Thursday, September 10, 2009

Sexy Vs. Skanky: The Cardigan Dress

I've recently tweeted about cardigans as dresses. I got an oversized cardigan from American Eagle (okay, fine. It was from TJ Maxx because I'm cheap) and I love it, but I'd never wear it without pants. I saw a chick in San Francisco last week wearing THE EXACT SAME ONE (okay, fine. It was purple - and probably not from TJ Maxx) without pants. I've seen this before. I'm not sure I like the cardigan dress.

Exhibit A:


Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:
Xzibit:

(Looks like he's trying to figure this out, too).

Then I saw this cardigan dress and I was like - Oh, it can be done.


3 comments:

ShellSpann said...

I like the last one as a dress but I think some of them look skanky. Probably just because I'm not thin enough to pull it off. Ha! ;) Hey, at least I'm honest right? :)

melissa said...

I do not really understand this blog. Is every short dress a "shirt"? I agree that some of the pictures you post are obviously way too short to be dresses (ie: when ass cheek can be seen) but others are either just short dresses or shirt-style dresses, and even if they are shirts but are long enough to cover what should be covered why not wear them as dresses? Are legs something that must be hidden? Land's End and Polo have been making shirt-style dresses for years, this is not anything new.

JD said...

Melissa - Yes, legs should be hidden. I'm Amish.

In all seriousness - yes, there are the obvious shirts as dresses. I've also gotten submissions from readers of other shirts people wear as dresses that just look stupid because they are not shaped properly to be worn as a dress. It works on some, not on others.

Land's End and Polo - I'm assuming you are referencing the shirtdress - which is a classic piece. It's also made to be worn as a dress, like the cardigan dress I posted above.