The real question is :
Underwear, or no underwear?
That's not the real question.
The real question is whether or not you're comfortable wearing your nightgown out to play,
but the subsequent inquisition revolves around the undergarments necessary for supporting a "yes" answer to said question.
Time for me to shut up?
Well, tough luck, because I'm absolutely fascinated.
I mean, the whole nightgown-as-shirt thing I posted days ago essentially evolved from a bout of laziness which inspired me to cut all else from my wardrobe except oversized shirts and shoes.
Then I saw that this week's NYT Style Section was featuring "Shirtdresses" as its street style theme, and thought:
Holy shit Gab, you're actually a genius.
|source: NYT Fashion &Style|
In featured iteration, yours truly sports a sibling's tennis skirt as a barrier against her ... lemme check ... yes - mini heart-printed briefs - but feel free to improvise with shorts/skirts/slips/nothings per your liking.
Also nice is an especially non-pajama-esque pair of feet-cladders for just the right touch of inappropriate sex appeal.
Hat is optional,
but only if you're willing to blatantly display the fact that you showered 10 minutes ago and absolutely refuse to waist a millisecond of your life blowdrying a million hairs.
So what do you think, guys? Have we finally reached the point at which irony and minimalism converge at such extremes that we're left with nowhere to go in fashion but
The ultimate monochrome.
The quintessential throwback.
|nightgown: Anthropologie (some goodies here), shoes: Zara (similar) (ones I wish I would have gotten), hat: ASOS|
Not quite there yet.