weekly covered/hidden

[Fango]

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

[Klondike]

Originally Posted by fango44

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

Thanks for that -

regarding intent - that is sort of a grey area, maybe. I mean, perhaps the most common example of lack of intent is in a group photo, where a woman may be standing behind another individual who is partially hiding their nakedness. Certainly there is no intent to hide, and I don't think either of us would consider that hidden nudity. Certainly I have never posted any of those pics here, and there are tons of them. In general, any pic containing two or more people where one is partially hiding another without intent to hide - neither you nor I have ever posted any pics like that and called them "hidden nudity".

see my example - not hidden nudity, IMHO

On the otherhand, I've seen scenes from videos you've posted where objects suddenly appear out of nowhere to cleverly keep a moving nude hidden. But even here, there is still intent - on the part of the producer! I mean, its meant to LOOK accidental to the audience, but there is still intent SOMEWHERE. Thats filmaking for you....

Klondike

[Klondike]

that pic I posted is a bad example, because two of the babes are sort of covering themselves. And you can still see a little ass crack on the babes that are mostly hidden.

Oh well, you get the idea...

Klondike

[osreb]

if she held it lower I could saw the cock covered the cat.

[Klondike]

Originally Posted by osreb

if she held it lower I could saw the cock covered the cat.

Wow!

Thats one lucky cock!

Klondike

[dad1]

Originally Posted by osreb

if she held it lower I could saw the cock covered the cat.

You could even say that it ran its comb through her hair.

The term "chickenhead" probably also works when it's a girl.

[osreb]

I know these are against the rules.

But just couldn't stop myself from posting.

[Klondike]

Originally Posted by osreb

I know these are against the rules.

But just couldn't stop myself from posting.

sort of like a compulsive tendency now? You can't stop? Maybe there is a twelve step program.....

But you are so close to that 10,000 thank milestone, osreb - the first to get there?

pity....

Klondike

Originally Posted by showoffzzzz

And showing the ass crack is a bad example how?

because it makes it a bad example of HIDDEN nudity if the crack is visible!

Klondike

[osreb]

I think they all of teh hidden nudity rules criteria.

[pornogeek]

don't think i've seen this one here