2014-08-22 Prove my worth as a model

[Error of Logic]

And Tatiana will swallow her tongue in rage...? ;)

[FlashD81]

If Sandra pulls a Tiff and just goes with it... Yes Tati will have concede her defeat.

[aeridus]

I yelled up, "DON'T LOOK PIERRE!" But it was too late, he'd already got the free shot.

I love that song. XD

[Spidrift]

Assuming any kind of story logic, all Sandra has to do now is turn around and yank the sheet loose from the door. Momentarily very embarrassing, might actually move her relationship with Pierre forward a notch, but not really a big deal

[Error of Logic]

If she turns around now, Pierre will have gotten the complete full Monty... ^^;

[OldBrit]

No. Censorship is when they put a black block or some such over something. Using part of the scene (bread, bath steam, towel, hair) is not censoring.

That's just extremely obvious censoring, it's usually more subtle. Gotoh actually posted the link to TVTropes Scenery Censor.
This comic has to be censored because it's PG-13 (and yet contains nudity), and it's PG-13 to keep the advertisers happy.

[Geeno]

Semantics. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to, whatever.
We all know what it is and why it's there, and while some fan service in the printed books might be nice, it's hardly necessary to the story, as T has pointed out.

[Gotoh]

Assuming any kind of story logic, all Sandra has to do now is turn around and yank the sheet loose from the door. Momentarily very embarrassing, might actually move her relationship with Pierre forward a notch, but not really a big deal

Possibly. But, as others have guessed, there may be someone else in the store, or someone could show up unexpectedly - like Alex. Or worse, the mystery girl with the grudge against Sandra may be somewhere nearby. What if she snapped a pic of the incident and tried to use it to ruin her image? Though I honestly don't expect her to show up this soon.

So retrieving her bedsheet may not be as simple as it sounds. Even if she does, cameras and smartphones are everywhere these days and she's in front of a pair of glass doors + a display window. There's no telling who may have seen what. At the very least, Cammi's sure to have seen it, given that the limo's parked directly across the street. And, she's probably been watching Sandra since the previous strip.

This comic has to be censored because it's PG-13 (and yet contains nudity)

It contains partial nudity, which is what the scenery censor is for. It allows them to show just enough while leaving the rest to the readers imagination; making it a form of fanservice. That's why there isn't an uncensored version. What we see is all there ever was.

It's the same with any video game that has a "partial nudity" warning on the back of the cover. What you're likely to see is no worse than if the character in question was wearing a swimsuit, or you may see them topless, from behind, but there's never any actual nudity.

[Odd Man Out]

Semantics. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to, whatever.
We all know what it is and why it's there, and while some fan service in the printed books might be nice, it's hardly necessary to the story, as T has pointed out.

I'm certainly not after more displayed nudity in SotR. It's like with the Maple Leaves in MA3, I find the devices used for it kind of funny in their own weird right.

[OldBrit]

This comic has to be censored because it's PG-13 (and yet contains nudity)

It contains partial nudity, which is what the scenery censor is for. It allows them to show just enough while leaving the rest to the readers imagination; making it a form of fanservice. That's why there isn't an uncensored version. What we see is all there ever was.

It's the same with any video game that has a "partial nudity" warning on the back of the cover. What you're likely to see is no worse than if the character in question was wearing a swimsuit, or you may see them topless, from behind, but there's never any actual nudity.

It's semantics, but the characters are completely nude, we just don't see all of them. I'd consider 'partial nudity' to be where the character is wearing a thong or similar. And since these characters are actually just line drawings, the unseen detail was never drawn, but it may have existed in the artist's imagination, and in preliminary sketches.


However this is wandering away from my main point, which is that the correct term for the elimination of certain body parts from the presented view in order to meet the requirements of an outside body (the advertisers), is censorship.

[wiseguy]

that is considered "self-censorship" which is different than outright censorship, which would be in an example of a photo or picture, the Birth of Venus by Botticelli having photoshopped a bra to cover the nipples of Venus, or in a more extreme case, having also a bikini if they don't see her hair covering her privates as enough

[OldBrit]

Yes, but I don't really see a distinction, except that in one case the explicit version actually exists, and in the other it is merely imagined.

[wiseguy]

you just hit the nail, mate

"actual censorship" only happens if the "uncensored version" actually exists, not if the READERS imagines it(either that it happened when it has not, or they try to apply rule 34 of internet)

[OldBrit]

I meant the author imagined it. The reader can imagine what he wants in either case.
And I'm self-censoring this post.

[wiseguy]

easy to "imagine showing everything without hiding it" when readers keep demanding it , the author always intents to not show directly, but to imply the fact

kind of like in the olden times burlesque was not actually about showing the nude body, but to either "hide it" or in some cases, not actually being nude, but make it "look like she was naked" as she wore panties and bras