252_006[1]")
On the plus side, at least Natasha Pavlovich is wearing underwear here. On the minus side, the fact that we can see that underwear so very clearly makes this dress seem… not very classy. It also makes it seem like one of those nightmares we sometimes have when we're out at some fancy event and then we look down and realise that, whoops, we're not actually wearing anything! And then we want to die.
Natasha, on the other hand, seems perfectly comfortable to be photographed in her smalls, although we notice she has been a little bit sensible and brought along a jacket to cover up with later. Too late, Natasha! The Fashion police have already seen you!
Susan
Is that VELVET?!
View CommentTheresa
Certainly looks like it. At least it isn’t as sheer as most of the other shresses we’ve seen.
View CommentArielle
She has a nice figure and the cut of this dress would have been flattering if it weren’t sheer.
View CommentEvelyn
Yes, the sheerness takes away from the great cut of the outfit. Otherwise, I’d wear it.
View CommentKelly
I don’t know who she is, but it looks like a case of “shoot, I didn’t know it was sheer”.
View CommentRock Hyrax
I suppose flesh coloured underwear would be the obvious choice to go with the dress, but she probably thought that if she did then everyone would be saying she was naked underneath, so went for the lesser of the two evils. She could of course have avoided the problem completely by not wearing a shress…
View CommentJoey Sauer
Lol, shress. Nude underwear would have gone well I think. But yes, this dress should never have been sheer.
View Comment