Let me just start this post by stating up front that I do not condone anyone, anywhere, ever leaving their house without pants on. I don't care if you're Lady Gaga or if you subscribe to the recently popularised theory that tights and/or leggings suddenly, somehow qualify as pants. I do not.
But in the spirit of debate (and spurred on by the great comments on the infamous Man Candy post), let's indulge in a little pants-free fashion. What the hell, it's Friday?!
After a recent Vogue Paris editorial (March 2009) made it to the latest cover of Australian Vogue, I was perplexed. Essentially an advertorial for Chanel, photographer Patrick Demarchelier and model Edito Vilkeviciute have created a decidedly un-Chanel-esque aesthetic that's a little bit High Street with a dash of French Playboy. Apparently, pants are optional, even when wearing Chanel.
But in the spirit of debate (and spurred on by the great comments on the infamous Man Candy post), let's indulge in a little pants-free fashion. What the hell, it's Friday?!
After a recent Vogue Paris editorial (March 2009) made it to the latest cover of Australian Vogue, I was perplexed. Essentially an advertorial for Chanel, photographer Patrick Demarchelier and model Edito Vilkeviciute have created a decidedly un-Chanel-esque aesthetic that's a little bit High Street with a dash of French Playboy. Apparently, pants are optional, even when wearing Chanel.
The last image in particular reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Elaine's workmates pick up on an unfortunate bra under suit jacket trend. But without pants. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this editorial, either these pants-free examples or the rest of the shoot for that matter.
But just when I was ready to shrug this little sans pants foray off as completely ludicrous and mildly humourous...
But just when I was ready to shrug this little sans pants foray off as completely ludicrous and mildly humourous...
Bonds. I'm disappointed that you're going offshore and will no longer be made in Australia, and by jiminies you've had some bizarre advertising of late, but this commercial featuring the gorgeous Sarah Murdoch (formerly O'Hare)...wow. I was initially a little confused by this too, but I've come around. Sarah. Looks. Amazing. And yes, at least this is actually an advertisement for underwear, which hopefully means that we will not see people wearing this in the streets any time soon. But seriously, I doubt anyone could have ever convinced me that high waisted knickers could be so damn sexy.
Better yet, the combination of the 1950's sex bomb look with the 1983 Bow Wow Wow power-tune Aphrodisiac...genius. Yet another concept that would have sounded insane on paper, but somehow pulls together perfectly.
So my verdict: No pants in fashion editorials? Maybe. No pants in underwear commercials? Probably a fairly good marketing idea. No pants in public? Please, just don't.
Better yet, the combination of the 1950's sex bomb look with the 1983 Bow Wow Wow power-tune Aphrodisiac...genius. Yet another concept that would have sounded insane on paper, but somehow pulls together perfectly.
So my verdict: No pants in fashion editorials? Maybe. No pants in underwear commercials? Probably a fairly good marketing idea. No pants in public? Please, just don't.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi31J4Ulf7XTYPUYuXykFbADdlTmUZjYyRCuucYE7bIvjQqupzgm9p6NnwvqcqfHycWsjl3p8k_mVG2WoNUYTPVPycXjVExS8r5ZNDr1rS4eojod7SqO1ZOojZHF_dzu_x_uDQjOESKERk/")
13 comments:
lets just imagine the world if no one wore pants. it would add a great sense of humor to our lives :)
I can't imagine the world without my 2.55 Chanel bag...j'adore Chanel!
I still listen to Annabelle Lwin and her band!!
Not familiar at all with Sarah, but she looks fantastic!!
I'm a fan of pants. Not only do I wear them out in public, but I also wear them at home quite often. I'm wearing pants right now as a matter of fact. My neighbor however, feels the need to walk his dog sans pants at all hours of the day. I'd suggest that maybe he's caught on to the Chanel-No-Pants trend, but his bathrobe would suggest otherwise. Another fun post! Thanks, Kit!
Some people need pants for one reason or another. I don't see this becoming that much of a trend, but you never know. I, for one, will stick to wear some sort of bottom piece along with my underwear.
Crap - I'll have to go change now...ha
I agree...people need to wear pants. The Chanel ad's are not sexy, it looks like the girls are wearing diapers. Yikes! But I also agree that the underwear ad is very sexy. Still can't imagine pulling off the granny panties look, though and managing to feel attractive!
I think you need something on your bottom half if not pants, then a skirt, even a mini skirt, please! she looks like she's wearing men's briefs in that last photo.
oh, VERY FUNNY! Love the images too, but yes, not to actually wear to work!
hey there girl! i just wanted to let you know that i awarded you on my blog as a "blog i cant get enough of"! :) thanks for all the awesome posts! your's is really a blog that i always look forward to checking out!
-Cassie
She looks so amazing!!! Fabulous post darling! xxx
gorgeous layout though...maybe GaGa will inspire more gals to walk around with their granny knickers...me? im not that game....
I really don't like the pantless look. It's okay for bathing suits and celebritiees because some of them don't seem to respect themselves anyway. But I find it hard to take someone seriously if they are not wearing any pants. How can others respect you if you cannot respect yourself? That's how I see it.
Post a Comment