Sure, it looks good on Kate, but her TopShop Fall line involves, I'll just say it, a culotte jumpsuit. And she models it all with crazy-cat-lady tights. And no pants.

For that "Butterfield Crack" look: "a chocolate brown faux fur coat" (£120), alley-sex stockings!


Advertisement

See, this is good because after the feral cat claws up your tights, you won't be able to detect his hair on your sweater. For the working cat-lady.


Advertisement

Warning: if you are over 5'6" this will be what we like to call a "top." If you are not a model, this will be what we like to call "unflattering."


Advertisement

It's like a social experiment: can Kate Moss make people buy anything? What about a gaucho pants jumpsuit?


Advertisement

So. We know tights are not pants. But. Is a shirt of Norma Desmond's a dress?


Advertisement

This is really pretty. But in the case of Kate Moss, seeing a model in the clothes kind of has the opposite intended effect for me, because I have no idea what the clothes will look like on a real woman and am 300% sure that she could make a sack - or a gaucho jumpsuit - look cool.


Advertisement

It must be said: Kate Moss has forgotten her pants. That, or she accidentally ended up in Curly Sue's wardrobe.


Advertisement

Oh yeah, in case the writhing on the ground like a mid-century sex-kitten didn't give you the idea, the ravaged tights imply "uninhibited."

[Images via Daily Mail]