A combination you don’t see every day.

by Erin on April 25, 2006

ebay item 6274482967

And that combination would be "tasteful bondage-inspired detailed dress — sedate" which is how the seller of this Modes Royale pattern describes it in her eBay listing. In fact, googling the phrase "tasteful bondage-inspired" got no hits (and once I post this it will get one hit, making it a googlewhack).

Well, I suppose if you want something tasteful, yet bondage-inspired, this would be your top choice. Obviously, it's the jaunty pocket square that shouts "tasteful!" while the straps would be the "bondage-inspired" part.

If I were going to make this (which I'm NOT, because I can't imagine anything that would look more ludicrous on me than this, but if I WERE) it would be in bright red with shiny patent straps and a heart- or lipstick-print pocket square. Because, you know, I wouldn't want it to be OBVIOUS or anything. Perhaps if I could find some material printed with little handcuffs? That would be hysterical.

What shoes to wear with this? The new Gucci platform ankle-straps, of course (I can't believe you had to ask):
ebay item 6274482967

They're so beautiful — too bad I can't show proof that I'll be carried around on a palanquin, which I believe you have to furnish before you can buy a pair.

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

Anonymous April 25, 2006 at 8:55 am

That’s a damn fine shoe. Although I think I like the closed-toe version more. The dress, however. Er. Um. No. 50s style is plenty bondage-inspired as is, without any additional strappiness on the clothing.–Lydia


rainkatt April 25, 2006 at 12:43 pm

Hee. For some reason, I see that dress in palest pink, with bunny-print straps. It would be… perverse.Love the shoes.


Julie The Vintage Goddess April 25, 2006 at 12:55 pm

But I love the dress.It would be demure, but shocking in a soft all gray or black wool.


Cambric Tea April 25, 2006 at 3:26 pm

I like the dress-somewhat.I’m more concerned that there doesn’t appear to be any darts at the elbow or bust–that’s a pretty mundane sort of bondage, but bondage anyway. The “can’t bend your arm to talk on the phone” bondage.Haha. Lydia you’re totally right about the fifties and the physically restrictiveness. Word.


Floridaprincess April 25, 2006 at 8:15 pm

That dress is different I must say. I love the shoes but the heel would have to shrink to 2 in before I could wear them. I would love them open or closed toe Iam not picky.


Becky O. April 25, 2006 at 10:41 pm

I just have to put a little plug in for my son. At the age of 6, a few years back, he decided people should just have pockets everywhere they want. Not handbags, but pockets on the outside. I should put his name in at FIT now.I don’t think he is into heels… but mama likes’em!


Christina April 26, 2006 at 12:31 am
jenny April 26, 2006 at 10:01 am

I think you’ve got it all wrong: maybe it was meant as a “Chastity Dress!” The strap across the top cleverly foils any would-be gropers; and the strap across the lap symbolically [rather than practically] shields the loins.


Sara April 26, 2006 at 12:00 pm

Wow, that might be the only dress I’ve seen where the pockets appeal to me! :-)And I am drooling over those shoes. If the heel were 3″ lower, I’d buy them, damn the price to hell! (Which I’m guessing is upwards of $400.)


Raven April 26, 2006 at 5:00 pm

So loving it. The dress…the shoes…the whole shebang. I would love the dress in a grey wool (tweed perhaps?) with black leather straps. Or perhaps a black background cherry print fabric with red patent pvc straps. Or….so many options. And those shoes…so very droolworthy.


KRiSTOPHER DUKES April 26, 2006 at 11:40 pm

Ooh la love.Cute jogging shoes.When are you going to blog some heels?


Jenny P. April 30, 2006 at 12:34 pm

No longer a googlewhack, darlin. Brief, but glorious.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: