The thong bikinis being modelled by these two models for www.bikini-beach.com are enough to keep them legal on many beaches in Europe and some beaches in the United States. These women, legally speaking, are not naked. The tiny areas of flesh that comprise what scientists and legal scholars call their "naughty bits" are concealed. Huzzah.

But I'd have to say that these women, especially the one on the left, are naked. I mean, three pieces of 1/4 inch string do not make that big a difference in clothing. In fact, the little bits of string on the model on the left only make her look more naked ... if she were without them, she'd look less naked. The only function those bits of string have is to invite their removal, to be followed immediately by vigorous sex.

The way the model on the right's body presses against her bikini's tiny bits of cloth also contributes to her nakedness. The tiny patches of blue cloth cover her nipples but her breasts bulge rebelliously against them. And the tiny patch of cloth at her crotch is hanging on to its waistband for dear life, barely large enough to maintain contact, threatening to spong loose and leave her labia exposed at any second.

Neither model appears to FEEL especially naked. The one on the left is managing a pretty good "come hither" look, while the one on the right is daring you to undress what's left of her clothing with your eyes.

Point is, the legal definition of nudity/nakedness has nothing to do with the difference between the terms. Which leads me to believe that your average Supreme Court justice would NOT know pornography when he saw it.