[Ads-l] Full-frontal

ADSGarson O'Toole adsgarsonotoole at GMAIL.COM
Sun Nov 16 21:55:05 UTC 2014


 Victor Steinbok wrote:
> This is not likely to be new, but do add to the list
>
> http://goo.gl/ZLKJ4O
>
> This seems to be yet another case if specific >> general, displacing more
> appropriate terminology. In this case, the term is "full-frontal" for
> what's actually partial dorsal.
>
>> In the most revealing photo (seen above, with black bars that didn't make
> their way to the magazine), a nude Kardashian goes full-frontal, wearing
> nothing but a pearl choker.
>>
>> Not everyone was a fan of the now-famous booty shot
>
> If it's a booty shot, it cannot be frontal. Never mind that "full-frontal
> [nudity]" usually implies head-to-toe naked. The reference to "nothing but
> a pearl choker" also seems to be a bit off. But, I suppose, one can still
> get a full-frontal shot with boots, gloves and hat on.

There may be some confusion between two different images. One image
might be designated the "now-famous booty shot" and another image
might be designated "full-frontal, wearing nothing but a pearl
choker". Several images from the series are visible at the Paper
Magazine website (NSFW):

http://www.papermag.com/2014/11/kim_kardashian.php

It is possible that the writer was referring to the front-facing image
(at an angle) when using the term "full frontal".

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org


More information about the Ads-l mailing list