MoRina wrote:
OMG! Thank you for acknowledging me! I live for your approval!

You're welcome, and yes, I know you do!  But really, you don't have to thank me.

JohnTozziPhotography wrote:
Reminds me of the old joke:

Naked means you don’t have any clothes on.
Nekkid means you don’t have any clothes on and you’re up to something.

Nekkid means that either (1) you can't spell words properly or (2) you want to give people that impression.

JSouthworth wrote:

Nekkid means that either (1) you can't spell words properly or (2) you want to give people that impression.

Nekkid is a word. Check the Oxford English Dictionary.

It’s a term used in the southern US quite frequently.

Perhaps a little google search would have saved you a failed troll attempt.

JSouthworth wrote:
Nekkid means that either (1) you can't spell words properly or (2) you want to give people that impression.

Twatospheric.

I doubt it's in a dictionary, but it does sound incredibly apt.

aquarelle wrote:
What’s the difference between “Naked” and “Nude?”

The words pretty much mean the same, don’t they?  But why don’t the words ever seem to be interchangeable?  There is Norman Mailer’s war novel, “The Naked and the Dead.”  Why not “The Nude and the Dead?” 

Naked Lunch; Naked City;  The Naked Spur;  Naked Aggression;  Go Naked in the World;  The Naked Eye; The Naked Maja;  The Naked Prey;  The Naked Edge.  These are famous books, paintings, movies and phrases that have entered the culture.  Why is everything “Naked?”  Why isn’t anything “Nude?”

Models pose nude.  We never hear of a “naked” model.  It’s nude photography, not naked photography.  Nude figure art, not naked figure art.   A nude statue, not a naked statue.

We have Duchamp’s “Nude Descending a Staircase,” but there it’s used as a noun.  You couldn’t have “Naked Descending a Staircase.  There’s no noun form for “naked”—unlike “A Nude,” there’s no such thing as “A Naked.”

I’m a figure painter.  I would never ask a model to pose “naked” for me.  It sounds like she’d be embarrassingly “nude,” exposed and maybe even damp and chilly.  “Naked” seems kind of like “nude,” but with less clothes on. 

Anyone have any thoughts on that? 

(I would like to add, however, that I am neither a “Nude” painter OR a “Naked” painter.  I usually keep my clothes on when I’m working.)

JohnTozziPhotography wrote:
Nekkid is a word. Check the Oxford English Dictionary.

It’s a term used in the southern US quite frequently.

There are plenty of words in the dictionary to describe people who use that type of language, but they mostly aren't complementary. On the subject of fashion, do you often wear shorts? Sandals? Necklaces made from seashells? I'm just curious.

You say nekkid means "up to something". Up to what? We're mature educated people, you don't gotta keep us in suspense.

JSouthworth wrote:

More proof, if any were needed that a lot of words doesn't make a good argument.

"Bottomless" can be used to mean nude, or naked according to Websters dictionary. That's good enough.

It can also mean naked from the waist down. "Bottomless attire" means clothing designed to be worn that way. I found this little waistcoat in white lycra stretch fabric, with golden buttons on both sides but no buttonholes.

Bottomless attire.... that could mean completely naked, in which case it would be a contradiction in terms, because a naked person isn't attired, they aren't wearing any attire. Or it could mean attired in a top but with no bottom, ie naked from the waist down.

Bottomless attire, if used to refer to clothing would apply to something specifically designed for a bottomless look, with nothing on below the waist. To call a bikini top "bottomless attire" would be a little pretentious.

JSouthworth wrote:

There are plenty of words in the dictionary to describe people who use that type of language, but they mostly aren't complementary. On the subject of fashion, do you often wear shorts? Sandals? Necklaces made from seashells? I'm just curious.

You say nekkid means "up to something". Up to what? We're mature educated people, you don't gotta keep us in suspense.

The quote is from Lewis Grizzard. You’d have to ask him.

JSouthworth wrote:
a naked person isn't attired, they aren't wearing any attire.

JohnTozziPhotography wrote:

The quote is from Lewis Grizzard. You’d have to ask him.

No, I've never heard of him.

JSouthworth wrote:
No, I've never heard of him.

That much is obvious, no need to say it.

JSouthworth wrote:
"Nekkid" is obviously just a mispronunciation of naked, so to call that a "new word" is being silly. It doesn't appear in my Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Oxford English Dictionary online:

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/? … p;q=nekkid

This is why your references, conclusions, opinions, pedantry, etc., etc. are met with such incredulity and skepticism in these Fora.

