>>2182735You mean casual exposure? Why do you have to make this about a "fine line" between anything? Even if she were completely naked, or if it was only a downblouse nipple slip, there is no proof she either "doesn't know" or "doesn't care". The only thing is that being completely naked requires a distinct lack of consciousness to be spun as going either way, but that is about suspension of disbelief as a consumer, and not whether the girl either "doesn't know" or "doesn't care."
This careful wording you used only introduces latent variables you refuse to define, so you can come in later and tell people they're not doing it right. I feel what you probably mean is "accidental exposure without the embarrassment". In this way you cull the nude pics, and since it's accidental, it can't be exhibitionism. It would differ from casual exposure in the nude pics being culled. Of course however, it would just be a subcategory of casual exposure.
