Are skin-tight clothes a form of nakedness?

[aa180]

Is she really covered here?

I personally hold the view that skin-tight or form-fitting clothes are undoubtedly a version of nakedness. My analogy to explain/justify this would be to compare it to a woman wearing no clothes but simply painting her body with some paint. She's still naked even though her skin is "covered". And social experiments have even been done where a woman had her jeans painted on and walked around like that in public, and interestingly enough no one could tell that she was naked.

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?

Yes, skin-tight clothes are a form of nakedness

No, skin-tight clothes are not a form of nakedness

Other

Updates

+1 y

Most people are going about it from the technical standpoint, but I'm talking it from the visual perspective. If the outline of her genitals our visible (e. g cameltoe), what difference is there between my brain's perception of it and seeing a naked vagina that's simply been painted on? Same goes for her breasts, ass, and legs.

[InTimoreDei]

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]

Thank you

[InTimoreDei]

@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...

[aa180]

Bro that's exactly what I say as well. Read my update as I pretty much stated what you just said except worded slightly differently.

[Liam_Hayden]

Of course they are. Read the history of fashion. They were designed that way.

[aa180]

Exactly

[emmily2396]

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.

[aa180]

Yeah I guess there's some sort of underlying hypocrisy there

[CarpetDenim]

Yes, skin-tight clothes are a form of nakedness

[aa180]

Thank you

[InTimoreDei]

The only girl with some sense on here.

[ChetAtkins]

Well, in her case, yes. Because I'm pretty sure that's just red spray paint.

She's as naked as a jaybird.

[aa180]

Haha, it's a latex suit but I agree it's pretty much equivalent to just a coating of paint

[ChetAtkins]

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.

[aa180]

Yeah I got no clue how she put it on either lol

Alright, thanks for you opinion

[ChetAtkins]

Maybe there's a secret entrance from the back? But even so, how do the arms and legs slide in? No problem. Fun question.

[aa180]

Yeah who knows, it's a real mystery haha

[Miristheiss]

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.

[aa180]

Exactly my thoughts

[HereIbe]

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.

[aa180]

Interesting viewpoint

[HereIbe]

Let's face it, it's not easy to get into skin-tight clothing without stripping it off. I want the reality, not just the outlines.

[EclipseoftheHeart]

I'll say one thing, it's gotta be hot wearing that because it doesn't look like it can breathe.

[NormaTavish]

No, basically the term clothes kind off rule it out...

[aa180]

I guess in the technical/literal sense, you're completely right. But in terms of it's revealing index I'd say I'm sorta right too

[InTimoreDei]

Clothes that leave nothing to the imagination and show the entire body do not rule it out at all.

[EclipseoftheHeart]

Kooks like they dipped her in liquid plastic. I'd hate to have to go to the bathroom wearing that.

[Theft]

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.

[Kurαȷ]

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.

[aa180]

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.

[sapphire3506]

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?

[mrbobz]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Kelliblondebabe]

No skin tight clothing is skin tight not naked! This is more naked ⬇⬇⬇

[aa180]

Yeah, but I'd say the girl in the red outfit I posted is also very naked too.

[phot0101]

Well in some part yeah. I run in skin tight tights and my bulge is visible but it's how those cloths are.

[shimmeryns]

In your view, which one is more naked.. A girl wearing bikini or fully covered skin tight clothes?

[aa180]

Technically it's bikini, but skin-tight clothes are almost equivalent because you will see everything except the color of her skin. And I actually find them sexier than a bikini cause they accentuate and draw out the curves and figure a lot more than a bikini does.

[aa180]

you still see*

[inmensus]

Are they wearing clothes?
If your answer is yes, then no. They're not naked.

[humanearth]

I myself love wearing skin tight clothes, yeah I'm middle age, but I don't fucking care what people think

[name_is_eric]

Not nakedness, per se.
But not the best choice either.

[wankiam]

no but they leave little to the imagination

[aa180]

Yeah that's kinda what I mean

[tonicandgin]

Clothes are overrated

[dontgofalling]

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

[Andrew0478]

Exactly! so girls can just as well take them off.. same goes for all other clothes

[aa180]

How are skin-tight clothes equivalent to other outfits according to their "covering" index? Clearly, being skin-tight makes them more akin being naked than something loose.

[Cask23]

I don't know, but yoga pants are a gift to men.

[aa180]

Haha

[HeyThere94]

The title has the word clothes in it

That means that it’s not a form of nakedness

[BellaM]

yes.

[Anonymous]

Who is that smoking hot red head?

[aa180]

Dunno, just Googled "skin tight latex" and it came up lol

[Pamina]

Nakedness means to not wear clothes, so no.

[CT_CD]

Yes, skin-tight clothes are a form of nakedness

[MrMansonsPocketPssy]

They're clothes.
xx
~ Mrs Manson

[gothgirl997]

Unless they're transparent, no

[RedThread]

Naked is without clothes.

[Nadim171]

If too tight like in the picture yeah

[aa180]

Well that's very similar to the tightness in clothing I see everyday.

[Nadim171]

No, I'm sure no one walks in the street dressed like this.

[aa180]

Not entirely like that, no, but ever heard of leggings? They're just as tight as that around her legs and ass, and girls will also tend to wear a singlet with it that's tight around her stomach and breasts as well. It's more or less the same in terms of revealingness.

[Nadim171]

No leggings are normal. Seriously that's why I have a problem with Islam.

[aa180]

Lol how are leggings any different from what the girl in the pic is wearing? They're just as tight and you get to see everything. And this is why I can't take Christianity seriously; you guys consider clothes that exude and accentuate a girl's sex appeal to be "normal", yet you believe that your women are the true followers of Mary who wore the exact opposite.

Question: What do you think Jesus would have thought about leggings had they been invented in his time? Keeping in mind that Jesus said in one of his sermons that if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he is guilty of committing adultery with her in his heart. AND keeping in mind that when a woman wears leggings, EVERY guy who sees her is gonna lustfully check out her ass and legs. So what do you think Jesus would say?

[Nadim171]

"Dress like jesus and marry" I mean that was how people dressed 2000 years ago, fashion changes every century. However women wore something like the hijab back in the middle ages. But not all of them wore it and not because they were forced to.. also back in the 1800s they wore something similar. We shouldn't wear like marry and jesus I mean should men also wear like jesus and grow their beard and hair? Also what religion are you?

[aa180]

See that's what I mean; whilst I agree that fashion should be allowed to change, it doesn't mean you no longer have to uphold modesty, because that's what your god preached. Trying to justify wearing sexually suggestive clothes by saying, "Fashion changes over time" clearly shows that you guys are abandoning Jesus' teachings, lowering your standards, and altering your religion to now allow for something your own god considered sinful.

That's why I can't take Christians seriously; your way of thinking is basically, "Jesus is our role model and the only way to heaven. Oh but we don't have to be like him and can do whatever we want, even if we do things that he prohibited and condemned". It just makes you guys look so stupid. If the teachings of Jesus are outdated to you, or you think they no longer apply, then why on Earth do you still go around proclaiming that people need Christianity in order to gain salvation? What's the point of saying that you have the Truth and the Word of God, if your religion changes over time and you guys basically customize the religion to suit what you like?

And I'm an Atheist - I don't believe in God or any religion -but I used to be a Muslim which is probably why I hold the views that I do.

[aa180]

Check out this quote from a Christian professor and author. It just goes to show how the views of Christians in the present day go completely against the views of the Christians of the past, and how you guys have done a complete 180 yet still think you are following Jesus.

[jimmy2]

Very close but nude is nude

[Wise4myage]

No, not even close.

[19irish76]

No they aren’t.