While Mike “the Situation” Sorrentino battles it out with DILLIGAF over not endorsing their products, and simultaneously signs a new deal to shill prom tuxedos, there’s one company that has offered to pay him (and fellow Jersey Shore castmates) to not be seen in their clothes.

Abercrombie & Fitch issued a press release titled “Abercrombie & Fitch Proposes a Win-Win Situation,” which essentially asks Sorrentino not to repeat looks like the one above.

“We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image.  We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans. We have therefore offered a substantial payment to Michael ‘The Situation’ Sorrentino and the producers of MTV’s The Jersey Shore to have the character wear an alternate brand.  We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response.”

{via Business Insider}

While we think the anti-endorsement offer is a smart move that gains a little bit of publicity from the incredibly popular MTV series, without being directly associated with the cast, we have to wonder if Abercrombie & Fitch have actually seen their customers lately.

Sorrentino is, for lack of a better descriptor, kind of a douchebag. Being kind, Sorrentino doesn’t seem all that dissimilar to some of the non-famous guys we see wearing A&F. And by “being kind” we mean that “some of” could actually be “most of,” and “dissimilar to” could be “exactly like,” but we are fans of the counter-culture marketing ploy so we’ll let the brand’s rose-colored view of their customer base slide.

On the bright side, the Situation can stencil in a “DILLIG” above the AF on his existing clothes and claim that he’s in compliance with his endorsement deal for the one company that actually wants him to wear their clothes. Sounds like a win-win after all.

Filthy? Sure. Couture? Not so much.

In keeping with the predictability, the pieces in Farley’s  line are exactly what one would expect a loud-mouthed, over-bronzed star of a reality show to design. Some highlights include a sweetheart-necked mesh top with an overlaying, gold-patterned heart that appears to be pointing at a very specific area on the modelâ€s body and a white-feathered corset number that looks more like lingerie than a top. In fact, it is not clear whether most of the pieces are clothing or lingerie. Now the spring collections from many a designer featured lingerie inspired looks, so if there’s any kind of silver lining here, in a roundabout way JWoww may actually be on trend. Still, while some of the outfits cover more than expected, but if you’ve seen the inventory at Frederick’s of Hollywood, you’ve seen this collection. If you wouldn’t wear anything purchased at Frederick’s outside of the privacy of your own home – well, same thing.  If you’re into train wrecks, you can catch images of the entire collection here.

While we’re on the subject, can we make the case for restricting the word couture to oh, perhaps – actual couture? Couture isn’t Juicy or Filthy, and while we love a high/low mix, throwing the word couture on a label isn’t fooling anyone into thinking the “high” part is covered.

Real couture? That’s John Galliano, whose fall 2010 couture collection for Dior debuted in a courtyard of the Rodin Museum in Paris this week. The flower-inspired line is fantastical, beyond exquisite and raking in rave reviews. By including warmer fabrics and fall accessories in addition to dark lipstick on his models, Galliano brilliantly surprises by using what is normally a spring staple to inspire a fall line and making it work. If you havenâ€t had a chance to see it yet, check it out here. Totally worth your work procrastination time.

Don't worry, Snooki already has a new fake tanning method to promote

The tanning bed tax is expected to bring in $2.7 billion over the next decade to help fund increased health care coverage. According to the World Health Organization, tanning beds are a proven cause of cancer. Dermatologists used evidence that indoor tanning is unhealthy, especially in young people, to persuade congress to tax the service rather than cosmetic surgery. Also proposed in some states, notably New York, was a tax on soda, another proven health risk. Cigarettes already carry a tax, with New York Cityâ€s combined federal, city and recently increased state tax totaling $6.85 and registering as the highest in the nation. {The Boston Globe, The New York Times}

The potential for job losses is the only obvious downside to the new tanning services tax. Perhaps the added cost to using tanning beds will discourage people from continuing the unhealthy habit. The tax is also quite logical, as cigarettes are also a known cause of cancer that carry a tax. However, little evidence exists as to whether the increased cost cuts down on smoking. The new tanning bed tax is also in line with the recent national health care overhaulâ€s goal of focusing on preventative services.

The Jersey Shoreâ€s Snooki, an unofficial spokeswoman for tanning bed advocacy, is not too pleased.

“I don’t go tanning anymore because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning,” she said. “He did that because of us. McCain would never put a 10 percent tax on tanning. Because he’s pale and he’d probably want to be tan.” {Second City Style}

Snooki said she switched to spray tanning to avoid the tax, perhaps unintentionally proving the law effective in other ways than simply producing revenue. If she is any indication of the average tanner, it looks like the tax could in fact reduce the use of tanning beds.