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 is National Underwear Day 2023!!!!!!
IS IT TIME TO SHOW MY PANTIES? :D
I apologise for having for the most part wimped out yet again.
Unlike many younger and braver souls I will probably not be physically
running around out in public somewhere with my panties on full display.
Before I get to the almost predictable re-uploaded and re-posted links and screenshots of myself modelling ladies nylon panties, hoping to compensate for in-person timidity,
here are a few informational links about this entertaining underwear-exposing holiday!
Regarding National Underwear Day | Freshpair:
(quoting from Freshpair's website):
"Freshpair® founded 'National Underwear Day 20 years ago on August 5th, 2003, as a way for everyone to embrace their underwear with confidence' 'In 2013 we invited thousands of people to Times Square to break the Guinness World Record for the largest gathering of people in their underwear.' 'National Underwear Day has been featured on CBS, Good Morning America, Fox News, Live with Kelly and Michael, The Huffington Post, and dozens more."
The following five images are screenshot grids each containing six video thumbnails from free for re-use videos of me modelling and reviewing ladies full coverage full brief nylon panties (back view only) arranged by upload date, from newest to oldest. I have included the video links for each of the panty review videos shown in the screenshots of the thumbnail photographs.
P.S.: I also not only Tweeted links to ALL of the videos above (along with free for re-use photos of myself in those pairs of ladies panties from each of the related blog posts on Twitter REPEATEDLY, but I also uploaded a collage of my panty-modelling photos for my Twitter Header photo!!!!!!
Here is the original of the header photo that I uploaded:
img-@Panty_Buns-Twitter-header-photo.jpg
... and how my Twitter header looked back on 7 November, 2021:
FREE FOR RE-USE!!!!!!
Attention bloggers, reporters, columnists, publishers, broadcasters, etc., etc., etc.:
Please feel free to make use of any and all images, photos and videos that are OF ME wearing, posing in, modelling, or available to be seen in ladies nylon panties ON THIS BLOG, on my Twitter (@Panty_Buns), in videos I uploaded to my (misterpantybuns's) YouTube channel, and anywhere and everywhere else, including old photographs, images, dvds, videotapes etcetera. They were all RELEASED BY ME into the PUBLIC DOMAIN (Labeled FREE for RE-USE) even before they were published.
They are ABSOLUTELY FREE to be emailed+shared, published posted+displayed uploaded, downloaded, re-uploaded, shared, posted, re-posted, published, re-published and distributed and displayed absolutely ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE,ANYWHERE, including, but not limited to in and on blogs, videos, online+print news, gossip and entertainment articles, magazines, posters fliers+billboards, movies, TV+streaming media and everywhere else. After all, what good is wearing especially pretty pairs of panties if nobody sees them? Please feel free to use and share them wherever and whenever you want (anywhere and everywhere)!!!!!!
After all, what good is wearing especially pretty pairs of panties if nobody sees them?
I triple dog dare you to try to make me as famous as you possibly can in my lovely ladies full brief nylon panties! Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah! :D
P.S.: I would love it if you Follow me and leave comments on
my YouTube (misterpantybuns's channel) and / or Follow and Tweet me on my Twitter @Panty_Buns!
P.P.S.: Please don't be shy with your comments, thoughts and suggestions!
P.P.P.S.: Please also feel free to leave links to your blogs, YouTube channel videos, Twitters (if Twitter still exists when you read this) and other social media accounts! xx
All photos and videos taken by me of myself modelling, posing in, or available to be seen wearing ladies full brief nylon panties were all irrevocably and forever RELEASED BY ME into the PUBLIC DOMAIN in real time as they were being created (including ANY and ALL of the videos I uploaded to my YouTube channel,
and to my Twitter media,
and anywhere and everywhere else, including on or in any old photographs, images, dvds, videotapes (consider this confirmation of my model releases).
Here are are twelve more photos and videos from my prior posts on this blog (all of which I have previously Tweeted publicly on Twitter) that you are free to use, share and publish:
Labeled Free for Re-Use:
Photo from my January 1st, 2013 blog post
A Briefs Update Part 4 - with Customer Lingerie Review Videos featuring me modelling and reviewing a pair of Warners Hibiscus-Petal-Pink No Muffin-Top Modern Brief Panties styled with a V-neck blouse by Alfani in the colour cornsilk yellow
Mister Panty Buns models and reviews Warners Hibiscus Petal Pink full briefs which was wrongfully restricted by YouTube (Sex Discrimination). In addition to slandering me across the internet, YouTube has violated antitrust law by attempting to claw this video back out of the Public Domain, claiming it is only available on YouTube when, in fact, the release into the public domain was made by me in real time as I made the video and is included in the transcript underneath (which YouTube hides from public view).
