Ladies full brief panties by Dixie Belle, Vanity Fair, WinterSilks, Maidenform and others. Includes photos of the ladies panties male-modeled back view along with links to the panty retailers. Includes information about the comfort, feel, fit, looks, cut, fit of the ladies full briefs as well as the weaves and blends of the fabrics used in the different brands and styles of the various full brief panties.
It has been four months since my last Fbloggers Bbloggers Lbloggers post, and over a year since I made my last customer lingerie review video to embed on this lingerie fashion review blog, "Full Brief Panties".
Buying full brief panties and blouses has not been a problem for me because I am totally addicted to buying and wearing full brief panties!
The arduous process of finding pairs of panties that have enough favourable qualities for me to want to review them on this blog may have limited the number of brands I've reviewed to date, but hasn't slowed the pace of my buying panties for myself that I'd love to be seen in and may change as I discover other full coverage briefs.
I was a bit shy about having put on 30 pounds andwas having a hard time to getting up the nerve to take outfit photos and videos, but that is no excuse for failing to post. Needing a new camera has also slowed me down. Another lame excuse.
Another attempted excuse: Having eight of my videos wrongfully restricted to viewing by only viewers with YouTube accounts, having two of my videos wrongfully censored and or removed, and subsequently being maliciously slandered by Google's YouTube, all at the behest of bigots, trolls, prudes and other lying fucktards, took all the fun out of blogging and Vlogging for me. When adverse actions are taken against me because the gender association of my underwear doesn't match my gender, that is very blatantly sex discrimination. I even had a photo Deleted from Wikipedia by THIS FUCKTARD, who gave the reason as "Low-quality, unused personal photo. Out of scope." It falsely claimed the media is missing permission information despite said permission having been emailed to Wikipedia and accepted previously.
This gratuitous censorship really irked me as did a number of my comments on Disqus marked as spam. I do not, nor have I ever, accepted any compensation whatsoever for my photographs, videos, or blogging, and have absolutely no financial motive to spam. The primary thing that made me consider doing this post, and one of the reasons I decided to review full briefs in the first place, is something a woman asked me 43 years ago about me wearing ladies panties: She asked "What good is it if nobody sees them?" If you read the comments to my posts you'll find that the vast majority of women who have left comments on my blog think I should participate in underwear-in-public events and go ahead and get famous showing off the panties I so love to wear - so much so that I feel ashamed and embarrassed for being such a chicken, especially after seeing the bravery of full-figured models like Ashley Graham and all the fabulous people who have participated in Freshpair's National Underwear Day and Freshpair's Confidence Project. Kudos to Freshpair's Chloe Daniels (Twitter @FreshpairChloe)
It's long past time for me put aside my feelings of hurt and resentment over past wrongful sex-discrimination-based-censorship and wrongful restrictions on some of my previous videos (at the behest of bigoted prudes and trolls), overcome my insecurities about my age and being out of shape, and finally get around to posting reviews of some of these fashion blouses and classic full briefs. Ashley Graham and the Twitter Hashtags referenced below are good motivational encouragement. There's more on Ashley Graham further down in the post.
The backlog of full brief panties I've bought but not reviewed yet is HUGE, and is still growing. I have referenced some of them in my last few posts, and some were purchased relatively recently. I had been hoping to get into better shape before making more male-modeled customer lingerie review videos to upload to my YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/misterpantybuns and for embedding in posts on this blog (or sharing and republishing) further showcasing my blouse and panty hauls. There are full brief panties I took photos of myself wearing yet have failed to take customer lingerie review videos in. An easy example is these Shadowline full briefs custom dyed S.R.I. (Satin Rose Intimates) blue:
You may have read in my earlier post titled "Shadowline and Victorias Secret Lingerie Fashion OOTDs and Reviews with Dressing Room Selfie Photos and Video with Blooper" that I had purchased Shadowline Style 17042 Opacitrique Nylon Full Briefs custom dyed in Satin Rose Intimates yellow, blue and pink as well as some in white and black, both with and without extra lace trim. Sadly, Susan of Freshpair is retiring and is no longer custom dying panties in those lovely S.R.I. colours. I wish her a very happy retirement and only wish I'd purchased more custom dyed panties beforehand. I still haven't taken any photos or videos in the S.R.I. yellow Shadowline panties - or any of the multiple dozens of other briefs I've purchased since my last post.
