The Fug Element

Mar 9, 2009 By Jessica AT 10:33 am

You know, I was all set to make this a Fug or Fab, and then I decided, “No. It’s time to take a stand.” Also, I sort of realized how I felt about it. It makes me a little stabby. Oh, MILLA:

 

So, the front is fine, right? I mean, I’ll be honest — I think this is a little young for her. It’s not like she’s some old aging hag or whatever (we’re the same age, and I feel confident that we are still VERY YOUNG AND VIBRANT), but a woman gets to a certain age and she probably should think twice about wearing something (a) hella short AND (b) white lacy-crotchet-y whatever AND (c) all coy and swiss dotted and be-bowed at the top, WITH (d) puffed sleeves. That’s just a lot of Little Bo Peep signifiers for a grown woman, that’s all.  Especially when you see the back:

She’s beautiful, but that’s a bustle. A mini-bustle. And it’s rather painful, because I can tell that this dress has aspects that are seriously quite beautiful, but at this length, it reminds me of two things: a diaper, and the time Carrie Bradshaw wore this:

I wish I could find a better photo of this skirt, but I’m sure anyone who saw this episode of Sex and the City remembers completely that which we can only see part of here: that at some point in this scene, Carrie turns around and THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE SKIRT IS FEATHERS. Which led to a feeling I think most people had throughout the run of Sex and the City:  a delicately calibrated combination of,  “I wonder what’s going to happen next as pertains to this particular plot development,” and, “OMFG WHAT IS CARRIE WEARING?” (I’m sure the Germans have a word for this specifically.) Which was fun while it lasted, but do we really have to go back to that well again? Because I don’t think so.
Fug file: WTF, , ,
react: