Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Thank You To Commenters, Rant On Discriminatory Social Media Censorship and YouTube Slander

     I had intended this post to be a lingerie review of various pairs of women's full coverage underwear and my most recent fashion hauls. Instead I have gotten so pissed off at being repeatedly discriminated against, slandered and censored by social media corporations, that I decided to merely thank my commenters - and then go on a rant about discrimination and censorship - about the consciousless social media companies that have gotten into bed with prudes, bigots, haters and trolls - and about the avarice and greed of said social media companies trumping their consciences.
      Before I get really rolling on my rant against discrimination and censorship by social media, let me first thank my commenters.
THANK YOU FOR COMMENTING to all the Fbloggers, Lbloggers, Bbloggers and Fashionistas who commented on my last blog post titled: Shadowline and Victorias Secret Lingerie Fashion OOTDs and Reviews with Dressing Room Selfie Photos and Video with Blooper!  
Fashionista editor Couture Carrie of CC Loves, of Couture Carrie, and of Bikinis and Martinis Twitter @CoutureCarrie. Carrie loves spotting and sharing fashion trends and style with her readers;  
Fashionista, DIY, thrifting inspired blogger from the Door peninsula of WisconsinIndy of The Fabulosity Factor and Twitter @Fab_Factor;  
The poetic, inspiring, dancing phenomenon RaeAbigael of RAELLARINA- The Ballerina on Fire and Raellarina's Channel - YouTube and Twitter @RaeAbigael;
The beautiful Camila Faria of Não Me Mande Flores Twitter @_CamilaF_ who blogs about internet love and all the lovely things one can send as an expression of it other than flowers; 
The pretty and popular fashion blogger from Poland Ania Zarzycka of the fashion blog Fashion with blog photos taken by her sister Klaudia; 
The student fashion and lifestyle blogger from the Philippines Bernadeth G. of Miss Beatrix  
The colourful queen of vintage and nominee for Vintage Personality at the National Vintage Awards 2014 Vix of Vintage Vixen, Twitter @Vintage_Vix66, YouTube Vix Brearley, and curator (with Jon) at Kinky Mellon's Retro Boutique
The sometimes controversial and always thought provoking fashionista, photographer, artist and philosopher Peet and her blogging dog Leos, a.k.a. Mister Fartz of the blog For Peet's Sake and Twitter @4PeetsSake
The acclaimed multiple award winning fashion bloggers Tara Twitter @Englishian and Jade Twitter @Girlyougotstyle  both of the UK fashion and style blog THE STYLE RAWR! Twitter   @TheStyleRawr
The Houston Fashion blogger, music lover and fitness amateur Malibu Mara of the blog .Malibu Mara. YouTube MalibuMaraTV and Twitter @MalibuMara (Mara left her comment related to my Victoria's Secret/Shadowlinne post in the comments to my post titled: "Fbloggers Lingerie Fashion OOTDs and Reviews of Vanity Fair Ravissant Full Briefs"; 
Fashion blogger and online marketing intern Ina R. a.k.a. Carina of Bad Taste Toast from Düsseldorf, Germany;
#SocialBlogger organiser of #Fbloggers #Lbloggers and #Bbloggers from Yorkshire, England, lover of dresses and YouTube, and glamourous Food Stock Control Manager Corinne C. of SKINNEDCARTREE.com, Twitter  @bloggerforums and YouTube Corinne C at http://www.youtube.com/user/skinnedcartree;  
THANK YOU to everyone who follows, favourites and Retweets me on Twitter, follows me on Twitter, this blog, my YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/misterpantybuns, and who have left comments on earlier posts but whom I haven't mentioned here. 
My apologies for the length of this post. I doubt many people will take the time to read it all and check the links. At least there are some images to look at and (hopefully) some embeded videos to watch. Please feel free to leave links to your blogs with your comments. Thanks.
Here are a few of the blouses and briefs I had intended to review in June and July before the fucktards at YouTube wrongfully slandered me, censored/removed one of my videos and slandered me, issuing a "strike" against my account in a brazen high-handed display of sex discrimination and malice motivated by bigotry:  
And many other briefs and blouses I never ordered because I was too discouraged by having giant social media corporations censoring my photos and videos, condemning them to the Orwellian "Memory Hole", and replacing links to them with lies about me and my reviews. 

     It's a real shame when social media escalates from enabling haters and trolls to actively slandering, censoring and deleting the posts or even the accounts of the victims of the discrimination and abuse, all at the behest of said haters and trolls. Social media are well aware that false-flagging trolls have commandeered their automated flagging activated "moderation" (censorship) programmes.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. I highly recommend consulting an attorney or getting legal help prior to suing a large social media corporation for discrimination and slander, but it is important that we make some noise and say NO to censorship.
     There have been plenty of people who have complained about wrongfully censored YouTube videos in the past, and YouTube has failed to address their censorship and slander problems. Most other other social media sites have failed to address their flawed and often discriminatory censorship problems as well. 

     The title of this SiteProNews article pretty much says it all: "YouTube Spits in the Face of its Users by Refusing to Address Their False Flagging Problem". 
Quoting from the article: "Let me say that again. FALSE FLAGGING is when a video has NOT broken any rules, but still gets flagged; and the owner of the video gets a strike against their account, even though they’ve done nothing wrong."
The article gives Google's phone number is  1-650-253-0000 and YouTube's (Google) fax number as 1-650-253-0000 but says, in essence, that calling or faxing the numbers is futile because Google simply doesn't care and won't talk to you.  
     There  was an article in the Harvard Law Review titled "The Brave New World of Social Media Censorship - How "terms of service" abridge free speech"", Facebook and Google set out to become and have become "common carriers"
. The article does acknowledge that search engines should be categorized as common carriers and therefore prohibited from censorship. The time is long past due for social media giants like Google, Facebook, Flickr, etc. along with the internet service providers to be classified as common carriers and brought to account criminally when they discriminate. In my opinion until they cease and desist from discrimination we should shame them wherever we can in the media, sue them civilly whenever practicable, and make a stink about their censorship to politicians who aren't bought and paid for (if there are any).
     Facebook's "Community Standards" page states that they do not permit individuals "...to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition", yet Facebook and Google, hypocritically, have done the very things to their users that they prohibit individuals from doing themselves. Facebook and Google routinely censor people based on the above mentioned factors, i.e.: Censoring womens' nipples but not mens', and censoring men in full coverage panties but not women in sheer panties or with bared buttocks. 
     The claims made (pretexts used) by social media monopolies in the course of censoring unpopular speech and expression off the internet are usually that the videos in question somehow violate their "Terms of Service" or "Community Guidelines". Countless people have had the viewing their videos restricted and labeled with a vague and slanderous message, often asserting a specious reference to "Terms of Service" or "Community Guidelines". 
     It is my belief that YouTube, Google and Facebook have all repeatedly caved in to demands for censorship by the "American Family Association" , the "Family Research Council" - both of which are organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  These groups (A.F.A. and F.R.C.) are rabidly homophobic and transphobic. In June the National Coalition Against Censorship published a blog post noting that: "Some groups, like the American Family Association, rely on obscenity law to demand the removal of artwork with partial nudity."
     Here are a few examples of Social Media wrongfully using their "Terms of Service" as a pretext to censor underwear and justify sex discrimination
     Facebook went so far as to censor a photograph of a nude statue in a post about censorship by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU asked "Why Was Our Post About Censorship Censored?" in their post titled: "Naked Statue Reveals One Thing: Facebook Censorship Needs Better Appeals Process". Think that was just an accident? I think not. Remember George Bush's Attorney General John Ashcroft ordering demanding that the breasts of statues be covered up? There are scads of pseudo-religious fanatical haters and wackos out there who apparently believe we should all have been born with clothes on and that babies should be blindfolded while breastfeeding. 
     The censoring of photographs of statues seems to be their standard operating procedure. Priscilla Frank of the Huffington Post may have thought it was funny in her article titled "Artist Hilariously Censors The Louvre's Nude Statues For Facebook (SFW)", but I'm not laughing.

