Showing posts with label tights-as-pants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tights-as-pants. Show all posts

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Ashley Tisdale

Sighhh...


I think L. Lo. may have just found her new best friend. Perhaps they will celebrate by going legging-shopping together.

Mena Suvari

Oh, Mena:


This is just a helluva lot going on at once. I mean, I could make multiple insults here. I could remark on how much you resemble a vampire who is not worthy of the glamour of True Blood; I could insist you look like that bedraggled and drugged pirate who has no idea what he’s doing in Pirates of the Caribbean and belongs in some Tim Burton movie instead; I could scoff at the fact you’re wearing leggings as a type of pant which they are NOT – but I won’t. Because I think this outfit just says every insult that needs to be said for itself.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Sienna Miller


So I’ve finally figured out the secret behind these uber tight jeans that I had no clue anyone could fit into besides starving 90-pound waif models from Russia: they’re leggings. See? They’re just leggings made to look like pants. They stretch and allow all body sizes to fit in them and don’t require the use of butter and Swedish masseurs. Which leads us back to our old argument about leggings as pants. Except, is it okay when said leggings look exactly like pants? I’m actually having a hard to figure this one out. Tell me: do you guys think its okay to wear leggings as pants when said leggings look exactly like pants? Or is it just always non-acceptable?

Paris Hilton

Speaking of all things L. Lo related:


So Paris Hilton finally takes on the ‘leggings-as-pants’ trend. Quite frankly, I must say I’m relieved. Surely, this leopard-print matchy-matchy is much better than her other mishaps. That doesn’t necessarily forgive the random zipper on her thigh (or perhaps it’s a straw wrapper? I really can’t tell) or the sequined writing veering very closely to her crotch (I’m making it out to read as ‘DERSEYLE’ although I highly doubt it because I don’t think that holds any meaning whatsoever in this or the next world), but am I glad that she at least looks semi-approachable now? Yes. And so for that, I’m gonna let this one go.

Michelle Trachtenberg

I just don’t get it. How do they do it? How?!


It is just not possible that she got into those pants all on her own! There must be an explanation! Are they painted on? Did she get help from a Swedish massager who buttered her up (not necessarily for the sake of the pants)? I guess I’ll never know. I guess I’ll never know the reasoning behind this outfit either. There are just a lot of different trends going on here. She’s on Gossip Girl overload; so many beautiful clothes, her brain is exploding with the possibilities of all of them and piling them all into one mast beastly outfit that does her no justice. Michelle, you just need to take a break; lose the jacket, it’s not too cold. Lose the purse, pick up a handbag. Lose the painted on pants, find some real ones. See? It’s not all that hard!

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Leighton Meester


WOW, this girl sure can surprise. I didn’t even recognize her at first. I thought for sure it was Katy Perry, but then I realized: since when did Kay Pay have blonde curly hair? Nope, it’s Leighton alright, looking veeeeeery different from Blair Bear. So I know I should be screaming and having a fit of how ugly and crazy and clashing this is and threaten to throw the towel in and kapeto, finite, blah blah blah. Yet somehow (even though she’s wearing the same shoes as Beckham), I can’t help but want to give her snaps for taking this chance. It’s crazy, I know, but I admire her for risking it. I mean really, there aren’t that many people who would try (and the people who would look crazy all the time, unlike Leighton who only looks crazy most of the time). So yes; I like this. Call me crazy, zainy, insane, I’m sticking with it.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Michelle Trachenburg (...did I spell that right?)

Dude.


Can we even qualify this as a dress? It’s like, the tank top I wear for going to the gym. Except with a lot more sparkles on it. Probably costs a lot more too. Come to think of it, that shirt probably costs more than my entire wardrobe. But really, why is it that celebs find it okay to leave their house in hoochie skirts and claim their tights pass of a pants? Let’s get it straight: pants do not equal tights, and tights do not equal pants. Understood?