I think that it's tan lines instead of pantsu.

div said:
I think that it's tan lines instead of pantsu.

Wouldn't the region in question then serve as too poor of a transition from the front of her legs to abs area? Too joint-y to be continuous naked skin..

The artist has used black lines to mark the edges between all of the materials in the image, yet there are no black lines in the area in question, which suggests to me that it isn't separate objects/materials, but probably tan lines.

^good point.

Certainly strikes me as tanlines as well. Nothing about it suggests that it's cloth.

So two layers of tan lines? (Already have one around thighs)

fireattack said:
So two layers of tan lines? (Already have one around thighs)

Those could be from shorts (hence they're less prominent) and the tanlines of the pantsu/swimwear could be more prominent since most of the time one wouldn't take those off in public areas.

AndyCus said:
The artist has used black lines to mark the edges between all of the materials in the image, yet there are no black lines in the area in question, which suggests to me that it isn't separate objects/materials, but probably tan lines.

The pool (the book) is apparently built on pics from different artists adhering to same semi-obvious set of standards. No other picture in the pool goes with bold bottomlessness or resorts to vaginalessness as censoring.

No other? post #410543

Well, still can be worked with. Like, contributors submitted their work, then the editors demanded to have visible clefts gone without pixelation. Breasts are the priority in this pool.

In the post #410543 someone has wiped the area. Here, someone seems to have tried to cover it. And by "someone" I mean that it wasn't necessarily the artist doing the censoring. It would explain any number of deviations from artist's style. The whiter band here defies the body shading. And maybe before it was painted on, the thigh-to-abs transition was looking differently.

I thought your point is because "No other picture in the pool goes with bold bottomlessness or resorts to vaginalessness as censoring", it must be underwear?

Just want to say that's not case.

I was not talking about censoring at all.