     Facebook outright lies about the fact that they censor people: In an article in TODAY.com Facebook was quoted as claiming "We've always allowed breast feeding photos". Shortly thereafter they flagged a breast-feeding photo saying "Please Review the Community Standards. Your Page, group or event was reported to Facebook. After reviewing the report, we determined one or more photos or posts don't follow the Facebook Community Standards". Clearly Facebook practices sex discrimination, lies in order to try to justify that discrimination, and lies about having done so. George Orwell's novel "1984" was prescient, and what was revealed in the movie Orwell Rolls In His Grave by Robert Kane Pappas was only the tip of the iceberg.

The Center for Research on Globalization published an article titled: "The Secret Playbook of Social Media Censors - The 'Counter Reset'". The government actively employs sock puppets to spread "black propaganda" (lies) as this year 2006 BBC News article foretold. 

     Sadly those who seek objective truth on the internet have a very difficult time finding it, and the task of truth-finding is getting more difficult as hopes for "Net Neutrality" seem to be fading away.

The ACLU has posted articles titled: "What Is Net Neutrality? | American Civil Liberties Union" and "Net Neutrality: Securing Equality Online | American Civil Liberties Union". RT.com did an op-ed titled: "Dumping Net Neutrality: 'Fast' lane to censorship & Obama's biggest letdown - RT Op-Edge"
     At the time of this writing there was a Wikipedia article titled "Internet censorship in the United States". That article noted that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) have both been found to unconstitutionally violate the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
     There have been more than two dozen news articles in the Huffington Post on Media Censorship. Over two years ago Washington'sBlog did a post titled Top Media Websites Caught Censoring Controversial Content. Not only has the censorship has gotten much worse since then, but some social media giants are using anti-competative tactics that clearly violate antitrust laws. 

I couldn't help but ask myself: Could or has Google's coercive bundling of YouTube/Google+/Gmail become a much worse antitrust violation than the bundling of Windows with their browser Internet Explorer that wound up costing Microsoft millions of dollars in fines? Surely Google's coercive tactics in attempting to bundle YouTube, gmail, their browser, Blogger, Google search and more into a single Google+ account must violate antitrust laws. Have they become too big to prosecute?
A googlegovernance.co.uk article "Google plus antitrust and privacy risk revealed In New York Times stopthegfiles" noted:  "Being required to sign into one product in order to access a previously independent one raises anti-trust issues".
     Facebook is noted for operating well outside the envelope and relying heavily on its lawyers to defend its practices. Perhaps seeing how Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have reaped billions of dollars per year from their monopolistic and datamining schemes (whilst their companies pay only millions of dollars in slap-on-the-wrist fines for monopolistic behavior and datamining) has proved too tempting for Google. Perhaps Google executives are letting avarice convince them to drop the word "Don't" from their former motto "Don't be evil", thus converting the motto to "Be evil" in hopes of becoming much more super-rich than they are.
Unfortunately it appears their avarice has annihilated whatever common sense they had and they have disregarded the technical advice they used to give in Google Help. Changing account names, titles and URLs screws up websites and accounts and hurts search results. Their CPU hungry graphics and scripts slow loading to a crawl, cause excessive buffering and synchronisation problems, browser freezing, and severely impair user experience. The hacking of browsers and disabling of private browsing to enable data-mining by the likes of DoubleClick does not seem to have slowed despite Google having to pay $17 million dollars for hacking Safari web browsers. The consumers whose browsers were hacked and whose data was compromised were never compensated - so where's my payment? Only Apple received the proceeds from the slap-on-the-wrist.
The hacking of Safari browsers defeated Safari's "Private Browsing" feature and destroyed anonymity. The Electronic Freedom Foundation Asked Virginia's Supreme Court to Take Anonymous Speech Seriously, noting that anonymous speech, including in customer reviews, are necessary for a free society. What Google's Doubleclick did was even worse that destroying anonymity. It enables Doubleclick to track Apple Computer users browsing habits across the web.. They then facilitated third parties to "...see which account on a social network is yours. They can then just go to your profile page, record its contents, and add them to your file. Of the 12 social networks surveyed in this paper, only one (Orkut) didn't leak any personally identifying information to third parties." Google's Doubleclick is far from alone in the rush to invade the privacy of and data-mine its users. Now, according to the SociaTimes, there has been a Global Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Facebook in Europe for tracking its users on external sites and aiding the NSA's "surveillance and data-mining program, Prism".
     On July 23rd, 2014 I came across an article titled A T & T, Chernin Group close to deal to buy YouTube network Fullscreen -tech blog | Reuters. If ever there were a case for declaring YouTube a common carrier, demanding Net Neutrality and that the anti-discrimination requirements of United States code and the Constitution prevail rather than YouTube's arbitrarily interpreted, vague and changeable "Terms of Service", the potential acquisition by AT & T should make the case for non-discrimination crystal clear.
     Sadly if the FCC fails to enforce net neutrality, bandwidth will go to the highest bidders, and little schnooks like us will have to put up with excessive buffering and poor internet service. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been fighting a lonely battle trying making net neutrality enforceable. Wish her luck.
Here's an Adorable Song by Emma Blackery (From Emma Blackery's YouTube Channel) titled:   "My  Thoughts on Google+".