One of my many excuses for not taking new videos is that the camera I took videos with broke.
One might think I'd bought myself enough pairs of ladies full brief nylon panties for the moment, but noooooooo... not me! I've been window shopping the intimates on the ShopNational website (among many many others).
Vanity Fair Perfectly Yours Ravissant Style 15712 Tailored Nylon Brief Panties are a brand and style that I have purchased in many different colours. I have been wearing this brand and style of panties throughout much of the winter, meaning to model and review them but never getting around to it. It's a shame so few people have seen them on me. On the plus side I love wearing them to bed at night. They are very comfortable and have a delightful slippery soft feel against my skin. This particular brand and style of full brief panties is one of many that would be an excellent candidate for featuring in an edited video, showing off the many different colours (and prints) I've purchased these panties in. In the videos I've made and uploaded so far, I had manually pushed the record button, lurched into the frame, and then lurched back out of the frame to turn the camera off when the reviews were done
. Here is one example of a video with me lurching into the frame and out again while reviewing a pair of these briefs (my apologies if you've already watched this one): MOV-Customer-Lingerie-Review-Vanity_Fair-Ravissant-full_briefs.AVI
As with all of the photos and videos of me modeling and reviewing panties, this video was released by me into the public domain and can be copied, shared and published everywhere.
In lingerie news, this pair of see-through panties made the news recently. Check out the stretch fishnet fabric of the back panel of the panties in this photo of the Body by Brinks Tropics turquoise lingerie set
Ashley Graham is making a big impact on the lingerie fashion industry - hopefully most of the other designers will pull their heads out of the sand and take notice of her success and the new trend in lingerie modeling!
I have to admit to still feeling miffed that YouTube removed (without permission and without notice) a popular video I uploaded for my post titled Lbloggers Fbloggers OOTD and Review of Maidenform Flexees Shapewear Panty Briefs and issued a strike against my account for it. If I had been female and wearing sheer briefs like the ones worn on the runway (see image below via POPSUGAR") I probably wouldn't have been bullied by YouTube the way I was.
img-Ashley_Graham-Addition_Elle-Lingerie-runway-show-at-NYFW.jpg
On the runway, fine with YouTube, and video shown around the world.
YouTube wrongfully removed my customer lingerie review video featuring these briefs, slandered me, and then wrongfully issued a strike against my account.
Hopefully I'll be getting it together and take some new photos and videos reviewing and showcasing some of the briefs and panties I've purchased before the year is out.
To the "British born bohemian beach bum leading a fashionable life in tropical Australia" Rachel-Beth of the blog The Daily Luxe and Twitter @TheDailyLuxe
If you'd like to check out more of my male-modeled full brief panty reviews, photos and videos, here are a few other places you can find me on the internet:
All of the photos and videos above were taken by me, I am the model in all of said photos and videos, I am over 18, and I RELEASE AND HAVE RELEASED ALL PHOTOS AND VIDEOS OF ME SHOWCASING AND/OR REVIEWING FULL BRIEF PANTIES INTO PUBLIC DOMAIN. PLEASE SHARE, RE-POST, PUBLISH AND REPUBLISH THEM EVERYWHERE!!! (No strings attached). I'd love it if they were broadcast on television, published on the covers of newspapers and magazines, and displayed on billboards everywhere. :D
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO INCLUDE LINKS to your fashion, beauty and lifestyle blogs WITH YOUR COMMENTS BELOW.
I love reading your comments, checking out your blogs, your youtube channels and your Tweets on Twitter.
After not doing a blog post since early August, I've finally gotten around to doing another post. It's way too wordy and long and should have been FOUR posts instead of lumping them together as one: A thank you to commenters, a makeup and cosmetics haul, a lingerie fashion OOTD and review recap for the year 2014, and the 14th annual No Pants Subway Ride 2015. I included a few makeup and outfit questions further down, and there are a couple of photos and embedded YouTube videos.
First of all, THANK YOU to all the fashion, beauty and lifestyle bloggers who commented on any of the blog posts I did in the year 2014! I am very grateful, love reading what you wrote, and tried to include your links below in the thanks for your comments on any or each of the posts I did in the year 2014 (only nine posts), so many of you will find your own links listed below more than once. My sincerest apologies if you were left out if I mangled your name info or links.
PLEASE CHECK OUT THE BLOGS OF ALL OF MY FABULOUS COMMENTERS!
