This weekend, Kim Kardashian was married for the third time. The #Kimye wedding saw the reality TV star don two separate wedding dresses. That’s a relatively modest number: Kim’s 2011 wedding to basketball caveman Kris Humphries featured three different bridal gowns. When you factor in her early-2000s marriage to Damon Thomas, this means that Kim Kardashian has worn six dresses at three weddings. Three Weddings and Six Dresses could probably make a charming romantic comedy, but until Kris Jenner sells the movie rights to Kim’s life, we’ll have to settle for a style-centric back-and-forth between EW staffers and Kardashian experts Hillary Busis and Darren Franich. Because Game of Thrones wasn’t on this week, darn it, and this is the next best thing. (Kris is such an Olenna.)
HILLARY: Conventional wisdom states that there are two types of women’s clothing: the kind we wear for ourselves (unique! Offbeat! Fashion-forward!), and the kind we wear for men (boobs!!!). Kim’s surprisingly demure Givenchy gown definitely falls into the first category…and as with any fashion risk, it’s got both good and bad elements. Pros: The lacy skirt, which probably looks better in person than in photos; those classy sleeves, which Kim totally thought up all on her own (Kate Who-ddleton?). Con: The bodice, which looks like a fancy French dickey.
DARREN: The top part of this dress looks like a lobster bib. But, like, a really fancy lobster bib. And I really dig her sleeves. They look like the translucent fabric that body-hugging spacesuits were made out of in old-timey science-fiction comic strips. Ipso facto, this dress must have been really effective during the part of the wedding ceremony when Kim Kardashian killed and ate a giant space lobster.
DARREN: Hillary, I’m a fair person. I realize that we can’t fully judge this dress until we see the other 95% of it. Nevertheless, I feel confident in saying that this dress has a pattern, and that pattern is SPARKLY. I miss the lobster bib!
HILLARY: Can we maybe assume that the top part looks regular, but the bottom part looks like this? Because if so, I am ON BOARD.
HILLARY: The Vera Wang gown Kim wore during her actual wedding ceremony is pure princess fantasy — poofy cupcake skirt, Renaissance Faire corset top, slight sweetheart neckline. It’s like it was designed by a committee of vanilla Say Yes to the Dress alumnae, the kind who had their weddings in June and wrote their own vows about marrying their “best friend.” Which is to say: Boooooring. (I kinda dig her beaded veil thingie, though. It makes her look like she’ll either grant you three wishes or cast a curse upon your children’s children.)
DARREN: Yeah, this is definitely the dress that the Disney heroine wears in the scene in the middle of the movie where she’s getting married to Prince Charming, but then Prince Charming turns into Frankenstein. Honestly, I didn’t even know that you could achieve this level of sheer POOF outside of animation. I could absolutely believe that the bottom half of this dress contains the souls of, like, an entire elf species.
DARREN: This dress is casual with a capital CAZH, but I dig it. Like, the upper 2/3 say “Hi there, I’m just a typical dress struggling to keep things PG-13,” and then the bottom 1/3 says “Psych! I am a puffy mermaid tail!” Are we counting hair in this conversation? Is hair considered clothing? Because this strikes me as Peak Kim Wedding Hair. Her hair is like an anti-Humphries shield!
HILLARY: If this is cazh to you, Darren, I’d love to see what you call “dressed up.” (This, obviously.) Anyway: The top appears to be made of upholstery, or possibly plaster; the bottom is an explosion at the napkin factory. (Legend has it that there are precisely 72 ruffles in the skirt, if you care to count them.) It is certainly the tackiest of Kim’s wedding outfits, which also makes it the most appropriately Kardashian-ian. Like, I can imagine Kourtney wearing it to Sean Combs’ White Party. I’m not sure what that means, exactly, but it means something.
HILLARY: Has a single human woman ever looked good in a skintight, shiny satin dress — even one designed by Vera Wang and woven of unicorn hair and fairy spit or whatever? Even — scratch that; especially — a woman with a body like Kim’s? Humphries Dress 2 looked tacky; this one just looks cheap. Especially the seams around the boob slings.
DARREN: Is “boob slings” a thing? And if so, why doesn’t Kim Kardashian have a crew of back-up singer-dancers called “The Boob Slings” who follow her everywhere and punctuate her every action with musical accompaniment? I get a serious “Haunted Mask” vibe from this dress — like, if you wear it for too long, it becomes your skin, and then your skin shines like a Twilight vampire forever after. Wait also, another follow-up question: Is it possible to have “seams around the boob slings” that don’t look cheap? (The rest of the interview will be Boob Sling questions.)
DARREN: We couldn’t find a picture of Kim’s first wedding dress, but this picture of the Kardashian-bot from Madame Tussaud’s feels like a decent substitute. It sort of combines all the elements of the other dresses. There’s the sparkle from Kimye #2, there’s the poof from K-Hump #1, there’s the staring-into-the-abyss eyeball vacuum from every picture that’s ever been taken of Kim Kardashian. I feel like, if she wore this dress IRL, it wouldn’t be her best wedding dress, but it would be her most wedding dress. Does that make sense? Does anything really make sense anymore?
HILLARY: I think that makes total sense, which means one of two things: either you’ve finally kraked the Kardashian kode (just 100,000 words later!), or spending an hour staring at blinding whiteness has gradually driven me insane. Next: Let’s talk about the honeymoon!! Think they’re going ziplining?
DARREN: Ultimately, all of these dresses could’ve used more Zipline Helmet.