     So far Google seems to have turned a deaf ear to criticism both of its discriminatory censorship and of its coercive attempts to make YouTubers get Google+ accounts, disregarding all of the following:
An article by VioletBlue: Forced Google Plus integration on YouTube backfires;
YouTubers give revamp thumbs down | crave.cnet.co.uk;

YouTube co-founder Jawed Karin slammed Google for requiring a Google + account to comment on YouTube. asking: "Why the fuck do I need a google account to comment on YouTube?" He subsequently changed the icon on his YouTube channel to an image saying "google+ SUCKS". YouTube then censored (removed) Jawed Karin's icon!. Having seen that Google has a turned a deaf ear to YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim, it would seem the chances of any of us little schnooks getting their attention are somewhere between slim and none.

Is Google violating its settlement with FTC in the course of its bundling integration of Google+ and YouTube?

Google is already being investigated by the European Commission's antitrust unit for anti-competitive tactics. and the business community has taken note:
Google Plus Creates Uproar Over Forced Integration | Forbes.com;
Feds to Launch Antitrust Probe of Google - WSJ.com;

     It would appear to me that from Google's point of view money trumps both free speech and privacy as well. Here are a few more articles that I feel illustrate that:
From articles in The Guardian: Google pays 37 US States 17 million settlement to US States and a 22.5 million fine to FTC for hacking Mac Safari via DoubleClick. Here's an article in appleinsider on the settlement. Note how the users themselves were never paid a dime for having had their computers and privacy invaded. A few more articles:

Via Sarah Silbert  at Engadget:  Google to pay $17 million as penalty for unauthorized web tracking in Safari.  Where's my compensation?
From Dailydot.com: Could a Google+ security flaw take down your YouTube page with no warning?
Google's recent YouTube fiasco isn't just about privacy | USA Today
Google's Relentless Campaign to Make Google+ Work Becomes YouTube's Problem  | Time.com.

     Google's business tactics, straying far from its former "Don't be  evil" motto, have earned the company some well deserved scorn:

Google's tactics in trying to snooker people into signing up for a Google+ account were satirised with a Washington Post article on YouTube/Google+'s bait and switch campaign featuring a nofollow"> bait and switch baby GIF done via  i.imgur.com

I enjoyed watching the video Wilhelmina: Show Your True Self - YouTube

I would love to be able to say YouTube, Google, Flickr, Facebook et al apologise when the discriminatory and wrongful censorship they have perpetrated is brought to their attention, but they don't and I can not. These internet behemoths tend to ignore even legal demands to cease and desist from slandering people. It is that inclination to ignore requests to cease and desist from slander after the facts are brought to their attention that resulted in Google losing in court when an Australian man sued them for defamation.
     It is not just photos and videos that are being wrongfully censored here in the supposedly once free United States of America. The NCAC ran an article noting that the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression is Preparing for Banned Books Week 2014 (September 21-27). The most challenged/top censored book on the American Library Association's annual list this year is Dav Pilkey's "Captain Underpants".
       Some bloggers and YouTubers have fought back and shamed Instagram into apologising for censoring their underwear photos:
     Instagram apologised to Meghan Tonjes after she launched a public campaign and posted a video documenting the discrimination. The video was titled: Dear Instagram. (F.A.T) @Instagram - YouTube. It's had over 700,000 views. Here is her video embedded:
     Thanks to YouTube's insistence on having a Google+ account to comment most of the "top" comments to the video have been made by trolls (Google+ enables trolls and discourages thoughtful commenters). 
     Here are some examples of the kind comments Google+ ENCOURAGES by making them top comments: 
     Mih Machado: "Your concepts are all fucked up. Don't lie to yourself, you are SICK your body is a piece of shit" 
     Antonello Mei "Shut up and go to the gym."
     Jaja banks "she a hoe" 
     MrJusttestinghere "Stay off social media. Problem solved." 
     MartinLara1947 "Well said" 
     I don't think it's a stretch to speculate that the troll sock-puppets that Google+ elevates to top comment status are indicative of the kind of entities that are false-flagging videos to get them taken down.  
     Instagram did not learn their lesson. Instagram wound up having to issue another apology and reinstate the account of Samm Newman who had posted photos of herself in her underwear. Samm had to take her case to her local News station in order to make her case, as social media sites are notoriously unresponsive to complaints of wrongful censorship. There was a lot of press coverage about the censorship, apology and reinstatement. Social media would do well to take heed of articles like this one in GirlTalkHQ about censorship hurting body image. Too often it takes a lot of bad press to get media giants to back off individual cases of wrongful censorship. 
     Here are a few more articles about Samm Newman's underwear photos being censored: 
     Do you think Google and YouTube censor everyone equally? Think again. As Meghan Tonjes stated, women who are slim or pleasantly shaped can generally flaunt their bare bottoms as much as they want. 
     YouTube employs different levels of high-handed censorship, One of their most often employed censorship tools is "restricting" viewing of the videos. Whilst Google's YouTube claims that they are restricting the videos to over-18 viewers, they do not operate the way most over eighteen sites do. Most adult sites merely require the would be viewer to click a button under a statement stating that they are over 18. Unlike those sites, Google's YouTube unethically requires viewers to have an account and sign in, presumably to try to increase the number of people they can claim as account holders whilst also keeping a record of their interests.

     Google also censors and/or restricts images of me male modeling (back view) ladies full coverage panties. Capricious and arbitrary censorship by social media corporations is completely out of hand. According to the Wikipedia article on arbitrary censorship, blogger Mike Linksvayer "posited that free content licenses such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike are voluntary repeals of one's ability to  arbitrarily claim the right to prohibit the distribution, modification or commercialization of a creative work." in his post titled "Retaining the right to censor is an act of hate". He in turn links to the Electronic Frontier Foundation article Say No to Online Censorship!

     Rihanna's 'S&M' Video was Restricted by YouTube but the video, "...poking fun at the ball-gag wearing media" but MTV, to it's credit, chose to run the video unedited.
     As the American Civil Liberties Union points out in their page on Internet Censorship: "... freedom of speech online continues to be threatened..." "...the government has no right to censor protected speech on the Internet, and it cannot reduce adults to hearing and seeing only speech that the government considers suitable for children."
     Unfortunately both governments and corporations are blocking, filtering and restricting sites and content broadly and arbitrarily. The Open Rights Group asks "Is your site blocked by UK ISP filters?"

     After links and directly typed to this blog at http://www.full-brief-panties.blogspot.com were intercepted and redirected by my service provider I started wondering whether my blog URL gets blocked by other ISPs and how much of what I see is being filtered.


