And that meaning is even direr than this one. In fact, I might, in a fit of inexcusable hyperbole, prefer to have a flaming tire slung around my neck than this dress-necklace combo, but that's just because dresses with unnatural and undetachable jewelry (as opposed to beading, which is natural) are one of the (many) things that set me off on a rant. To wit:
Why? I just don't get it. Is finding and putting on a necklace such a chore that one needs to be relieved of it by one's other garments? Half the time the necklace isn't necessary, anyhow, which means that you have those occasions to rest up for the times when you absolutely have to wear one. Anyway, a dress with an embedded necklace is never as nice as a dress without, quality-wise; ditto the attached necklace versus one that leads its own independent life.
I suppose that this is yet another violation of one of my basic rules, which is "be what you are." If you are a dress, be a dress; if you are a necklace, you should be a necklace. If you are a button, button. If you are a belt, you should loosen and tighten; a drawstring should draw and a tie should be able to be untied, should circumstances warrant. If you are thinking about adding something that is only for show, and which doesn't actually function, that's a good sign that you don't really need it.
Thankfully, these dreklaces are akin to other species crosses, such as zedonks and ligons, and can't breed.