7 Replies to “Too Embarrassing for Words”
Note: Comments are mostly uncensored and not necessarily endorsed by the site owner.
I think I understand her point of view. After the last few games I’d be less embarrassed to be seen naked in public than wearing my Chicago Bears gear.
I’d say this is at least “functionally bottomless”
for the same reason why I, in the past, said this post should be marked bottomless: https://nudeworldorder.net/blog/41526/
and that reason is that you can see enough that they are effectively bottomless,
despite not actually being bottomless, to the point that someone searching the bottomless tag may want to see this post.
Like I acknowledge that “under normal conditions, they wouldn’t appear bottomless”, but at the same time, in the pic, they are functionally, if not outright, bottomless.
Oh! These technicalities! I gave up trying to understand it a couple of years ago after being told that one woman wearing nothing but a pair of boots “wasn’t naked” whilst another woman who just had holes cut in her outfit so that her nipples and lady garden were showing was classified as “naked”. As Don King would’ve said “Only in America!”
wearing nothing but boots definitely is naked
but that second one, that sounds quite close to the definition for functionally nude https://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=wiki&s=&s=view&id=3053
“when a character is fully clothed, but their chest and genitals are left exposed”
though, I’d have to see the specific image being referred to
but yeah, those comments you pointed out, those are odd stances they took
I was just saying “at a glance, this girl looks bottomless”
and I expressed it the way I did because I wanted to get my reasoning across this time
this just seems so obviously bottomless that it’d deserve the tag
I hope this clears things up
Yes thanks, got it, thought I suspect that if she was serving a bottomless sentence she would be in violation because short as that dress is, it could slide down far enough to cover her if standing/walking.
Yeah, some of the definitions/descriptions around here are definitely questionable at best.
The described outfit with tits and pussy exposed but the rest covered, is just that: exposed. It takes an extreme level of stretching to call that naked.
Meanwhile wearing only boots/shoes is still wearing something. That would properly be referred to as mostly naked.
I think I understand her point of view. After the last few games I’d be less embarrassed to be seen naked in public than wearing my Chicago Bears gear.
When he asked Lynette if she was a swinger, she didn’t know what exactly he was referring to.
I’d say this is at least “functionally bottomless”
for the same reason why I, in the past, said this post should be marked bottomless: https://nudeworldorder.net/blog/41526/
and that reason is that you can see enough that they are effectively bottomless,
despite not actually being bottomless, to the point that someone searching the bottomless tag may want to see this post.
Like I acknowledge that “under normal conditions, they wouldn’t appear bottomless”, but at the same time, in the pic, they are functionally, if not outright, bottomless.
Oh! These technicalities! I gave up trying to understand it a couple of years ago after being told that one woman wearing nothing but a pair of boots “wasn’t naked” whilst another woman who just had holes cut in her outfit so that her nipples and lady garden were showing was classified as “naked”. As Don King would’ve said “Only in America!”
wearing nothing but boots definitely is naked
but that second one, that sounds quite close to the definition for functionally nude
https://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=wiki&s=&s=view&id=3053
“when a character is fully clothed, but their chest and genitals are left exposed”
though, I’d have to see the specific image being referred to
but yeah, those comments you pointed out, those are odd stances they took
I was just saying “at a glance, this girl looks bottomless”
and I expressed it the way I did because I wanted to get my reasoning across this time
this just seems so obviously bottomless that it’d deserve the tag
I hope this clears things up
Yes thanks, got it, thought I suspect that if she was serving a bottomless sentence she would be in violation because short as that dress is, it could slide down far enough to cover her if standing/walking.
Yeah, some of the definitions/descriptions around here are definitely questionable at best.
The described outfit with tits and pussy exposed but the rest covered, is just that: exposed. It takes an extreme level of stretching to call that naked.
Meanwhile wearing only boots/shoes is still wearing something. That would properly be referred to as mostly naked.