I wondered whether there have been updates for these articles on Widespread Hijacking of Search Traffic in the United States and An update on Paxfire and search redirection.
Oct. 1st, 2014 UPDATE on ISP censorship via intercept (images):
The following intercept censorship event occurred when, while already viewing my own blog at http://www.full-brief-panties.blogspot.com/  I clicked on the title of this blog post at http://www.full-brief-panties.blogspot.com/2014/08/thank-you-to-commenters-rant-on.html. These intercepts by my service provider have been occurring more and more frequently. Something has to be done to stop this kind of out-of-control internet censorship.



     Occasionally when those who have been censored happen to own media outlets they manage to be heard about it. On 4 July 2014 Mail Online published an article titled: "Google backs down in censorship row".
     Apparently, however, Google's YouTube has nothing but contempt for the bloggers who use their platforms.

     Eight of my YouTube videos are currently "restricted", requiring people to "sign in" to view them, and two of my videos were removed and replaced with slanderous statements about me and my videos. Although the preview icon for the "Featured" video on my YouTube channel (Mister_Panty_Buns-loves-having-Hanes-Women's-Nylon-Panties-on) is visible you cannot watch it on YouTube without signing in because it is "restricted". It can, I believe, still be watched embedded here without signing in.
UPDATE: In addition to slandering me, lying about my customer lingerie review videos, censoring my videos and restricting the viewing of them, YouTube has stooped to censoring the fact of the popularity of the "Featured Video" on my YouTube channel, by artificially manipulating the view-count downward AGAIN.  Here is the YouTube video embedded:
     So far one doesn't have to sign in to watch it on VEOH TV

Watch MOV-Mister_Panty_Buns-loves-having-Hanes_Her_Way-Womens-Nylon-Brief-Panties-on.AVI in Entertainment  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
     Here is a photo of me in the blouse and panty outfit of the day that YouTube restricted the viewing of.
     My customer lingerie review video taken modeling this lingerie fashion outfit of the day featuring full coverage briefs and no sexual content whatsoever was restricted by YouTube!
     Compare that image with the video thumbnails of women in lingerie videos that YouTube does not restrict, showing them as "you may also like" to people who view my video titled "MOV-Customer-Lingerie-Review-Vanity_Fair-Ravissant-full_briefs.AVI".



Being seen in public in ones underwear, in photos, videos, in newspapers, magazines, on billboards, and on television has become commonplace and yet some Social Media sites still cave in to pressure to censor it, particularly if the wearer is overweight or if their gender doesn't match the common gender association of their underwear.
The many underwear in public events, some of which I have written about on this blog, are generally not censored as much. Here s a list of some of those events. You can read about some of them in my earlier posts:
The No Pants Subway Ride In January;
Cupid's Undie Run "in your bedroom best on Valentine's Weekend.";
The Shamrockin' Underwear Run kicking off the Saint Patrick's Day weekend in the Crescent City New Orleans; 
2014 Underwear Run in Central Park, New York City on August 1st, 2014 starting at 7:30 PM;
National Underwear Day. organised by Freshpair. Last year's event was on August 5th, 2014 in Times Square in Manhattan;
Here's an article on the Undie Run - Wikipedia and their website http://undierun.com/.


     Celebrities in their underwear rarely get censored. The Frisky published photos of 26 Celebs In Sheer Clothing. Among the 26 celebrities in the media spotlight photographed in their  sheer couture were:
Katy Perry,
Gaia Weiss and
Candice Boucher.

     The list of celebrities out in public and on stage in lingerie is a long one and includes Lady gaga, Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian, Madonna, Rihanna, Shakira, and many many many more, but does this cause haters and prudes to hesitate from false flagging everyday people from doing lingerie reviews or posting underwear selfies? Nooooooo. The haters, bigots and prudes never rest from trying to make social media an instrument in implementing their own myopic desire for controlling everyone else. Unfortunately social media sites all too often accede to their demands. That doesn't stop the supermarket tabloids from publishing the photos though. (Example: Daily news article titled "Kelly Osborn bares her bottom in racy thong photo posted to Instagram" ).
      The NY  Daily News and published this "cover art" photograph of Nicki Minaj's bare bottom in an article about the delay of Nicki's single 'Anaconda'. The same photo showing Nicki Minaj's bare bottom was featured in a Feministing article titled "Micki Minaj's butt and the politics of black women's sexuality". Nicki Minaj posted this same photo showing her entire bare bottom as the profile icon for her Twitter, @NICKIMINAJ. She also posted it on Instagram and received over 300,000 "Likes" on the photo. The photo featuring Nicki's bottom was also featured in the Billboard article Nicki Minaj Previews Syeamy 'Anaconda' Video, Unleashes Full Track. So how is it that a man wearing ladies full brief panties with his entire bottom covered gets censored? There can be no other plausible explanation other than blatant bigoted sex discrimination.

.jpg (not restricted).   
      The Nicki Minaj - Anaconda Official Music Video Snippet uploaded by Nicki Minaj Tv
shows Nicki Minaj twerking in black briefs.
     Meanwhile, YouTube issued a "STRIKE" against my account for the customer review video of the full coverage shapewear panty brief featured in in my post titled: "Lbloggers Fbloggers OOTD and Review of Maidenform Flexees Shapewear Panty Briefs". The full coverage Maidenform Flexees Shaper Panty in the video that YouTube issued a "Strike" against my account for covered my bottom completely. The conclusion after comparison is inescapable. YouTube's censorship of my video was a hate-motivated act of blatant sex-discrimination as defined in the United States Code. Even if they acted at the behest of someone else they are at this point an accessory at least and acting in bad faith. Since I already requested that they "Cease and Decist" from slandering me, pointed out the fact that what they  are saying is false and they have declined to desist, they can be sued for that continuing slander. The high-handed manner in which social media corporations treat their users is unconscionable.

UPDATE #2 An August 20th 2014 Billboard article Nicki Minaj's Smoking-Hot 'Anaconda' Video Arrives Online | Billboard features the same pinup photo of Nicki Minaj  along with the embedded video Nicki Minaj - Anaconda - YouTube.

     YouTube is guilty of SEX DISCRIMINATION.

     Despite the rant against discriminatory social media censorship you can still find me (at the moment anyhow) at:

I stopped uploading my lingerie review photos and videos to my account on Photobucket (also gobbled up by Google) due to unpredictable, arbitrary and wrongful censorship.
     I had considered uploading this image to Photobucket

to replace a photo that Photobucket censored (of me male-modeling  Vanity Fair turquoise full briefs).
UPDATE: Jezebel published an article titled: "Nicki Minaj's Ass, Bent on World Domination, Gets Censored by Apple". The article asks: "Still, do black women need parental advisory stickers for the beach too?" At least she didn't have her video taken down and a strike issued against her account the way YouTube wrongfully did to me.
Another UPDATE: as of September 30th, 2014 Nicki Minaj's video Ananconda on YouTube is still not restricted, and has over 215 million views and over 1,100,000 "Likes", whilst my video Mister_Panty_Buns-loves-having-Hanes-Women's-Nylon-Panties-on is not only restricted, but YouTube has still refused to remove the "strike" wrongfully placed against my account for the video embedded (and censored) from my post titled: "Lbloggers Fbloggers OOTD and Review of Maidenform Flexees Shapewear Panty Briefs". 

