7 Replies to “Both”
Note: Comments are mostly uncensored and not necessarily endorsed by the site owner.
Might be straying into non-canon/different setting territory, but some more details I couldn’t work into the caption:
Legally, she can’t claim that she’s naked for any purpose, e.g. to benefit from PN-only discounts, apply to jobs that require permanent nudity, etc. If anyone asks why she’s naked, she has to insist that she’s not: she’s clothed, it’s just that her clothing is both topless and bottomless.
She works at an oldschool, conservative financial institution that would ordinarily consider an employee wearing anything less than a sports jacket and tie to be beyond the pale and ripe for termination. She had to beg to keep her job, groveling on the floor of the CEO’s office. She’s the only one in her workplace who’s ever showed any skin above the knees and below the shoulders. She has to meet with clients — high-powered business men and women in thousand-dollar suits haggling over multi-million dollar loans, entire boardrooms of external companies in the middle of mergers, and so on — every day, having to explain every time that she’s not naked, but in fact properly clothed in accordance with the limitations imposed on her by the justice system.
The HR department thinks she’s a liability and have been trying to embarrass her into quitting: giving her a unique ID badge with a full-frontal shot of her body on the front and closeups of her breasts and vulva on the reverse; putting her front-and-center on increasingly frequent group photos of her team and framing them up in the lobby; having her sit in on hiring interviews and meetings with upper management when she’s not really needed; using her image on billboards around the city…
The only part I’d disagree with is that they can’t (legally) fire her for her clothing status. Permanently topless and permanently bottomless are each protected just like permanently naked.
Trying to make her quit (constructive dismissal) is also illegal… but harder to prove.
I love the concept behind this. With the requirement to wear a specific minimal item (such as the pictured waist chain) she is more naked than naked. It is a way to make “full nudity” a punishment in a setting where it can also be a voluntary lifestyle choice.
If I were to design such a setting, I would actually have her issued a specific waist chain, (perhaps a little thicker, but not much) with a quite visible ID tag hanging from it. The requirement would be that it be kept plainly visible from the front and never obscured/hidden.
I wonder if she may not get in trouble with the judge wearing that outfit. The chain is so slender that it is virtually invisible unless she is very close. The judge might feel that she is not following the spirit of the judgment, and needs to wear something significantly wider, something visible at a distance.
FYI, this is very unusual since permanently topless isn’t normally a punishment, but I can believe there might be places where judges technically have that power even if it’s not normally done.
And this is certainly good advice too; don’t piss off the judge.
Might be straying into non-canon/different setting territory, but some more details I couldn’t work into the caption:
Legally, she can’t claim that she’s naked for any purpose, e.g. to benefit from PN-only discounts, apply to jobs that require permanent nudity, etc. If anyone asks why she’s naked, she has to insist that she’s not: she’s clothed, it’s just that her clothing is both topless and bottomless.
She works at an oldschool, conservative financial institution that would ordinarily consider an employee wearing anything less than a sports jacket and tie to be beyond the pale and ripe for termination. She had to beg to keep her job, groveling on the floor of the CEO’s office. She’s the only one in her workplace who’s ever showed any skin above the knees and below the shoulders. She has to meet with clients — high-powered business men and women in thousand-dollar suits haggling over multi-million dollar loans, entire boardrooms of external companies in the middle of mergers, and so on — every day, having to explain every time that she’s not naked, but in fact properly clothed in accordance with the limitations imposed on her by the justice system.
The HR department thinks she’s a liability and have been trying to embarrass her into quitting: giving her a unique ID badge with a full-frontal shot of her body on the front and closeups of her breasts and vulva on the reverse; putting her front-and-center on increasingly frequent group photos of her team and framing them up in the lobby; having her sit in on hiring interviews and meetings with upper management when she’s not really needed; using her image on billboards around the city…
The only part I’d disagree with is that they can’t (legally) fire her for her clothing status. Permanently topless and permanently bottomless are each protected just like permanently naked.
Trying to make her quit (constructive dismissal) is also illegal… but harder to prove.
I love the concept behind this. With the requirement to wear a specific minimal item (such as the pictured waist chain) she is more naked than naked. It is a way to make “full nudity” a punishment in a setting where it can also be a voluntary lifestyle choice.
If I were to design such a setting, I would actually have her issued a specific waist chain, (perhaps a little thicker, but not much) with a quite visible ID tag hanging from it. The requirement would be that it be kept plainly visible from the front and never obscured/hidden.
I wonder if she may not get in trouble with the judge wearing that outfit. The chain is so slender that it is virtually invisible unless she is very close. The judge might feel that she is not following the spirit of the judgment, and needs to wear something significantly wider, something visible at a distance.
You might have a point. In the only previous post about someone being “topless and bottomless” the girl wore significantly more.
I think she might be misjudging how much of the attention she gets is drawn by the chain.
FYI, this is very unusual since permanently topless isn’t normally a punishment, but I can believe there might be places where judges technically have that power even if it’s not normally done.
And this is certainly good advice too; don’t piss off the judge.