The hard-working (multiple jobs) fashion blogger and online marketing intern Ina R. a.k.a. Carina of Bad Taste Toast from Düsseldorf, Germany who recently (Oct. 2014) moved to Australia;
An additional THANK YOU to all of the other fashionistas who have been so kind as to leave comment on posts in prior years as well!
Here are a few of the things I've neglected to blog about in 2014 and 2015:
In addition to all the blouse and panty fashion hauls and OOTDs I've neglected to photograph, take videos of, try on, model and review, some of which I mentioned in my last post, I haven't blogged about the Essentials The Master Set from e.l.f. Cosmetics:
Have you ever tried elf EyesLipsFace brand makeup or any of the other brands with vegan cruelty free products I listed above? If so, which are your favourites?
A briefs bit about the 14th Annual NO PANTS SUBWAY RIDE 2015:
On the 11th of January 2015, thousands of people in countries around the world once again took off their skirts and trousers, riding subways and trains with their underwear showing for the 14th Annual No Pants Subway Ride. Originally organized by Improv Everywhere, the event has been growing every year and garnered the attention of many television news stations. Although the news coverage has been considerable, there hasn't been much in the way of on-air underwear / lingerie fashion reviews of the briefs, bikinis and boxers on display.
The post-New York City N.P.S.R. meet-up and after party was scheduled to last from 4:15 PM - 11:30 PM and commenced near 35 East 13th St. Union Square and then inside Bar 13, where there was a cover charge of $10 cover and identification required showing 21 years old plus. Outside at Union Square there were television news crews set up ready to make stars out of some No Pants Subway Riders who were there in their undies.
NBC TV's coverage of the New York City No Pants Subway Ride was lacking or impinged upon by their early talk about the imminent red carpet appearances of celebrities for the Golden Globes which was scheduled to be on NBC later that evening.
It's unbelievable that I managed to chicken out of so many "No Pants" events considering the scads of photos and videos of myself male modeling and reviewing full briefs that I've published and released on this blog and on my YouTube channel. I knew enough in advance that I could have taken a taxi to the nearest (Queens, NY) meet-up location at the Unisphere in Flushing Meadow Park at Sunday Jan. 11th at 3 PM - so many lame excuses for not participating.
Additionally I've failed to take any new haul and outfit photos for new posts on this blog yet this year or to make and upload any new lingerie review videos to my YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/misterpantybuns. If and when I do, if my Twitter (@Panty_Buns) is working, I'll Tweet that I've done so.
Which pair of full brief panties do you like the best out of the blouse and panty hauls and outfits I both styled on this blog and reviewed and male-modeled in the customer lingerie review videos I uploaded to my YouTube channel?
Note: Two of my videos were false flagged were censored and removed and the view counts occasionally go backwards on the featured video, and many require signing in to watch :(
I've put on weight and presently weigh over 95 kilos and am getting really old.
Do you think I should I participate in an underwear-in-public event anyway?
If someday I don't manage to chicken out, which pair of full brief panties do you think I should wear and which should I have worn to the "No Pants Subway Ride"? Solid colour briefs or print?
There were a lot of videos posted of the no skirt or trousers events that took place in cities around the world. You check out some of the undies that people who actually participated in the ride and after-party were wearing in the following screenshot and YouTube video embeds by Improv Everywhere and by the New York Daily news:
Have you tried e.l.f. EyesLipsFace Cosmetics?
What brand(s) of vegan cruelty free makeup do you like best?
Should I participate in a No trousers event?
Which briefs do you like best?
Will you remember to leave a link to your blog below?
Thank you in advance for your comments!
Please feel free to leave links/URLs to your fashion, beauty and lifestyle blogs along with your COMMENTS BELOW
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.
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 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;
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Onward to my rant about SOCIAL MEDIA DISCRIMINATION and CENSORSHIP:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
. 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 aboutmy 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" onmy 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
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".
img-proof-of-YouTube-sex-discrimination.jpg
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 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" ).
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.
I stopped uploading my lingerie review photos and videos tomy 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.
I loved to model and review ladies high-waisted full-coverage full brief nylon panties+fantasised becoming the most famous panty model, seen everywhere - including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, all social media, movies TV+billboards. All photos and videos of me modelling full brief panties have been and are released by me into the public domain, and should all be considered "Labeled Free for Reuse". Please feel free to publish, re-publish.post, display and share them anywhere and everywhere without limitations.