Labeled Free for Re-Use:
Photo from my 13, April, 2014 Fbloggers customer lingerie fashion two blouse+panty outfit and review lookbook post titled Bali Skimp Skamp Briefs and Warner's Modern Briefs Reviews, which included my embedded video titled
Lingerie Review Bali Intimates Skimp Skamp Full Brief Panties
featuring me modelling a fully opaque pair of Bali Skimp Skamp full brief panties from One Hanes Place styled with a Laura Scott Women's Plus Black Crinkled Peasant Blouse from Sears.
These panties have been shown being modelled on daytime television, yet YouTube, in a blatant act of sex discrimination. restricted the viewing of this video because my gender does not match the gender association of the apparel being reviewed.
Labeled Free for Re-Use:
Photo from my December 27th, 2015 post titled
A Flubbed Lingerie Fashion OOTD Review Video and Thank You Commenters
along with my video Flubbed lingerie fashion OOTD + review Pink K brand womens pink nylon panties with green peplum top - YouTube (in which I misspeak, accidentally calling the panties Pink brand instead of Pink K brand).
-------
My hope is that all photos and videos of me wearing ladies full brief nylon panties will be downloaded, uploaded and re-uploaded, emailed, shared, Tweeted, published, posted, ReTweeted, re-published, re-posted and displayed without limitations, absolutely ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE, including, but not limited to in and on blogs, videos, online+print news, gossip and entertainment articles, magazines, posters fliers+billboards, movies, TV+streaming media and everywhere else.
AFTER ALL, WHAT GOOD IS WEARING ESPECIALLY PRETTY PAIRS OF PANTIES IF NOBODY SEES THEM?
I triple dog dare you to try to make me famous in my panties!!!!!!
Which of the photos of me wearing ladies panties is your favourite?
What are your thoughts and suggestions?
Please don't be shy!
Please also feel free to leave links to your blogs, YouTube channels, Twitters and other social media!
All photos and videos that are OF ME wearing, posing in, modelling, or available to be seen in ladies full brief panties, whether on this blog,
in videos, (including any and all videos on my YouTube (misterpantybuns's) channel),
on my Twitter media,
and anywhere and everywhere else, including on or in any old photographs, images, dvds, videotapes (consider this a model release)
have all been, were, and are, all irrevocably and forever RELEASED BY ME into the PUBLIC DOMAIN, both at the time they were made and confirmed again right here and now.
They should be considered, and are in fact, all LABELED FREE FOR REUSE.
All are ABSOLUTELY FREE to be uploaded, downloaded, re-uploaded, shared, posted, re-posted, published, re-published and distributed and displayed ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE without limitations.
PLEASE FEEL FREE to share, publish, republish, distribute, post and display them ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE, including but not limited to blogs, videos, online+print news+gossip articles, magazines, posters fliers+billboards, Movies, TV+streaming media and everywhere else.
AFTER ALL, WHAT GOOD IS WEARING ESPECIALLY PRETTY PAIRS OF PANTIES IF NOBODY SEES THEM?
Are you smart enough to figure out how to make sure I become permanently famous in my panties? Even if you're smart enough, are you too chicken to help make it actually happen?
I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU to try your best to make me as famous in my ladies full brief nylon panties as you possibly can! Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah! :D
Here are the the most recent six (out of hundreds) of the photos of me modelling womens' full coverage nylon underpants that I Tweeted most recently on my Twitter @Panty_Buns all of which are free for re-use and sharing:
Photo from my January, 2013 Fbloggers post titled A Briefs Update Part 4 - with Customer Lingerie Review Videos which included my video featuring me wearing blue Bali panties and a Fuchsia smocked lace top, titled male models Bali Sleek Comfort full brief panties.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? Any favourites?
Any amusing ideas for sharing them? Please don't be shy!
Please also feel free to leave links to your blogs, YouTube channels and Twitters along with your comments! Thanks in advance!
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.