Please feel free to leave links to your fashion, beauty, lifestyle and social media related blogs along with your COMMENTS BELOW


Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Shadowline and Victorias Secret Lingerie Fashion OOTDs and Reviews with Dressing Room Selfie Photos and Video with Blooper


    An alternate title for this post could be: Victoria's Secret Ruffled Babydolls paired with Shadowline Underwear For Women (Part 1). 
     I had originally intended this to be even more of an epic post on Shadowline's Style 17042 full coverage nylon brief panties than it already is. I had planned to include photos and embedded videos showcasing each of the five colours I have purchased them in: White, black, custom dyed pink, yellow and blue both all both with and without the optional extra lace at the leg-bands I ordered through Satin Rose Intimates,  Who knows, maybe I will yet complete the post in a "Shadowline Underwear For Women Part 2".  Between the time I started writing the post(s) and now, I ordered Shadowline panties from three different retailers including the custom dyed briefs with and without extra lace added around the legs. Unfortunately just recently I dropped my camera and it broke. Since I had only taken a limited number of photos (selfies in blue with no lace and pink with extra lace) and am unsure how long it will be before I purchase and get up to speed with a new camera I've decided to combine posts again. Obviously I'll have to  limit the photos and videos to the ones I had taken and uploaded to my computer before I clumsily dropped and broke my camera. I had also purchased three blouses to style with the briefs which I guess I'll have to style in a subsequent outfit(s) posts. Even though I've included most of the text of what was to be the next post in this one I'm still considering doing a second post on Shadowline full briefs within the next few months. 

     1) The text describing the first two out of three recent shopping experiences at a Victoria's Secret store; 
     2) Lingerie fashion haul , OOTD and PHOTOS (would you call some of them blooper photos?) 
     3) An embedded selfie customer lingerie review video with blooper  which might be a candidate for posting under http://www.reddit.com/r/cringe/ or http://www.funnyordie.com/Mister_Panty 
     4) The text describing the third of my three recent visits to a particular Victoria's Secret store; 
     5) The text of my review of the Shadowline style 17042 nylon full brief panties with Links to the places where I purchased the full briefs in the lingerie fashion haul and styled in my OOTD selfies photos and video, and for (hopefully) the next post (Part II) as well;  
     6) A thank you to lingerie companies who carry Shadowline briefs for following me on Twitter and their links; 
     7) LINKS TO THE BLOGS of the Fbloggers, Lbloggers, Bbloggers and fashionistas WHO COMMENTED ON MY LAST POST which was titled "Bali Skimp Skamp Briefs and Warner's Modern Briefs Reviews
     8) My plea, shamelessly begging for your comments on this post on Victoria's Secret Ruffle Babydolls with custom dyed Shadowline Briefs. 

     I feel I should apologise to Peet of the blog For Peet's Sake for my repeated use of the word "selfie" in this post. The reason the apology is warranted becomes clear if you read Peet's March 24, 2014 blog post titled: "For Peet's Sake: It's Self-Portrait, You Dumb Fuck!"  
       Now for the post itself!  

     I wasn't always complimentary of Victoria's Secret in the past,, occasionally going on long rants about their use of overly thin models.  Although I have highlighted individual lingerie fashion pieces they carry I had refrained from buying some of them because I couldn't tell what they would look like on someone with a normal body.
     What I had failed to include in my previous posts mentioning Victoria's Secret is that all the memories I have of shopping in-store at different brick and mortar Victoria's Stores are happy ones. Years ago I had briefly visited a Victoria's Secret store in the Bridgehampton Commons in Bridgehampton, Long Island, NY, and the store's manager had waited on me. She was so sweet and accommodating that I felt terribly guilty for not buying the Chiffon Flyaway Babydoll  she suggested, even though that particular piece wasn't exactly what I was looking for. It was the polite helpfulness that I had encountered from the store's manager years earlier that made me want to return to this Victoria's Secret store again. 
      Quite recently I had some wonderful lingerie shopping experiences at that same Victoria's Secret store. It was immaculately clean and well stocked with very well organised neatly arranged apparel. All of the women working at the store in the Bridgehampton Commons (Long Island, NY) were friendly, polite and helpful. 
On my first recent visit I homed in on the same area of the store and noticed some pretty babydolls with white satin bows and ruffled hems. They didn't the have puffy sleeves I normally look for and I was unable to find the sizes on the tags. After ascertaining that I might be in some need of assistance, a very polite, helpful young woman made herself available to answer any questions I might have. She was very polite, accepting of me, loved fashion herself, found out what my tastes were (we both like Betsey Johnson's fashions), and took me on a brief look around the store. She then checked the sizes on the tags of the babydolls I had initially taken an interest in for me. The biggest size they carried was a large. 
     Even though I'd let her know I was a size 18-20 (1X-2X) she offered to let me try it on in one of their lovely dressing rooms. After she held up an Dream Angels Ruffle-Trim Babydoll in Bright Apricot for me up so I could see the width at the chest, I took her up on her very considerate offer and she unlocked a dressing room for me. 
     The Victoria's Secret locking dressing rooms were fabulous, very clean and had gorgeous spotlessly clean full length mirrors both on the dressing room door and covering the entire wall opposite the door, so a person could get a good look at how they looked from the rear without having to twist around to see. They also had an ottoman to sit on and a rack to hang up ones clothes on. 
     I had my camera with me and was wearing a custom dyed blue pair of Shadowline nylon full briefs. Seeing the set-up of the dressing room and those lovely mirrors I just couldn't resist taking some selfies in the Victoria's Secret Ruffled Babydoll and Shadowline full briefs panties I was already wearing. It took a while because I wasn't used to taking selfies in a mirror. 
     I resisted the urge to "accidentally" lock myself out of the dressing room in just the lingerie when I was finished, let her know the babydolls fit me beautifully and bought a black babydoll as well as the babydoll in Bright Apricot. At checkout I initially forgot to sign, and then, flustered and blushing slightly, absent-mindedly left my credit card behind. She sweetly set it aside for me. I noticed I'd left it when I went to order more custom dyed briefs with extra lace the next day. 
     Naturally I had to return to Victoria's Secret for my credit card. I hadn't purchased the blue or mint coloured babydolls so, thinking ahead what colour full briefs would style nicely with mint or blue, I wore a pink pair of Shadowline nylon full briefs with extra lace for my second visit. A different young woman waited on me, and though I didn't feel the rapport I did on the first visit she was still very polite, helpful and accomodating. I learned that it was the birthday of the woman who had assisted me on my previous visit. On this visit to the dressing room I took some more selfies, and then tried making a selfie lingerie review video in the dressing room mirror. After two attempts at making a customer lingerie review selfie video in the Victoria's Secret dressing room the camera's batteries started going dead and I didn't have any spare batteries with me. If the battery hadn't run out of power for the camera I would have taken more photos and videos until I got some better ones, because the two I took were a bit cringe-worthy.  
     After paying for the babydoll, thanking the woman who helped me, and driving home, I uploaded the photos and videos to my computer and took a closer look at them. Do you think that the video(s) qualify as being "blooper" videos, and that many of the blurry photos to could fall under that classification as well? Obviously I did, hence the inclusion of the word "blooper" in the title of this post!  


