Rihanna leads trend of wearing lingerie as outerwear

Streetwear in underwear: the fashion reaching the red carpet

The scene that lit the fuse: a red carpet, an pregnant singer, and an outfit revealing more skin than fabric. With this image, underwear finally jumped from the bedroom to the street as outerwear, without layers or disguise. The trend had been leaking from the runway for seasons, but the celebrity showcase has placed it at the center of public conversation: it is no longer about whether it is beautiful, but what it says about the market, the economy, and the boundary between exposing oneself and being looked at. That is where the trouble begins.

From the runway to the sidewalk: how underwear became an outfit

The journey has memory. A tourist with a simple shishi sitting on a central bench nearly a decade ago is recalled, when it was still read as a tourist eccentricity rather than a seasonal preview. The pogre since then has been constant: first the entire bra and panty set as a party outfit, then the version cut to the bare minimum, and in the trinc season, the leap of the thong to the street with the argument that there is nothing left to show that has not been shown before.

The sector most skeptical about the novelty relies on an uncomfortable precedent: leggings. It was announced they would be a passing fashion, that they would not last a winter, and there they remain, integrated into the wardrobe to the point that they don't take them off even to pee. With underwear, the same thing happens: each season that remains leaves less room for the theory that it is a summer flash.

Rihanna, Cristiano's ex and Bustamante's ex: the red carpet as showcase

The photo that went around is that of pregnant Rihanna, and with it the issue ceased to be a discussion about cleavage to become a matter of visibility. Other well-known faces have joined the singer in the same register: Cristiano Ronaldo's ex and Bustamante's ex are pointed out as additions to the trend, which conveys the message that this is no longer about a specific red carpet, but a complete circuit of presentations, premieres, and photocalls.

The consequence is the usual one in the image business: what a star does, the showcase copies, and the street ends up wearing. And in the street, the reaction is split in two. One part reads it as freedom and as another way to use the body; another openly describes it as vulgarity, tackiness, and chonismo, and maintains that something as unquantifiable as elegance is being lost. The repeated comparison is that of 1920s classic cinema: beauties of another time versus what is seen now, with the underlying question of whether that was class or something else.

Why is recession linked to wearing less clothing?

Because a reading circulates that associates each economic downturn with a shorter garment, and it does so without any data supporting it. The most cited formulation holds that when the economy loosens, red lipstick sells more, and when recession hits, clothing shortens; from there to the extreme scenario, the one that says that in serious crises the tap opens directly, is only a rhetorical leap that no one has measured.

With the same prophetic air, the prediction that placed 2030 as the year for going out directly without clothes has been revived, today revisited as a timeframe that falls short. These are crystal ball exercises, not statistical series, and it is advisable to treat them as what they are: catchy anecdotes.

The attention business: selling image when the market tightens

The explanation with the most traction among those who defend that this is not a fashion but something else is purely economic. If image is the asset, the logical thing is to monetize it before it depreciates. It is argued that technology is pushing down the floor of the desire market—increasingly realistic robots, automatically generated content—and that this forces us to squeeze the value of the presencial now. The calculation managed in that line is catastrophic and long-term: almost 100 years for an AI that can be called worthy, about 200 for truly realistic dolls, and 300 if one wants the finish of a movie. Three centuries, four or five generations, they say, are nothing.

The other circulating thesis is more political and quite more conspiratorial: that the so-called sensual liberation was executed in phases, removing women from their traditional role, pushing them to compete on the same terrain as men, and leaving sarracena control in the air. There is no evidence supporting the narrative, but it provides a comfortable framework for those who want to explain the drop in birth rates with a single cause.

Vulgarity, freedom, and the conflict of the external gaze

The point where the issue becomes uncomfortable is the gaze. A part of the public is clear: whoever wears that does it to be looked at, and the reproach comes after. Some describe the contradiction without adornment—going out like that and getting offended when someone looks—and others respond that dressing as one pleases does not authorize anyone to anything. In between are comments that directly ask for covering up, with the cold as an excuse and the classic cover up, ma'am as the banner.

And then there is the argument of misunderstood equality: if one cannot go shirtless, one should not be able to go in underwear. It is the eternal fight, mixing the right to dress with the complaint about unequal treatment, and neither side moves.

The calculation of whether this has an expiration date or has come to stay always gets stuck at the same point: no one knows how many do it out of conviction and how many for the minute of attention. As long as there is no answer, the next season will arrive with even less fabric.