Focuspuller wrote:

Oxford English Dictionary online:

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/? … p;q=nekkid

This is why your references, conclusions, opinions, pedantry, etc., etc. are met with such incredulity and skepticism in these Fora.

Skepticism is one thing, believing that the Apollo moon landings were faked is just paranoid really I think.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

"She was a joy to behold when she engaged her propensity to wear bottomless attire by the pool on warm, sunny days." Which clearly does not mean she is nude and leaves some room for a bit of imagination regarding her appearance.  If you made such a statement and used the word nude as a synonym for bottomless, then you have failed to communicate that there was something on top.  Bottomless simply does not mean nude.

"She was a joy to behold when she engaged her propensity to wear bottomless attire by the pool on warm, sunny days."  So maybe you think she was wearing a T shirt? A bikini top? Not if she wanted to get an even tan.

JSouthworth wrote:
"She was a joy to behold when she engaged her propensity to wear bottomless attire by the pool on warm, sunny days."  So maybe you think she was wearing a T shirt? A bikini top? Not if she wanted to get an even tan.

I also said, "Which clearly does not mean she is nude and leaves some room for a bit of imagination regarding her appearance.  If you made such a statement and used the word nude as a synonym for bottomless, then you have failed to communicate that there was something on top."   

What difference does her tanning intention make?  That would be up to the reader to decide, unless it was revealed elsewhere in the narrative. 

What difference does her upper garment make?  That would be up to the reader to decide, unless it was revealed elsewhere in the narrative. 

The intent of the passage would be to allow a reader to imagine what the reader likes or doesn't like.  You could also wonder what her grooming was like, but it wasn't important for the story at this time and may never be.  Perhaps she didn't go topless because she has scars.  Or she needed to be able to cover up quickly.  The what ifs can go on forever.  What we know is that in some form she was bottomless, but not topless.  What was needed to be communicated to you, was.

The point of the narrative was- as you have eventually rationalized out for yourself- that being bottomless is not nude.  It is partially nude.  Everything else is up to you until you read the rest of the scene or see the painting.  Even then you could come up with questions, but the premise required to this point is only that is she is bottomless and not topless.

Focuspuller wrote:
Oxford English Dictionary online:

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/? … p;q=nekkid

This is why your references, conclusions, opinions, pedantry, etc., etc. are met with such incredulity and skepticism in these Fora.

🤜🏼🤛🏼

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

I also said, "Which clearly does not mean she is nude and leaves some room for a bit of imagination regarding her appearance.  If you made such a statement and used the word nude as a synonym for bottomless, then you have failed to communicate that there was something on top."   

What difference does her tanning intention make?  That would be up to the reader to decide, unless it was revealed elsewhere in the narrative. 

What difference does her upper garment make?  That would be up to the reader to decide, unless it was revealed elsewhere in the narrative. 

The intent of the passage would be to allow a reader to imagine what the reader likes or doesn't like.  You could also wonder what her grooming was like, but it wasn't important for the story at this time and may never be.  Perhaps she didn't go topless because she has scars.  Or she needed to be able to cover up quickly.  The what ifs can go on forever.  What we know is that in some form she was bottomless, but not topless.  What was needed to be communicated to you, was.

The point of the narrative was- as you have eventually rationalized out for yourself- that being bottomless is not nude.  It is partially nude.  Everything else is up to you until you read the rest of the scene or see the painting.  Even then you could come up with questions, but the premise required to this point is only that is she is bottomless and not topless.

Technically you aren't even naked if wearing a single sock never mind a top.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
I also said, "Which clearly does not mean she is nude and leaves some room for a bit of imagination regarding her appearance.  If you made such a statement and used the word nude as a synonym for bottomless, then you have failed to communicate that there was something on top."

In that quote, "bottomless attire" clearly does mean nude; nobody sunbathes with just a bikini top on, because that would result in an uneven tan and would therefore be pointlessly dumb-assed, just like most of your arguments. But it's an over-use of language, it would be enough just to say that she sunbathed bottomless by the pool.

JSouthworth wrote:
In that quote, "bottomless attire" clearly does mean nude; nobody sunbathes with just a bikini top on, because that would result in an uneven tan and would therefore be pointlessly dumb-assed, just like most of your arguments. But it's an over-use of language, it would be enough just to say that she sunbathed bottomless by the pool.