     If you're so inclined, please let me know in your comments below which out of all the photos is your favourite - (they have numbers at the end of their titles).  
     Here are the photos of my first and second hauls of full briefs and babydolls,   some of the selfie photos from the dressing room with some commentary and the embedded selfie blooper video I took in the Victoria's Secret dressing room, all of which I had uploaded to my computer before I clumsily dropped and broke my camera: 



     You can get a good look at the lovely extra lace at the leg=bands of the briefs and also see the superior design of the panties' cotton lined gusset in this close-up photo.
     Some of the dressing room selfies from the first of my three recent visits to Victoria's Secret wearing a Victoria's Secret Bright Apricot Ruffle Babydoll and Shadowline Nylon Full Briefs custom dyed S.R.I. (Satin  Rose Intimates) Blue: 

Except for the fact that the flash is obscuring my face, this is probably my favourite from amongst the selfies I took. The bright apricot orange of the babydoll, the excellent design and tailoring of the cotton lined mushroom shaped  full gusset, the sheen of the Opacitrique nylon fabric, and the custome dyed Satin Rose Intimates Blue colour of the full briefs all show up beautifully in this photo.   

This photo is probably my second favourite from the dressing room selfie sessions. I love the ruffles at the hem of the babydoll. 

This photo was taken without flash. I took most of the rest of the photos with no flash, but that meant the shutter speed was slower and any movement caused the photo to be blurry. If you think this photo was blurry you should see some of the others I didn't include in this post. 

This selfie came out fairly clear and you can see my face as I'm stupidly looking into the viewfinder of the camera instead of looking into the observer's eyes via the reflection in the big beautiful mirror I'm taking the photo of. 
     I took a lot more dressing room selfie photos (and two selfie videos) on the second of my three visits to Victoria's Secret wearing a Victoria's Secret purplish-blue Ruffle Babydoll and Shadowline nylon full briefs custom dyed Satin Rose Intimates Pink with added extra lace at the legs. Normally I need to take about 50 photos to come up with two to four good ones. Unfortunately the battery ran too low and I never got to the good photos, so here are some lingerie outfit photos that should have ended up on the cutting room floor unused. Even though I'm not happy with them I decided to go ahead and use them anyway because I wanted to get a post done:  

     I love the way the camera flash helps showcase the satin sheen of the Opacitrique opaque nylon fabric of the Shadowline Style 17042 Full Briefs. 


      Do these panties make my butt look big? The photo is a bit blurry but as you  can see the Opacitrique nylon of the panty is opaque, and tell that the ruffly extra lace trim of the panties maintains its ultra feminine look when stretched. The length of the babydoll is perfect, not showing my back when I bend over but not covering the briefs up when standing. 

     A relatively clear photo with my face visible and even looking in the right direction! Even though I've gotten out of shape I think my arms and shoulders tend to make me look too masculine. That's why I prefer blouses and babydolls that have puffy sleeves when I can find them. I love the pink colour, generous gusset and extra-feminine ruffly lace of this pair of ladies panties. 


     The electronic security device can be seen hanging down below the hem of the babydoll and the leg-band lace of my panties in this photo. (blooper

     This photo was close to being one of my favourites. I was looking a little sideways at the camera in the mirror and my pinkie got into the photo though I managed to I crop most of it out. I  also think my arm looked a little too big and masculine. It's good I didn't flex. Other than that you can see that the babydoll and panty are both very pretty. 

     In these lat two OOTD photos I'm standing up rather than kneeling on the ottoman. The drawback of standing rather than kneeling is that it was harder to make sure I was entirely in the photograph and to keep still for the longer shutter-speed to avoid blurriness. 

     This photo was aimed too high and I moved so it blurred. On the left side of the photo (and in each of the dressing rooms) there is a Victoria's Secret pink Pink T-Shirt to try on if one wants. They must be popular. 

This was one of the only photos I took semi-standing where I stood far enough from the mirror (and close enough to the dressing room door) to fit entirely into the frame without the photo coming out too blurry from me moving and not using flash. I love the femininity of this outfit of the day.

All of these photos of me male-modeling the Shadowline Nylon Full Brief Panties and Victoria's Secret Ruffle Babydolls are released by me into the public domain and may be shared and republished.
3) AN EMBEDDED SELFIE CUSTOMER LINGERIE REVIEW VIDEO perhaps better described as a BLOOPER SELFIE FASHION VIDEO which might be a candidate for posting under http://www.reddit.com/r/cringe/ or Funny or Die (feel free to share it there or anywhere else for that matter).
Cringe-Worthy Fbloggers Dressing Room Selfie Video Lingerie Fashion OOTD Review with Blooper



While I was making this "selfie" customer lingerie review video in the mIrror of the Victoria's Secret dressing room I didn't feel nearly as relaxed as I had on my previous visit, when the woman who had assisted me had been the one who suggested I try the babydoll on and had been so accepting, helpful and reassuring. I had trouble keeping the camera lined up, hadn't rehearsed any lines, and kept forgetting the name of the brand of panties I was wearing. There were women outside the dressing room as I was taking the selfies and I could hear them talking, so I was trying not to be two loud. The nervousness in my voice as I was making this selfie customer lingerie video is clearly audible and women's voices outside the dressing room can be heard faintly in the background. Just to clarify where I may have misspoken slightly in the video: The briefs are opaque satiny Shadowline style 17042 Opacitrique Nylon Full Brief Panties from Satin Rose Intimates, custom dyed S.R.I. Pink with the optional extra lace at the legs. I paired it with a Victoria's Secret Ruffle Babydoll purchased in-store. I misspoke when I called it a "Babydoll top".
TRANSCRIPT: "In this customer lingerie review and outfit of the day video, I'm male-modeling and reviewing a pair of Satin Rose Intimates custom dyed Shadowline Panties in Satin Rose Pink with extra lace. I'm also, I've paired it with a Victoria's Secret Ruffle Babydoll top. Um, This selfie customer lingerie review is released into the public domain. Please feel free to share it everywhere."
     After my second visit to this particular Victoria's Secret store I looked up    
Victoria's Secret babydolls online and liked the Victoria's Secret Dream Angels Ruffle Babydoll, and the Victoria's Secret Dream Angels Ruffle Chiffon Babydoll in Hibiscus Garden Floral Print.
     4) The text describing the third of my three recent visits to a particular Victoria's Secret store;

