Implicating pants_down → partially_clothed
Link to implication

Reason:

Should work, unless there's some rare exception that I haven't spotted. If someone has pants around the ankles, they're not fully clothed..

Genjar said:
Implicating pants_down → partially_clothed
Link to implication

Reason:

Should work, unless there's some rare exception that I haven't spotted. If someone has pants around the ankles, they're not fully clothed..

Just checking: does partially_clothed applies to post #698609? Pants_down ranges from that all the way down to pants_around_ankles.

Personally I suspect I'd rather that partially_clothed hinges on bottomless instead.

Nevermind. I thought partially_clothed was more restrictive than that (though I think it could use renaming to something like partially_exposed instead!). +1 in this case.

If they're still wearing underwear then they're clothed by definition, afaik

Knotty_Curls said:
If they're still wearing underwear then they're clothed by definition, afaik

If someone's wearing underwear but their pants are down, then I wouldn't consider that to be fully_clothed. So it'd still fit better under partially_clothed.

Approved