Your use of the word nobody is absurd.  There are billions of women in the world.  Just one doing it, would dismiss your argument. 

You are making an assumption that you attribute to me.    Would you please quote the line where I said she was wearing only a bikini top or where I attributed a bikini top as a feature anywhere in the scene?  That was the option in your mind, not mine.

In fact, that you declare that she is wearing a bikini top proves my point that she was not nude when I said that she was bottomless- and you agreed with me, like or it not.  Therefore, you went against your own assertion that bottomless means nude.  It is pointless that you are continuing to argue a point of view that you already admitted was wrong.

JSouthworth wrote:
Bottomless attire.... that could mean completely naked, in which case it would be a contradiction in terms, because a naked person isn't attired, they aren't wearing any attire. Or it could mean attired in a top but with no bottom, ie naked from the waist down.

Bottomless attire, if used to refer to clothing would apply to something specifically designed for a bottomless look, with nothing on below the waist. To call a bikini top "bottomless attire" would be a little pretentious.

-
It seems you are fixated on the character wearing a bikini top and are incapable of conjuring an image other than the first thing to pop into a narrow imagination stream.  Although you would consider calling bottomless attire pretentious if the top is a bikini top, your are still admitting it is bottomless attire.  That is the image you have imagined and shared, and you alone have done so.

Perhaps you could could consider she is wearing a t-shirt, a man's shirt, a swimwear cover, a swim shirt, a slip, a robe, a beach cover up....  There are so many items she could wear to resolve YOUR fixation with tan lines. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=women+s … p;ie=UTF-8

Or, she is sometimes topless when she wears a bikini, so she needs to wear only the top from time to time to even her tan between the bikini lines- just in case some Brit sees her- she doesn't want to provide the opportunity to be critiqued regarding a slight difference in the shades of her skin between the bikini lines- because who the hell would care about that anyway?  God forbid that some random, obsessive compulsive sees a shade of difference!

Or she could own a tan through bikini, rendering the problem mute.  https://www.google.com/search?q=tan+thr … p;ie=UTF-8

I am sure that for some, the level of literary genius is sufficient and "it would be enough just to say that she sunbathed bottomless by the pool."  As opposed to, "She was a joy to behold when she engaged her propensity to wear bottomless attire by the pool on warm, sunny days."  They are sentences that are hardly making the same implication.  The latter of which does not mean she was sunbathing.  She could have been writing her novel, shopping on line for a new pool top, answering emails, cleaning the pool, doing morning yoga, picking up after the kids, ....   



Edit:
My apologies for responding to this person again.  I have given him the benefit of the doubt that he was not a troll and his behavior was something resulting from an attribute beyond his control that I have had past experience with, among certain people.  I have tried to talk to him and extend respect- personally failing on some occasions.  I see I am frustrating myself and others, so I will make a greater effort to ignore him from now on. 

Also, if you are annoyed by my long posts or the nature of my comments, please skip over my posts.  If you think I am a troll, that gives you all the more reason to ignore me and to not reference my posts in your posts.

NakeyPiX wrote:
You can always tell when a website or forum is at the end of it's life when someone asks "the difference between naked and nude".  Historically speaking, it happens every time.

I think y'all understand now.

JSouthworth wrote:
Skepticism is one thing, believing that the Apollo moon landings were faked is just paranoid really I think.

You said you couldn't find "nekkid" in the Concise OED. I found it in the complete OED online in two seconds, casting doubt on your research competence. What does the Apollo moon landing have to d o with this? What dimension of your phantasy world are you presently inhabiting?

Focuspuller wrote:

You said you couldn't find "nekkid" in the Concise OED. I found it in the complete OED online in two seconds, casting doubt on your research competence. What does the Apollo moon landing have to d o with this? What dimension of your phantasy world are you presently inhabiting?

If the intended purpose of the Apollo space program was to make monkeys out of people like you, it seems to have been totally successful.

JSouthworth wrote:

If the intended purpose of the Apollo space program was to make monkeys out of people like you, it seems to have been totally successful.

Old chap, like the Apollo program, you have left the planet. Call us if you make it back.

aquarelle wrote:
What’s the difference between “Naked” and “Nude?”

The words pretty much mean the same, don’t they?  But why don’t the words ever seem to be interchangeable?  There is Norman Mailer’s war novel, “The Naked and the Dead.”  Why not “The Nude and the Dead?” 