      I made one more visit to the same Victoria's Secret store (in Bridgehampton) on "No Pants Day", Friday May 2nd, 2014. I had been shopping nearby and cruised past the Victoria's Secret store looking at it longingly. I saw the same nice young lady who helped me on my first recent visit to the store time looking out the window waiting for customers. I tried to muster my courage to go in with fantasies of a wonderful "No Pants Day" opportunity. Then I thought to myself that three visits  in two weeks might seem like too much, that I might come off as being pervy, chickened out and started driving home. Then I thought about the babydolls I'd seen online on Victoria's Secret's website. I had seen a floral babydoll with puffy shouldered short sleeve. That thught overcame my lack of courage and I turned around and drove back to the store to see if any babydolls had been stocked in Mint, Red or Floral.
     I found one size Large Ruffled Babydoll in pink. That same young woman who had assisted me on my first recent visit recognised me right away, was sweet, and asked if she could help me. I told her I hadn't done a post with the Victoria's Secret babydolls yet, and she asked if I would tell her my lingerie fashion blog's URL again because she'd forgotten. I wrote down my blog, YouTube, Twitter and BuzzFeed URLs for her:
- but I forgot to give her my Funny or Die URL:
       I told her about the First Friday in May being "No Pants Day", and asked if she'd seen any trouserless people.  She hadn't heard about it or seen any. When I meekly asked whether she would consider photographing me for a "No Pants Day" post if I came out of the dressing room in babydoll and panties she said she would be worried about keeping her job if someone came into the store  at that moment. I said I understood and dropped the subject. Little did I know at that point that when I had dropped my camera earlier it had broken and wouldn't have worked anyway. I didn't want her to feel uneasy, so I said that since the babydoll was the same style and size as the others I had bought there previously I probably didn't have to try it on. Sadly she agreed ;((  So I wound up not even trying the babydoll on, much less coming back out of a dressing room into the store to check out in my panties as a No Pants Day outfit.

     I  bought pink ruffle babydoll and got a free Victoria's Secret catalog. I told her I hoped her birthday had been a happy one and that her birthday wishes come true. In fact I totally chickened out of participating in "No Pants Day" all together, not just there but everywhere else too, and so another excellent opportunity for helping me realise my fantasy of being the world's most famous male panty model went to waste. Even so, my experiences shopping at Victoria's Secret were all extremely pleasant ones.
      If you're ever in the vicinity of Bridgehampton, NY,  I highly recommend shopping at the Victoria's Secret in the Bridgehampton Commons. The store is beautiful and its staff are extremely courteous and helpful. Even if they don't have exactly what you want the shopping experience there is fabulous.
     The panties I'm reviewing and male modeling in the photos above are SH17042 Shadowline Full Brief Nylon Panties from Satin Rose Intimates.
     Full cut full coverage retro style full brief panties are often referred to as "granny panties". Unfortunately there are times I've seen that term used in a dismissive manor out of ignorance rather than in the affectionate appreciative way many of us feel about them. Attitudes have been changing what with full retro style briefs coming more and more into vogue along with the sheer couture that puts lingerie on display. Sometimes described as having retro or vintage styling, the classic full briefs I love usually have a high rise but are not high cut. My view is that if a panty is not full coverage then it is not classically cut. I prefer a rise of 8 to 11 inches (measured from the gusset to the waist) and side seams (measured from the leg holes to the waist) of seven to nine and a half inches.
     One impediment to the manufacture of what I consider "perfect panties" occurs when lingerie companies mistakenly cater to people who don't like underwear in the first place and don't want to look like they're wearing it. They hate panty lines. I am not one of those people. I love lingerie! In addition to its practical function, the gusset of a panty is a desirable fashion feature that contributes both to the looks of the panty and to a good fit. The gusset, in my opinion, should be an integral part of the design of the patterns used for the tailoring. Unfortunately with many brands of panties it seems that tailoring has been given a back seat (sadly not a pun) to the speed and reduced costs of sewing straight seams or of substituting stretchier fabrics for good tailoring.
     I can't help but wonder whether the difference in cost for fabric that has a fine denier, good tight weave and high thread count versus more coarse fabrics is a factor. Could short term profits be more important to lingerie company executives than customer satisfaction and a long term reputation for quality?
     In the recent past it has been difficult finding this style of panties in vibrant feminine colours that not only look pretty on me, but that are comfortable and are made of a fabric having a high thread count of a fine denier Opacitrique nylon, resulting in that wonderful slippery soft feeling against my skin that I love so much.    
     It''s the combination of the looks, comfort and feel of well made panties like Shadowline that is why I love wearing ladies full brief panties like Shadowline so much.
     One reason I had not ordered that many pairs of Shadowline full briefs style 17042 in the past was that they were only made in white, ivory and black. I had previously ordered Shadowline Pants + Daywear Nylon Classic Brief Panty 17042 in white, size 6 from HerRoom and Shadowline Pants + Daywear Nylon Classic Brief Panty 17042 in black, size 5 from HerRoom
     Checking further, I found that one can also order three packs of these Shadowline Lingerie Nylon Classic Brief Panties Style 17042 directly via Shadowline's website in black, white, and ivory and also from ShopNational (The white briefs are the ones Satin Rose Intimates dyes in their custom colours).
     It was during the course of shopping for Carole full brief nylon panties that I noticed Satin Rose Intimates advertising Custom Dyed Panties on their website.
     I had liked both the tailoring of the gusset and the lace of the Carole briefs but custom orders take time and it would be important to me to make sure the briefs were the style with the softer nylon having a higher thread count rather than the somewhat more coarse style 845 Acetate briefs if I were going to place a custom order.
     Then, as I read further on the Satin Rose Intimates' website, I noticed that in addition to custom dyeing panties they also offer extra lace at the waist and the legs. Carole, Shadowline and Vanity Fair are some of the brands that they will custom dye in SRI pink, blue and yellow. I found the fact that they offer to sew extra lace onto the Shadowline briefs to very, very  tempting - so tempting that I just couldn't resist. I went ahead and ordered 6 pairs of Shadowline full brief nylon panties from Satin Rose Intimates - 2 each in S.R.I. pink, yellow and blue, and I went ahead and ordered extra lace at the legs and waists of the pink pairs. After receiving them I liked them so much that I ordered 2 more pairs each of blue and yellow, 3 pairs of the pink, and one each of black and white all with the optional extra lace at the leg-bands.           In the recent past it has been difficult finding this style of panties in vibrant feminine colours that not only look pretty on me. but that are comfortable and are made of a fabric having a high thread count of a fine denier nylon, resulting in that wonderful slippery soft feeling against my skin that I love so much. The company that makes Shadowline briefs, Velrose Lingerie, was a small family business started in 1914 in Philadelphia and has stayed a family business (third generation). Click here for the "about" link on the Shadowline Lingerie website.
     Here are some of the descriptions from the websites where I ordered pairs of these briefs:
      The Shadowline Pants & Daywear Nylon Classic Brief Panty 17042 description on HerRoom's website: "This classic nylon brief panty features a flexible fit that molds to your curves for the perfect fit. Made with Opacitrique nylon for a special soft matte finish. Flat elastic along waist and leg openings for less bulk. High rise. Full rear coverage. Sewn-in crotch. Please Note: This panty is made of Opacitrique 100% nylon satin tricot knit, which is a more opaque, modest fabric."
     "The Shadowline Pants & Daywear Nylon Classic Brief Panty 17042 features a flexible fit that molds to your curves for the perfect fit. Made of nylon with a cotton crotch lining. Shadowline's Pants & Daywear Nylon Classic Brief Panty features high-rise styling to cover more of your tummy."
     I purchased Shadowline Pants + Daywear Nylon Classic Brief Panties 17042 in black, size 5 and white size 6 from HerRoom.
     Quoting from Freshpair's website with respect to the Shadowline Nylon Classic Brief 17042: "Committed to exceptional quality and comfort, Shadowline delivers beautiful lingerie you can depend on. Made of silky nylon fabric, the Nylon Classic Brief features a comfortable high rise for more tummy coverage and a smooth seamless seat. Complete with covered elastic along the waist and leg bands, get the fit you want with Shadowline."
     Satin Rose Intimates has stepped up to fill the gap I had been waiting to see filled: Full cut full coverage quality nylon panties in the feminine colours of pink yellow and blue with lace at the leg-bands. I enthusiastically love wearing these panties and would love the whole world to be able to see for themselves how lovely they are.

