![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
Uh, is your only evidence that she's not 100% completely nude the fact that her belly button indent is a little more than a typical physical bodysuit?
... still not convinced. She has no lady bits. Not nude. But certainly nude-like.
: 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.
It's not clothing or paint. It's a hologram. So all we can talk about is the ideal projection of the 'skin' of the character which she has chosen. And the impression is either that A) something is covering the lady bits, or B) she chose not to have lady bits at all... and yet chose to have a collar, cuffs, and textures that imply visually some form of skin-covering.
: 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.
Yes, I agree. Because as a character she intended to give that impression by the manner which she chose to visualize her outward appearance. To demand attention.
: 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.
I did not bring that up at all in this thread, it is completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about here, which is her objective appearance. I mentioned censoring, but merely in the context of practical artistic character design limitations.