Fango weighs in:
It occurs to me that I've never really given a concise and consistent definition of what Hidden Nudity is, or should be, besides "nudity hidden by strategically placed objects", so I'll try to be a little more specific here: Anything and everything that happened in the Austin Powers scene is what I consider to be Hidden Nudity. I consider that scene to be the Rosetta Stone, if you will, of Hidden Nudity, because it was one of the first things I saw that helped me formulate the concept of Hidden Nudity, and is one of the most perfect examples of it I've seen (The "Nude Practice" sketches with Sarah Alexander would be up there too, if I could ever see a whole damn one.
). In that scene, you had physical objects (the key ingredient) being held by the woman in front of herself (both directly touching her body and a short distance away); someone else holding objects in front of the woman; and objects that weren't held by anyone, but were strategically placed in the foreground, or in front of the woman (my favorite type). Those three sub-categories make up what I call Hidden Nudity, regardless of intent, etc. Anything else (pasties, improvised clothes, etc.) is something else ("covered nudity", "clothed", or whatever you want to call it). I consider both of the cat pictures to be Hidden Nudity, though the one that's "intentional" is certainly "better", as far as Hidden Nudity qualifications go. Hair squeeks into the HN category, even though it's not an "object" per se, because it is not worn or placed directly on the body (it merely "hovers" in front of it, sort of). Basically, if it is something directly against the body that is NOT held, it is NOT Hidden Nudity. That's the way I see it.
Fango