Naked Lunch; Naked City;  The Naked Spur;  Naked Aggression;  Go Naked in the World;  The Naked Eye; The Naked Maja;  The Naked Prey;  The Naked Edge.  These are famous books, paintings, movies and phrases that have entered the culture.  Why is everything “Naked?”  Why isn’t anything “Nude?”

Models pose nude.  We never hear of a “naked” model.  It’s nude photography, not naked photography.  Nude figure art, not naked figure art.   A nude statue, not a naked statue.

We have Duchamp’s “Nude Descending a Staircase,” but there it’s used as a noun.  You couldn’t have “Naked Descending a Staircase.  There’s no noun form for “naked”—unlike “A Nude,” there’s no such thing as “A Naked.”

I’m a figure painter.  I would never ask a model to pose “naked” for me.  It sounds like she’d be embarrassingly “nude,” exposed and maybe even damp and chilly.  “Naked” seems kind of like “nude,” but with less clothes on. 

Anyone have any thoughts on that? 

(I would like to add, however, that I am neither a “Nude” painter OR a “Naked” painter.  I usually keep my clothes on when I’m working.)

We obviously use the term nude more often but at the end of the day it's really a game of people being far too caught up on a word. Yes nude sounds more professional but at the end of the day if I do a nude shoot I was naked--- is it really that big of a deal?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Your use of the word nobody is absurd.  There are billions of women in the world.  Just one doing it, would dismiss your argument.

And yet I have never seen anyone sunbathing with just a bikini top on. On the other hand a "bottomless" look, meaning naked from the waist down is not unusual in glamour photography. So perhaps it all depends on context.

JQuest wrote:
Image is 18+
Woman sunning herself bottomless. A 5 second google search undoes your "because I haven't seen it, it does not exist." argument.

Facts mean nothing to a person when their entire identity is wrapped up in believing their opinion is the sole one experienced by 8 billion people and there must be something wrong with you for questioning it.

JQuest wrote:
Image is 18+
Woman sunning herself bottomless. A 5 second google search undoes your "because I haven't seen it, it does not exist." argument.

Whose idea was it? That's the question. Is it likely that a female model would, on her own initiative, sunbathe with just a bikini top on? That's the question, to which the answer is no, because she'd get an uneven tan that way, and would possibly lose work as a result. So for all practical purposes you might as well take some pictures of yourself sunbathing with just a bikini top on and post them here, that would be just about as convincing.

JQuest wrote:
Image is 18+
Woman sunning herself bottomless. A 5 second google search undoes your "because I haven't seen it, it does not exist." argument.

Whose idea was it? Is it likely that a female model would, on her own initiative, sunbathe with just a bikini top on? That's the question, to which the answer is no, because she'd get an uneven tan that way, and would possibly lose work as a result. So for all practical purposes you might as well take some pictures of yourself sunbathing with just a bikini top on and post them here, that would be just about as convincing.

JSouthworth wrote:
Whose idea was it? Is it likely that a female model would, on her own initiative, sunbathe with just a bikini top on? That's the question, to which the answer is no, because she'd get an uneven tan that way, and would possibly lose work as a result. So for all practical purposes you might as well take some pictures of yourself sunbathing with just a bikini top on and post them here, that would be just about as convincing.

"Whose idea was it? Is it likely that a female model would, on her own initiative, sunbathe with just a bikini top on? That's the question, to which the answer is no
No that wasn't the question. That's the response you just made up because your previous assertion that bottomless sunbathing never happens was disproven. In point of fact the actual file name for that image is, "female-person-resting-on-wild-rocky-seashore-half-woman-in-full-unbuttoned-knotted-shirt-sunbathing.jpg"

You asserted that it never happens. Adding requirements ex post facto in regard to whose idea it was (who cares) neither proves nor validates your position. As always when presented with an argument that fully and completely refutes your initial assertion you follow up in the solipsistic manner of a toddler (as usual). Moving the goalposts in such a manner does not improve your argument it weakens it. Your reply is nothing more than a red herring (and a poor one at that) intended to change the discussions parameters in a cynical attempt to salvage some part of your argument. Instead it only embodies the intellectual laziness that accompanies virtually all your postings.

Your argument and assertions on bottomless sunbathing have failed on all accounts. It has been shown that bottomless happens, period, full stop. All of your dissembling, conjecture and goalpost moving does not change what that image shows. You are wrong as the image so clearly shows.