PrettyLittleThing are selling a unitard that leaves one bum cheek exposed and people can’t believe it

Summer is fast approaching, and lockdown is - hopefully - ending. We are all looking forward to summers spent in beer gardens, squinting at friends in bright light, while the gentle sounds of laughter and chatter reverberates around us. Sticky, we may wish for the sweet release of a gently breeze to stir around stagnant air. Shirts will unbutton, shorts will get shorter. Ugh, let’s face it, we’re British and we spend all winter begging for sun, but when it arrives it is too hot.

That doesn’t mean we want our bums hanging out, Pretty Little Thing...

Butt unbelievably, the fast fashion brand thinks that is exactly what the public want, and are selling a unitard that only covers one (out of the more commonly held two) bum cheeks, for £10.50.

Here’s what we’re dealing with:

As you can see, the garment has one shoulder strap, leaving the other one bare. It also has a nod to the notion of shorts on one leg, but the other? Nope.

Read more:

On the website, it is listed as a “Shape Black Slinky One Shoulder Cut Out Unitard” and we don’t know what that means but think it should really be called “Slinky One Bum Cheek Cut Out Unitard”. But, hey, we’re not fashion experts.

People are browsing online for their summer wardrobes, ready to emerge from their lockdown cocoons with glamour. And those who spotted the outfit when doing so were baffled:

In an attempt to shift this strange outfit, a description of it on the website says: “This unitard is sure to add some drama to your new season wardrobe doll. Featuring a black slinky material with a one shoulder neckline and cut out detail, we’re obsessed.”



The outfit is in the sale. It used to be £12 so, really, shoppers are stealing it. Although we are not quite sure if it covered the other bum cheek when it was more expensive...

Shoppers should buy this outfit with care - PrettyLittleThing just might make visible their PrettyLittleThong.

Please log in or register to upvote this article
The Conversation (0)