>>1948152You're partially wrong: a naked woman is usually kind of dull, even if she has a great body.
What a high-cut outfit does is outline the best parts of her anatomy, and the reason why it looks a little goofy on an average woman is because they're simply a type of outfit that's too good for them.
The reason why average or ugly women look better in low-cut outfits is because low-cut is obstructive and dissimulative, it's basically a big censor bar in front of the ass and genitals. It means "please don't look, there is nothing here worthy of your attention", that's why it's horizontally oriented. Which is appropriate for them, because their subpar bodies should be hidden, they don't deserve the boost in sexiness that high-cut provides, and which would be contradicted by their mediocre aspect.
If a woman has a great body, however, it shouldn't be diminished and hidden by a low-cut outfit, it should be sublimed, and taken to perfection by a high-cut one, by exposing the hips, framing the pelvic area, following the curves of the gluteus and the lower abdominals, and starting at the narrowest point of the waist, thereby emphasizing femininity and fitness in the most eloquent way. High-cut is a statement that says "this is how perfect the female body can be".
Maybe that's what you mean by "more naked than having nothing on"; the eye just glazes over a naked crotch or ass, but when it's showcased by a high-cut bottom, it can't be ignored.
