This is seriously a real thing, that we did not need in our lives. Photos / Twitter, Getty Images
There are many parts of Japanese culture that are undeniably excellent.
Sushi. Snow monkeys kicking back in hot springs. Karaoke. Sake. Mind-boggling Japanese game shows.
But something that doesn't automatically get our tick of approval is the "fake camel-toe underpants" that women are apparently clamouring for.
In case anyone has been blissfully unaware of what a camel-toe is (well done, by the way), the urban dictionary defines it as "the visible cleft of the outer labia under tight clothing".
The so-called "frontal wedgie" looks like the toes of a camel. Hence the term "camel toe".
Now that we've got that out of the way, we can happily move on and look at why on earth anyone would want to manufacture a product that can replicate this awkward fashion fail.
The pants, which have been called "party pants" have a silicone pad in the front that "enhances" the female form.
A pair will set you back around $22 on eBay.
According to EliteReaders, the party pants have found a market with the transgender community - male genitalia can be concealed quite effectively with these magical jocks.
They also come in a variety of skin-toned hues suggesting people would see others wearing them.
It's all still a bit odd because the camel-toe is a fashion accident that most women strenuously avoid. In fact, some companies such as Lululemon use their "anti-camel toe" technology as a selling point.
There have also been products released that aim to conceal the camel-toe, which at least makes a little bit of sense:
But maybe we shouldn't be too shocked - it's not the first time a fashion accident has been turned into a "trend".
The trend reminds us of the C-string that was launched on Amazon a year or so ago - the plastic cuplike thing that was meant to eradicate the visible panty line.
At the time, the C-string was described on Twitter as "possibly the worst thing to happen to humanity".
This person sums up our feelings on the latest WTF accessory:
Times: Why are we getting worse at sleeping, not better?