WHAT is Elisabeth Rohm wearing?
That is not a rhetorical question. Is this…a tunic….thing? Over…leggings? And if so, why? WHY????
[Photo: Splash]
-
Charlie Sheen Rejects Farrah Abraham Publicly – FOX News 
What Does Amanda Bynes Have To Say To Drake Now – Huffington Post Drug Outbreak Behind Lindsay Lohan Rehab Switch? – FOX News Patrick Schwarzenegger Shows Off His Smokin' Body – TMZ Ouch... Justin Bieber Gets Snubbed – Huffington Post More Troubles For Miley Cyrus – TMZ
Comments (26):
Nobody told her that Scarlett used the velvet curtains and included a skirt on the dress.
Is this because she’s a lesbian?
Not sure what you mean, but I’m going to go ahead and be offended by it.
That’s what her character on “Law and Order” asks when she is fired. It was just this line that came totally out of left field.
And it was hilarious in its bizarreness.
I think it’s an allusion to her last ep on Law and Order, where she was fired and said, “Is this because I’m a lesbian?”, with no previous characterization that suggested this to be the case. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuddenlySexuality
Oh, of COURSE you are.
I really didn’t intend for it to be offensive. As others have mentioned, it was a reference to her character’s line on Law and Order. It was nearly as incomprehensible as this outfit. If Jessica had titled this “Fug-gel” I probably would have referred to her character on Angel and have said something like “Be a rainbow, not a pain-bow, Elisabeth.” (Even though that is a David Boreanaz line.)
Unfortunately, this line was so notable in its weirdness that it will be the first thing many TV-watchers think of when they see Elisabeth Rohm. She’s a beautiful woman and can be a very good actress, but that line has become her own personal albatross.
jenelope – That line is ALWAYS the first thing in my head when I see her! Thanks for the laugh
Hahahahaha. I cannot see her without thinking about that line!
She is wearing: a black sports bra, black leggings, shortish black patent stilettos, and a blue gauze drape stolen from the Wiki Waki mermaids. Perhaps the pieces of eight strung along her necklace help explain her motif?
I don’t know what, but the only explanation for “why” is an undeserved post-holiday case of “I feel bad about my butt.”
I can see her BRA. If she’s just escaping from a dorm fire or on a Nyquil run while fighting the flu, I’ll give her a well played. Otherwise, dang, son. She will regret that.
Looks like it’s something from ESPIRIT circa 1990.
Is she coming from Monica’s Gellar’s tap class?
In the words of Blair Waldorf, leggings are not pants.
I just wish I was somewhere I could wear that … it’s -10F here (air, not wind chill) and getting colder.
But..but…her face looks so pretty!
WHAT is she wearing? Well, whatever it is, it’s wrong choice. Unless you’re dancing Martha Graham at a all-girls academy, I guess.
She really really shouldn’t have tied that little knot in the guazy shirt thing. Really. The whole outfit is bad, but that’s the worst.
All I see is a tiny blue penis.
This is the kind of outfit you might have ended up with after spending a hectic lunch hour shopping for something at Daffy’s near Time square, circa 1991. You know it’s horrendous, and you are going to look terrible, but you only have $50 and it’s a semi-dressed up event, and at least it was well made. You hope no one notices, and then someone sends you the pictures, and you are in every one, wearing this hideously fugly pants/frock.
@emerald – “tiny blue penis” lmao!
And this outfit MIGHT have been saved if: 1) no “tiny blue penis” knot; 2) platform sandals; 3) much more in the way of necklaces and bracelets; 3) wavier, looser hair; 4) a tinier, pretty shoulder handbag; 5) leggings that were not shiny black, circa 1985 Palladium NYC.
What the heck is she wearing??
OK seriously – if it wasn’t tied like that, the slit wouldn’t have been so vag-adjacent – vagacent?! – and leggings would not have been necessary.
Or, here’s an idea – WAIT FOR SUMMER and wear it over the matching swimsuit.