What do you think of this look: Sexy or weird?

The idea of this look is the absence of a conventional bottom (no skirt, no shorts, no trousers).


A long blazer functions almost like a dress: it fully covers the body from the sides and back, so the outfit remains socially acceptable. At the same time, a blazer is perceived as an upper-layer garment, not a final one, which creates tension and a subtle sense of intimacy. Everything is technically covered, yet the expected “bottom” is missing.


The open front of the blazer strengthens the effect: Unlike a dress, the blazer feels like temporary coverage. A short, partially unbuttoned shirt works only together with the blazer; nothing is actually revealed, but the viewer knows what is normally hidden.

An unbuttoned shirt could reveal underwear, but dark pantyhose combined with black panties and a bright shirt does not allow you to see anything, but you know "it's there". So the look plays with disrupted clothing logic rather than nudity.


Does this read as sexy or weird to you?

I'm interested in the opinions of both ladies and gentlemen.

What do you think of this look: Sexy or weird?
What do you think of this look: Sexy or weird?
What do you think of this look: Sexy or weird?
What do you think of this look: Sexy or weird?
What do you think of this look: Sexy or weird?
Post Opinion