And note that this is not a question of whether it should be allowed or banned, etc, I'm simply asking the one question.
So do you agree?
It's absolutely the same thing. The only people that think otherwise are the women that wear such things and the guys that want them to wear such things. Yoga pants? You can see everything and women might well as be naked. Skin tight shirts? You can see everything.
@aa180 People REALLY don't get it... Yes, there's clothes... obviously you're not "naked". But visually... it's the same thing for us men. When I see girls out with those dreadful skin tight yoga pants... I can virtually see their entire shape of her arse and even the shape of the vagina. So, what's the point of wearing it? Oh yeah... they're "comfortable". Pft...
Of course they are. Read the history of fashion. They were designed that way.
Who cares? People nowadays would have sex with almost anyone, so I still don't get why they value clothes so much when they would be fine with almost anyone seeing them naked.
Yes, skin-tight clothes are a form of nakedness
The only girl with some sense on here.
Opinion
20Opinion
Well, in her case, yes. Because I'm pretty sure that's just red spray paint.
She's as naked as a jaybird.
I took SCUBA lessons with my brother. It takes forever to put the wet suit on. It must take her days to wriggle into that thing. Maybe she coats it with Pam?
But in answer to your question. I think it's provocative, and risque, but not technically a form of being nude.
Maybe there's a secret entrance from the back? But even so, how do the arms and legs slide in? No problem. Fun question.
It think this gets into semantics to much. The literal "naked" definition. I bet many will argue on semantic grounds that the body is technically covered. I'd still consider it a form of nakedness based on what is being shown. The actual texture of skin if covered but the full form of the body (even how it appears nude) is still viewable and gives almost the exact same view and show as a nude person.
No. Nakedness is availability. Skin-tight clothes are just teasing. I prefer very loose clothing with very convenient gaps. MUCH nice to just be able to push something aside for full access. Skin tight? That's just for people who want to be seen and not touched. BORING and manipulative. Skin tight is for teasing, not reality.
Loose tops that allow "accidental" falling out.
Loose shorts that allow for friendly (CONSENSUAL) contact.
THAT is much closer to naked than skin tight.
I'll say one thing, it's gotta be hot wearing that because it doesn't look like it can breathe.
No, basically the term clothes kind off rule it out...
Clothes that leave nothing to the imagination and show the entire body do not rule it out at all.
Kooks like they dipped her in liquid plastic. I'd hate to have to go to the bathroom wearing that.
That outfits you picked is freakishly tight! One in a thousand would maybe wear it... and I would say that one in ten who wear tight cloths would be willing to wear it... most skin tight outfits do not show that much... and that still shows less then the most covered girls in body paint.
I wouldn't say so, or at least it doesn't translate that way to me.
I personally view skirts (anything shorter than midi) and shorts too skimpy, but leggings or skirts *with* tights are fine with me.
I find that interesting, actually. Cause for me, I associate a woman's figure and shape with her nakedness, and although her legs are exposed in a skirt, the skirt is still loose around the ass area (the sexiest part of her), so I actually consider that to be more "covered" than if she were wearing leggings. With leggings you see almost every detail of her ass, plus her legs are exposed in terms of their shape too.
Naked is when you can see their private areas. I don't see any. You can see the outline of them, sure, but they're most definitely not naked. She's still covered by clothing. And wouldn't you think people would be charged for displaying public nudity if they were considered naked?
I think no. Naked women do not get me excited at all... never have from memory, i blame it on years of watching my dads porn stash i stumbled on when i was 12...
BUT i love latex and pics like above, so to me they are not the same... or maybe Latex is my version of nakedness... interesting thought though
Not really I guess.
You don't see I lot, I don't see nipples, or a vagina, or pubic hair, or her belly button.
I only see the shape of her body what means to me not naked...
If I wear skinny jeans or leggings I'm also not naked.
When I wear a tight top, I'm still not naked.
No skin tight clothing is skin tight not naked! This is more naked ⬇⬇⬇
Well in some part yeah. I run in skin tight tights and my bulge is visible but it's how those cloths are.
In your view, which one is more naked.. A girl wearing bikini or fully covered skin tight clothes?
Are they wearing clothes?
If your answer is yes, then no. They're not naked.
I myself love wearing skin tight clothes, yeah I'm middle age, but I don't fucking care what people think
Not nakedness, per se.
But not the best choice either.
no but they leave little to the imagination
Clothes are overrated
They're a form of expression.
They may show the body parts gloat, but it's your problem, or on the other hand, bless (;
You can't ban it, it's like banning slang
Exactly! so girls can just as well take them off.. same goes for all other clothes
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions