weekly covered/hidden

[dad1]

If one girl's pubic hair is obscuring another girl's vagina in a photograph, is that considered hidden?

What if, during a brisk act of photographed cunnilingus, one girl's vagina is obscured by her own pubic hair - but only because it was caught in the teeth of the other girl?

[mongooc]

Originally Posted by KarlMalone

Is there anything hotter than naked chicks with accordians?

This could be what the polka industry needs to attract a younger crowd...

[osreb]

Lats post some pics

[Klondike]

Now that we have rules, we can test them......?

I can tell you this much, the "prefered" (sounds a little snooty here) hidden nudity pic has the objects at some measurable distance from the body parts being covered.

But maybe this is just a "hidden" vs "covered" distiction though, and this thread is actually for both. So in otherwords, although most of the pics you just posted are covered, not hidden, they are still OK to go here.

....except for the naked cowgirl pic, IMHO, which is a pasties pic and pasties are "worn" (meaning she does not have to physically hold them in place with her hands). And also the pie plate pic, which is an improvised clothes pic.

The tie pic I would say is covered because even though she is not holding it in place with her hands, she would have to eventually if she started to move around. Also, the other boob is hair covered and thats OK. IMHO again, if she were to use some tape to hold the tie in that position, it would then be an improvised clothes pic (except for the hair...)


Finally, we have the suds pic? mmmm.........lets see, where did I put my rule book....?

Klondike

[McSkyy]

Originally Posted by osreb

thay can come rob my house

THESE ARE AWESOME!!! That third girl is adorable....any more like these??

[Klondike]

Originally Posted by dad1

If one girl's pubic hair is obscuring another girl's vagina in a photograph, is that considered hidden?

What if, during a brisk act of photographed cunnilingus, one girl's vagina is obscured by her own pubic hair - but only because it was caught in the teeth of the other girl?

To continue with my lecture ( I was trying to edit my last post but didn't get it done in time).

First, covered and "clothed" have distinct meanings here. Clothed referes to covered situations where the covering stays in place without the aid of hands, and remains so regardless of what position the body is in (lying on stomach vs lying on back, for example). Therefore, the pasties and the pie plate taped to the body are clothed pics, not covered pics.

OK, go ahead and laugh (I'm sure you are by now).

OK, McSky - hidden and covered nudity pics require some premeditated action and thought. The hiding and covering are generally deliberate, not accidental. If someone's hair gets in the way of another's boobies by accident, in otherwords, that is "obscured" nudity, not hidden or covered nudity. One must prove intent on the part of the person covered or hidden for a pic to be considered as such. Sometimes, a babes own hair might accidently obscure her privates, in which case we do not have "intent" to cover and so we have no covered pic IMHO.

It just sounds like I'm taking all this ultra seriously. Really, I don't care for lawyers much and so consider this to be more like parody.

Klondike

[osreb]

what about cats?

[Klondike]

Ah hah! We have an unusual situation here. Is the intent to cover, or cuddle? I might have said cuddle, but one look at the girls expression (and how she is holding the cat) and you know she is playing sexy games with the camera, here. So I say the intent is to cover and make it APPEAR as though she is cuddling. Or to do both at the same time. The decision - this is a covered/hidden nudity pic. Nice one, Osreb...

Compare that pic to the one below. Below the intent is to cuddle, not cover, IMHO. So this one does NOT qualify.

Klondike

[daveduchovny]

Originally Posted by osreb

what about cats?

OBVIOUSLY it's not hidden nudity if you can see the pussy...

[Fango]

Originally Posted by dad1

If one girl's pubic hair is obscuring another girl's vagina in a photograph, is that considered hidden?

What if, during a brisk act of photographed cunnilingus, one girl's vagina is obscured by her own pubic hair - but only because it was caught in the teeth of the other girl?

Both of those sound like physical impossibilities...or else my imagination just isn't strong enough.

Fango