A Model Walks Around Half Naked in NYC With Painted on Pants

While this may disturb or even upset some people out there, I think there's something of note with the point of this post. A model walks around NYC and no one notices that she's naked. Maybe they do know she's naked but New Yorkers, in New York fashion, are oblivious to this woman's obvious cries for attention.

Model Pranksters TV painted a woman’s legs to look like she was wearing jeans and then she walked around the streets of midtown. Body art company The Body Of Art did such a convincing job of making the model appear as if she has pants on, when in reality, she does not.

The brave lady, Leah Jung, rode the subway, strolled through Times Square, walked around the garment district, and even went shopping. While it’s surprising that no one notices that she’s bare down below, it’s even crazier that the paint doesn’t rub off when she’s making her way through the congested crowds of Times Square.

Only in New York.........Shocked? Offended? What does this say about people in general? Are we at the point where we could really care less or are people really that oblivious? What does ATS have to say?

www.yahoo.com...

She had clothes on, just made from a very unusual and ultra thin material.

People see what they are expecting to see.

Now, will the state of NY try to arrest her for public indecency.

P

Public lewdness and disorderly conduct for making a scene wouldn't surprise me from this state.

I saw this last night and I'd like to think I would notice! But I'm probably borderline paranoid as I am always looking over my shoulder and very aware of what's going on around me.
I really can't believe that men especially didn't notice! Don't they usually always look at women??

No problem. Good thing she didn't have to bend over though. I wonder if it would wash off when she went pee?

I wonder if the guy with the phone in the end knew they were not real jeans?

a reply to: lostbook
if you go here

www.dailymail.co.uk...


scroll down thru the pics and you will see she has a thong on that they painted over.

Hardly a proper social experiment. 95% of the time the camera was filming from behind (no doubt) and if we could see the reactions of people walking behind her instead of walking past her, it would be more real. Of course anyone walking behind her would notice her behind jiggling away but who's gonna run up to her from behind and say "hey", nice ass!

This experiment doesn't really prove anything other than I used the word behind a lot.

Oh sure, when a woman walks around in a thong it's "a social experiment" and "fascinating".

But when I do that it's "creepy" and I should "put some clothes on".

Smh.

a reply to: lostbook

Really to be quite honest from the front i honestly would find it difficult to see that they aren't jeans . Kudos to the people that painted those pants on i would say .

I might have noticed from behind, but normally that isn't my type of woman.

Tattoos are a big turn off for me and I prefer brunettes.

Just another excuse for partial nudity.

We already know that painting on clothes can fool the eye.

What is the point?

Riding the subway bare-assed? Eww. Not very sanitary.

Seeing that video of her walking down the sidewalk, I'd have just assumed she was wearing funky-punky graphic print tight leggings. A pattern in the style of a pair of jeans is conservative compared to some patterns out there - "galaxy print leggings" are a good example.


You do get "jean print leggings", so there really wouldn't be any shock factor:

totheoutfit.com.au...

originally posted by: pheonix358
She had clothes on, just made from a very unusual and ultra thin material.

People see what they are expecting to see.

Now, will the state of NY try to arrest her for public indecency.

P

I lived in Germany during a world cup event not terribly long ago. The world cup had a few games played in the town in which I lived.

There were lots of nude people dressed only in body paint. You really could not tell. Even the authorities didn't catch on at first.

Finally they started banning total nude body painting on the street and arresting people. However, I saw some of the total nudes and you really could not tell at a glance or even short look. It took some staring to see the nudity. It was so well done, there were lots of "cats", that as a normal "prude", I really wasn't offended, just fascinated.

It's NYC. Martians could land in Central Park and no one would look twice. New Yorkers are notorious for not caring what is going on with other people around them. The ultimate live and let live in a crowded city.

The seated guy she was standing next to on the subway certainly looked a bit uncomfortable. He was obviously trying to keep is eyes forward and not look at her. He had the best viewing angle, time and distance to see something was "missing".

I'm not sure exactly what reaction they expected to get from people with this experiment. Most people don't inspect others as they walk down the street, they are focused on getting someplace. With all the ultra tight leggings girls wear these days it probably didn't seem out of place. If they wanted a reaction, they should have sent her out topless with body paint.

Just saw this on Yahoo today. Ok, which one of you guys work for Yahoo collecting stories from here?

It's not the first time I saw articles pop up on Yahoo that were posted on here hours or a day before they made them.

I wish they would give ATS some credit for their ideas.

Wow, they did a great job with the paint! A lot of women wear pants that are so tight, they almost look painted on. LOL

originally posted by: pheonix358
She had clothes on, just made from a very unusual and ultra thin material.

People see what they are expecting to see.

Now, will the state of NY try to arrest her for public indecency.

P

Pretty much. The brain tends to work in a kind of generalizing way when it comes to how we view others walking down the street as they're basically taking in a huge amount of visual information from their surroundings. To cut down on the visual congestion, the brain tends to fill in the blanks. They see an impression of jeans and the fill in the blank is to assume "jeans" if they even notice her at all. Plus we're getting the view of those people walking in the opposite direction of the model. If nothing seems discordant, they're just going to go on their way with their eyes towards their objective because their visual processing is essentially "cutting down on the clutter". It's not obliviousness at the root of this. It's that generalization of the visual information that we all do. If the woman was simply walking down the street with no pants and zero appearance of jeans, she'd totally be noted because she would be incongruous to a "normal" setting.

Her back end view looks more like "painted on jeans" than actual jeans and would be more in the eye target range. However, we aren't given the chance to see if anybody notices anything amiss there based on the camera angle. As far as the part where she's on the train goes, the tendency of transit goers is to look straight ahead to avoid possible street theater.

The brain does this all the time and even in the way it stores information about a face. The eyes and mouth are going to be the most remembered items on the face and unless something is going on that is strikingly different between those two things, the rest kind of gets filled in. I explain this to my pre-teen daughter whenever she frets about a little pimple on her face. Most people aren't going to remember that little pimple and may not even note it at all because their focus is on the eyes and mouth.