I won't redo the whole argument so here's everything edited for time and quality:
Clothes do not work that way, not even bodybuits. They do not go more than the slightest amount (and usually not even that) into someone's bellybutton, except through the use of glue (which to me is coming around to the same point because that level of form-fitting and that level of effort to attain it is fetish territory).
If you want to argue it's paint, I can maybe kind of buy that, but I'm disinclined to because she's depicted with code rain going over her entire body, usually including her face and hands and often including her hair, which to me says there's no break or discontinuity, be it fabric or paint.
The fact he said that her appearance makes people think she's naked and the fact that he talks about why she appears in such a way indicate that the majority opinion is that she's naked, and they indicate that that opinion exists for a reason. I think you're projecting a principle you have (that nudity is bad, which you've stated before) onto a thing you love, because you love it and want to believe it meets your definition of morally good.