My initial instinct can be seen in the rough clip art here. This would be the subsequent headline:
Idiot-Man arrested, then beaten, for exposing himself to new art:
As I discovered while looking for good images to be used for my clip art, this isn’t a new concept/joke. However, I also stumbled on the following picture gag(?):
So… when undergarments look THAT close to the real deal… and they are positioned in the same exact area.. on a real live person….
I would argue this ACTUALLY indecent exposure – according to the definition- right? Here’s the test – would a child think that this woman was naked? Probably. Would that child care? Probably not. So… should we have a law against this sort of thing? Probably not. Laws can be dumb. I only comply with the sensible ones.
I mean, seriously, who really cares if someone stands in front of you, buck naked? Actually, I take that back. If this woman did it, I’d be fine with it. But there are some people that should not be naked. Ever. Never ever. Even in the shower – they should wear a full parka.
My last question – if that woman in a trench coat is NOT considered naked…
What about Abbey Clancey, seen to the right? She seems like a nice, hard-working girl – both a musician and seen on cooking shows. I’m sure she would never break the law by harming others in showing her naked body in public. In her body paint shown here, she certainly seems more clothed than the trench-coated girl. I think body paint is more acceptable in public than fake naked outfits.
By the way – in this picture Abbey Clancy does not seem to doing anything illegal. However, as a man of science, she looks like she is defying both the laws of physics and the laws of biology. I don’t believe in religion, therefore “she’s an angel” isn’t an acceptable explanation of what’s happening here either. Abbey – I have some questions for you, call me to explain yourself.
Well… that post took a strange turn. Let’s stop it here before things get weird.