6) I want to taking this opportunity to say THANK YOU TO LINGERIE RETAILERS WHO BOTH CARRY SHADOWLINE BRIEFS AND ALSO FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER. Many apologies to those of you I've left out of this list. I'm followed by a LOT of lingerie companies and retailers. HERE ARE A COUPLE OF THEIR LINKS::
Satin Rose Intimates' website and @SatinRose on Twitter;

     HerRoom's website,
     videos on HerRoom's YouTube Channel,
     and @HerRoom on Twitter
      Freshpair's website;
     videos on Freshpair's YouTube Channel;
      @Freshpair on Twitter

 7) LINKS TO THE BLOGS OF the Fbloggers, Lbloggers, Bbloggers and FASHIONISTAS WHO COMMENTED ON MY LAST POST which was titled "Bali Skimp Skamp Briefs and Warner's Modern Briefs Reviews". THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO:
Fashionista editor Couture Carrie of CC Loves, of Couture Carrie, and of Bikinis and Martinis Twitter @CoutureCarrie;
Acclaimed multiple award winning fashion bloggers Jade & Tara of the UK fashion and style blog THE STYLE RAWR! Twitter @TheStyleRawr;
The beautiful Camila Faria of Não Me Mande Flores Twitter @_CamilaF_ (twice!) ;
The pretty and popular fashion blogger from Poland Ania Zarzycka of the fashion blog Fashion with blog photos taken by her sister Klaudia;
To the vintage thrifting, fitness guru, dancer, boudoir spokesmodel and fashion blogger Shana Emily/Shana Dahan of ColorBlind now at http://www.colorblindblog.com/, , Shana Emily YouTube and Twitter @ShanaEmily;
gabusiek of Gabusiek bloguje
The recently married law and commerce accounting graduate, lawyer, feminine fashion and lifestyle blogger extraordinaire Imogen of Tia_Cherie;
The poetic, inspiring, dancing phenomenon RaeAbigael of RAELLARINA- The Ballerina on Fire , and  Raellarina's Channel - YouTube and Twitter @RaeAbigael
The recently engaged (and returning to blogging with updates) Miss Caitlin S. of Candyfloss and Persie Twitter @CaitieLady08;
The colourful queen of vintage, Vix of Vintage Vixen, Twitter @Vintage_Vix66, YouTube Vix Brearley, and curator (with her mate of 22 years, Jon) at Kinky Mellon's Retro Boutique;
The English + Philosophy student and fashion blogger Ina R. a.k.a. Carina from Dusseldorf, Germany who writes the blog BadTasteToast;
Houston fashion blogger MalibuMara of the fashion and lifestyle blog .MalibuMara., YouTube Malibu Mara TV and Twitter @MalibuMara
The pretty, witty, sometimes  self-deprecating UK fashion, beauty and lifestyle blogger Corinne of SKINNEDCARTREE.com, Twitter @bloggerforums with theTwitter hashtags #SocialBloggers #Fbloggers #Lbloggers #Bbloggers and YouTube Corinne C.  at http://www.youtube.com/user/skinnedcartree;
The sometimes controversial and always thought provoking fashionista and philosopher Peet and her blogging dog Leos, a.k.a. Mister Fartz of the blog For Peet's Sake and Twitter @4PeetsSake;
Note:      You can see all but one of my customer lingerie review videos on my YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/misterpantybuns. I have disabled comments on YouTube due to trolls and the requirement to join Google+ to comment. I have news for Google. There are plenty of trolls who have Google+ accounts. Why should I let the trolls comment on my videos when I can't even comment on my own videos without joining Google+? My total video views on YouTube are over 100,000 views and I suspect if I'd been allowed to comment my total video views would be way, way more than that. They already have well over 107,000 views if you count the one lingerie review video I deleted.
     You can also Tweet comments to me on Twitter where I am @Panty_Buns
Please free to share, embed and republish my videos and photos everywhere!

Should I  have simply walked from the dressing room into the store in babydoll and  panties on "No Pants Day" or better yet paid for the babydoll while wearing it and then driven home that way (with No Trousers on)?
Do you like frilly ultra-feminine fashions?
Which photo out of the ones in this post is your favourite? (they have numbers before the .jpg)
Which babydoll and which pair of panties do you like best ?
How do you think these panties and babydolls look on me?
Please don't be shy about commenting, and feel free to leave your Fbloggers, Lbloggers, Bbloggers and fashionista blog links with your comments below. Thanks!   :D