Monday, June 18, 2012

BHLDN pulls out the fancy wedding shorts


Gotta thank Virginia for calling my attention to these:

Just wanted to make sure that someone else--who is also opposed to the bridal "costume change" (except at Indian weddings, where it's part of the ceremony, has meaning, and is great)--had seen the $300 lace bloomers up on BHLDN that are supposedly for changing into after you change out of your reception dress but before you leave to go on your honeymoon. A separate (TERRIBLE) outfit for the rice-throwing portion of the evening?
Posted by esb at 10:57 AM

17 comments:

  1. my honest answerJune 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    $280?! Ha ha ha, someone's having fun with the bridezillas' money today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. paiiigeJune 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    $300???? Seriously, Zara, F21, Urban Outfitters... every single store has these right now for like $45 or less.

    ReplyDelete
  3. laurenJune 18, 2012 at 11:17 AM

    i won't lie, i'd wear (a much-cheaper version of) those (with a draped black top) to the office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. esbJune 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM

      with pumps??

      Delete
    2. laurenJune 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

      no. but my coworkers would.

      Delete
    3. Hillary SchusterJune 19, 2012 at 4:12 AM

      I just got back from Stockholm and all the girls were wearing white lace - I'm sure I saw some shorts in the mix. Always with sneakers.

      They also wore a ton of black nylons under jean shorts. It was all very 90s.

      I love the old-school idea of an outfit to leave for your honeymoon in - changing into some chic white pantsuit out of your dress, and then setting sail. But that requires no 2nd reception dress AND for you to be leaving your wedding DIRECTLY for your honeymoon (does anyone do this?).

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 19, 2012 at 7:37 AM

      Yeah it's called a "Going Away Outfit." I dunno if you have to leave directly on your honeymoon, but I kinda like that old fashioned idea of changing into an outfit you leave in. My sister is doing it at her wedding in a few weeks, although they are leaving on a mini honeymoon the morning after the wedding. It's also a bit of a convenience factor, she can stuff the big dress back in a bag and let my parents cart the thing home again.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousJune 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM

    is it the angle of the picture or do i see PLEATS on the front of those shorts?!

    ReplyDelete
  5. CeliaJune 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

    jesus. i can barely manage to change outfits from one day to the next. three times in ONE day would be asking way too much of me.

    also, they ARE indeed quite fugly. maybe if they actually FIT the model?

    ReplyDelete
  6. AmandaJune 18, 2012 at 12:14 PM

    i tried on the way cheaper zara version of these and they made me look like a toddler. not the look anyone should be going for on their wedding day.

    ReplyDelete
  7. caraJune 18, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    I kind of like them. I don't $300 like them, but I don't hate them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnnaJune 18, 2012 at 1:01 PM

    oh my, those are horrible. i imagine that's what Laura Ingalls' underwear look like.

    ReplyDelete
  9. RobJune 18, 2012 at 1:09 PM

    These are so last year, BHLDN.

    (ESB, you posted some other lace shorts about a year ago, I couldn't find them. Linking to them would have made my comment much more fun. I think the models butt was hanging out or something.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CeliaJune 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

      of course you would remember that post, robert.

      Delete
  10. AnonymousJune 18, 2012 at 5:23 PM

    I AM SO SICK OF THOSE FUCKING SHOES, BHLDN.

    ReplyDelete
  11. caraJune 21, 2012 at 12:26 PM

    zara have them for £25. Pretty sure they're sact same. http://www.zara.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product/uk/en/zara-S2012/209510/632801/CROCHET%2BSHORTS

    ReplyDelete