Is a woman in a spray on top naked or not - NO PIC's

[Dennis Kalma]

Gentlemen, ladies:

I was at a Calgary Stampede function today where a young lady was wearing a pair of shorts and a sprayed on (as in paint) top. Several of us (men and women) got into a debate as to whether she was clothed or unclothed....I thought she wa naked and surprised that the policemen keeping an eye on things didn't take her to task....but most of the people I talked to figured that, while a bit skanky, she was indeed dressed enough to meet the minimum legal requirement.

What do you think?

Dennis

[Aerkuld]

Was she hot?

[Joeaksa]

Believe that the law states that you have to have certain areas covered, in other words the nipples. As long as this is done to satisfy the law then they are legally covered.

Sure looks a lot better than most sometimes!

Joe

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by Dennis Kalma

What do you think?

I think women should be allowed to go topless anyways.

If it does a fair job of "hiding" the details, as clothes do, she's not "naked" per se.

[HardDrive]

It depends on the community. Here in Seattle that woman would not have made it to her seat. The Mariners try to be very family friendly.

Perhaps they should have topless woman at Safeco Field. At least it would distract people from whats going on in the field.

[DMRK]

from Wikipedia

Clothing
...
People also decorate their bodies with makeup or cosmetics, scented perfume, and other ornamentation; they also cut, dye, and arrange the hair on their heads, faces, and bodies (see hairstyle), and sometimes also mark their skin (by tattoos, scarifications, and piercings). All these decorations contribute to the overall effect and message of clothing, but do not constitute clothing.

But I vote yes it is because I dont mind.

[BlueSideUp]

You might mind if it was that mom who was recently kicked off of the Southwest flight because of her unruly kids....

But if she's hot then rock on!

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by Dennis Kalma

Gentlemen, ladies:

I was at a Calgary Stampede function today where a young lady was wearing a pair of shorts and a sprayed on (as in paint) top. Several of us (men and women) got into a debate as to whether she was clothed or unclothed....I thought she wa naked and surprised that the policemen keeping an eye on things didn't take her to task....but most of the people I talked to figured that, while a bit skanky, she was indeed dressed enough to meet the minimum legal requirement.

What do you think?

Dennis

Her bottom parts had cloth covering? NOT naked then...perhaps topless and painted, but NOT naked...So, no vote from me.

[MRM]

Early in my career I did some obscenity/porn prosecutions and was surprised to learn that most states have statutes that specificaly state how much of the nipple must be covered in public. As in down to the fraction of an inch that must be "covered in a material that is not less than fully opaque". I didn't know that people sat around thinking that much about what constituted neaked versus clothed.

My vote: paint does not equal clothes. She be topless, which may or may not be a crime in that state, and is certainly on the bottom of that cop's list of priorities. I bet you could have gotten her to over up if you had started following her around, getting a little close and staring at her breasts.

[Dennis Kalma]

Let's put it this way, I chatted with the young lady, she was reasonably attractive, nice slim figure, small breasted and most definitely was enjoying the attention....plus everything was at full attention as a result.

The spray paint was definitely solid and not transparent at all....you couldn't really tell until you looked carefully. At first glance it just looked like a nice tank top in my favourite colour...bumpy silver...

Dennis

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by WolfeMacleod

I think women should be allowed to go topless anyways.

If it does a fair job of "hiding" the details, as clothes do, she's not "naked" per se.

Be VERY careful what you wish for.

[MRM]

You weren't leering and salivating. She'd have covered up then.

[Red Baron]

She'd be naked if it was a tattoo so what would be different with body paint?

[slodave]

Originally Posted by MRM

I bet you could have gotten her to over up if you had started following her around, getting a little close and staring at her breasts.

I'm about to do a selfless thing. I am offering to take this challenge on. I'd be more than willing to do exactly this and see what happens. I'll even bring a camera to document the experiment.

Again, I realize that this could be dangerous, but I would hate to see any of you attempt this and get hurt.

[masraum]

I used to work in topless bars in Houston, I can tell you that legally, in Houston, if you paint your tit with a triangle of latex paint in roughly the shape of a bikini top with the nipple as the top of the triangle and the bottom of the breast as the bottom (basically just like half of a 2 piece), you are legally not nude.

Still, you may as well be. I don't have a problem with it, but if you're just wearing paint, you're topless in my book.

[masraum]

In Houston, this top would not be legal, because it doesn't come to the bottom of the breast.



This however, is legal. It comes to the top of the nipple, covering the nipple and goes to the bottom of the breast.



Also, in houston, the bottoms have to cover 2/3rd of the butt and all of the crack. thongs, and g-strings and even Brazilian cut bikini bottoms are technically, not legal.

[Danny_Ocean]

Is she, or isn't she?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Who really cares?

Do you guys REALLY trust the same idiot legislators who raise our taxes, reward the stupid, coddle the dumb and penalize the responsible, fund stupid wars and promote the NannyState to make these kinds of decisions for you?

I could care less what the law says on things like this. There's good taste and there's bad taste. Most people know the difference. It's pretty sad when we have to put it in black and white for the dumbest members of our society because they can't tell the difference.

Cripes, the puritianical attitudes towards human sexuality in this country are just ridiculous. Oooh! A nipple! The horror! No wonder we're the laughingstock of the world when it comes to this kind of stuff.

If it's done tastefully I don't see the problem with it - even in public. Most of the "body paint" stuff is thicker than a lot of fabrics anyway. Some of it is very tasteful and looks just nice - doesn't give me an automatic boner or whatever. It's artistic and well-done. But I do agree (like anything else) if used/done improperly it can be trashy and slutty and tasteless.

[Dennis Kalma]

I must admit that I find the laws around this kind of stuff to be a bit daft....but then again, not sure what the law is up here in the Great White North, chances are, they are every bit as daft.

I agree it is a matter of taste and location, in my mind, this young lady was right on the edge of what was acceptable, personally, I sort of liked it and the fact she was pretty comfortable in her own skin. Was she nude...no..was she clothed...no.

I must admit that I find the preoccupation with the female nipple to to be pretty extreme, Seinfeld had a show about it....laughed my guts out about it as it was so true.

Would I have a problem with my wife wearing paint on clothes? ....No, not really in the right circumstances and done well. Wouldn't recommend it for going to church though...

Dennis

[rammstein]

I can't vote without pictures to help me.