I have a tax refund to spend (or to save, but we know that's not going to happen). I've already thrown down for:
*Leopard- although in the process of going with the new operating system, I have definitively proven that it's a bad idea to do a full erase and install of your OS while drunk.
*A shockingly awesome silk pleated skirt at Express, of all places. (what? When at the Apple store, one is in a mall. And in a mall is an Express. Next to Apple, practically. And it was on clearance!)
*A black tie-neck top that I snagged for $25, also at Express. (see justifications above.)
and should buy airfare to NYC for spring break, already.
My spending compulsion has not been sated, however. I am on a mission to find new underwear that are, most importantly, cute and/or sexy, while simultaneously being less than $12/pair, not made entirely of polyester, actually cover my entire ass, which seems to be the entire point of underwear, and free of both VPL and bunching. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable series of demands to me.
Contenders, price notwithstanding, are:
L-R: American Apparel, DKNY, and two from Calvin Klein.
L-R: two by Elle MacPherson, two by Hanky Panky. HP, by the way, wants me to pay $40 per pair for some admittedly very cute lacy boyshorts. Forty fucking dollars???
The issue here is that the very cheapest of these options is the $13 American Apparel boy briefs, and I happen to think that $13 is really too much to pay for underwear. Even for hot-pink boyshorts. Especially when that $13 could go towards the $20 admission at MOMA in a few weeks. And dinner at Balthazar.
...man, I'm totally going to regret posting photos of underwear when I see this week's sitemeter with searches such as "hot girls in underwear $13".