I don't see that as being nudity, but I could see how the mod would call it mature. It seems to me it could go both ways.
Ultimately, its the mod's decision. It up to you where to go from there. You can accept it and move on or try a different group. I've had pieces turned down by groups before too. Some decisions I accepted, but a couple groups I left after several rejections, because I realized we weren't going to see eye to eye.
I can see why they categorised it as nudity, regardless of how "there are some things stuck to her body" may not make her literally naked.
1. Her veils are transparent, and it seems like you would be able to see the nipples and genitalia had you chosen to draw them in a more detailed style. I can see her blank crotch through her veil, which means her veil is not covering her nudity... If someone has no genitalia, is it impossible for them to be naked? Of course not.
2: Her outfit is clearly not designed for everyday purposes, it looks like she is a participant in some sort of burlesque show. There is no reason for her garments to be so scanty other than to display her nudity as much as possible. So you can't really complain when people notice that.
It strikes me as the sort of thing people do in a deliberate attempt to sneak nudity past censors. Not that I have any paticular problem with nudity, burlesque, or pinups. I'm all for these things. Just call a spade a spade.
I also actually like the character design, but I think you should make a decision one way or the other about whether she's going to be naked or not. The stick-on veils look a bit odd, like an awkward half-measure. If it's not important for her to be naked then you could easily rig her up a more substantial set of lingerie without detracting from the design.
Her vagina and tits are covered. How is that nude? I understand if a group wants to categorize something in one way or another, but to ask whether or not that's a correct definition of nudity is... well, stupid. (That last part was mostly directed to *VISIONOFTHEWORLD)
You are an idiot if you think nudity only means vagina and 'tits" (ehem- nipples) are what makes nudity. The entire body showing is nudity. Whether or not the gonads are fully revealed. If you saw someone walking down the street with that little covering anything, people around you would yell "Naked chick!" Duh.
Because I was repyling to the OP and was simply using your post as an example to prove my point.
I've seen bathing suits that are arguably the same as his drawing. Are bikinis not clothes? Is a G-String not a piece of clothing? Because by your logic, even if someone is wearing a G-string, they are still nude. Having your genitalia (and nipples if you're female) covered by anything other than your own hands or hair is not being nude.
I see nekkid.. basically censored nudity. If the entire body except for the nipples themselves and the genitalia themselves is showing, then it's still a nude person. Besides if someone is asking for it to be submitted with mature, at least they're not rejecting it altogether.
It's close enough to nude that I can understand why a moderator would want it submitted in the mature category. Some people get really tired of people toeing the line of how little clothing they can put on a girl before she gets censored. While she may not be "technically" naked, for all intents and purposes she may as well be.
That's what I thought. It's a 1/week group though, so I doubt I'll remember it next week. It's got almost 7000 watchers, so I would rather not leave it, but I can't believe I'm having a nudity discussion on a piece that I only considered provocative at best.
I can understand that. If the group has a mature folder, and my piece has nudity in it, then I'll place it there. What my problem is in this instance is that the supposed nudity is basically the same as a bikini. I just don't see it, and I'm a little annoyed that I wasted my 1 deviation per week on something that was rejected for spurious reasons. I'm taking it up with the guy, but the decision has already been made.