Richard Hertz
Donna and Crysta are two gorgeous coeds, roommates who are exploring their new-found freedom during their freshman year at College.
Donna is a tall, thin, beauty with blue eyes and brown hair. Her tits are small but tight, right down to her nipples, which project directly forward on cold days. She loves to show off her legs by wearing high heels and either a micromini dress or Daisy Dukes. She's sexy, but she's modest, forgoing panties only under pants or long dresses, where pantie lines would be a big no-no.
Crysta, on the other hand, is not at all modest. To Crysta, clothes (especially bottoms) are a burden, which she bears only because society requires it. In the insular world of the College, she pushes the limits of the Dress Code while in class, and then often goes completely bottomless when she feels she can get away with it. She's shorter than Donna, and much more nicely padded. Whereas Donna's beauty is in her legs and her face, Crysta's is in her hips and breasts, which she swears are completely natural, although they're the only thing she's a bit shy about uncovering in public. She has strawberry-blonde hair, and striking green eyes. Like Donna, she's a happy girl.
Each girl secretly desires something the other girl has. Donna secretly wishes she could muster the courage to venture out of her dorm room wearing only a short dress -- that is, without any panties under it. Just the thought of it sets her heart beating and her juices flowing, and sends her back to her dresser for a snug pair of panties, which she dons with a sigh of relief. Crysta secretly wishes she could get the kind of sexual charge from public nudity that her roommate does, and at the same time, she wishes everyone would just stop staring at her tits.
Email
Send email to dickhurt69@hotmail.com
Dress Code and Code of Conduct
One thing I should point out about the college where these girls attend is the Dress Code, and the Code of Conduct. OK, so those are two things. But they go hand-in-hand. Or should I say penis-in-vagina.
Let me explain.
The College wants all the girls and boys to dress in a decent and dignified way, and to behave themselves in a manner appropriate for learning. Over the years, various rules were enacted that described the length of girl's skirts, or the amount of cleavage that could be exposed. But time and time again, the co-eds flaunted these rules, wearing the tiniest little miniskirts and minidresses that barely covered their panties.
Finally, the Dean had had enough. He put his foot down.
A tough new Dress Code was enacted. Its central provision was that girls were not permitted to wear panties if there was any danger that they might be seen. This was a stroke of genius, because it didn't legislate the length of girls' dresses at all, so girls could continue wearing their short dresses if they liked, but without any panties underneath. Everyone expected the girls to immediately begin wearing longer dresses -- long enough to cover their bottoms -- so that they could continue wearing panties (or, at least, if they chose not to wear panties that the lack thereof would not be noticeable). Instead, the girls switched en mass to the wearing of short shorts, which were, in the Dean's opinion, more distracting than micro-minidresses.
So the Dress Code was amended.
First, the term "pants" was defined to be any garment other than panties that included fabric that went between the legs. Under this definition, "shorts" are a kind of pants. And "panties" were defined as garments with fabric between the legs that cover no skin other than the lips of the vagina, asshole, and part of the ass cheeks. "Thong" and "bikini" style panties are the only ones that qualify under the definition. Furthermore, the wearing of panties underneath pants was prohibited.
But the wearing of short-shorts continued, if not worsened.
So the Dean was forced to take a drastic step to improve decorum. He instituted "inspections", and codified them in the Dress Code. He deputized dozens of "inspectors" who traveled the campus looking for girls who might be in violation of the Dress Code, and authorized them to order the girls to remove their pants in order to verify they weren't wearing any panties under them. He reasoned that this threat would be enough to curtail the wearing of short shorts.
At first, the girls continued wearing tiny little shorts, having developed the habit of flaunting the rules. But on the first day of the new rule, when one girl was stopped as she tried to enter the cafeteria, everything changed. Over her vehiment objections, she was forced to remove her short shorts, and show the inspector (and to her embarrassment, a gathering crowd) that she wasn't wearing any panties. "Are you satisfied now?" she asked. The inspector, undaunted, said "It's not for me to decide -- it's up to a judge". The girl was stunned. She believed she was following the Dress Code by not wearing panties under her shorts, but as the inspector explained, her shorts were so tiny they qualified as panties under the definition, and so her panties were visible in violation of the Dress Code. He took the shorts into evidence, and gave the girl a ticket for indecency, which required that she appear, naked, in court on the date of her hearing.
She huffed indignantly, and went, bottomless into the cafeteria for her lunch. Thus began the first crackdown of what became known as the "panty patrol". Gradually, the Dean started to have some success in his repeated attempts to get the Dress Code right. Girls stopped wearing short shorts, and moved more and more toward wearing dresses. The change was driven by the inspectors who tended to target girls wearing pants, forcing them to strip, and resulting in a steady parade of naked girls to indecency hearings, at which they were almost always found guilty.
With these rules which practically forbade the wearing of pants, girls switched back to dresses and skirts, leaving the inspectors with very little to do. The inspectors complained that their jobs were getting dull, so the Dean allowed them to strip girls wearing dresses, too, but only if they suspected a violation of the Dress Code. The few girls who continued to wear micro-miniskirts -- those that barely, if at all, covered their bottoms -- were clearly obeying the Dress Code, so they couldn't be stopped. But the girls wearing longer skirts or dresses could be -- and were routinely -- stopped and stripped. This was especially embarrassing to girls wearing dresses, because in taking off the dress, even if she was wearing panties, she would have to expose her breasts. Also, if the dress was taken as evidence, as it usually was, this would leave her either naked or with just a tiny pair of panties to keep her covered. It didn't take girls long to realize that they could avoid this public humiliation by wearing shorter skirts.
So, once again, the Dean was frustrated.
He looked out his window, and as far as he could see were girls prancing about in next to nothing. They were practically bottomless. So he had to act. He reasoned that girls would be less inclined to show so much skin if the touching of exposed skin by another student were permitted.
Thus was born the Code of Conduct.
To be sure the College Code of Conduct, known as the CCC, existed prior to this, but the Dean's major update put the CCC squarely in front of the student body. He amended the section on "respecting the privacy" of fellow students to include the exception that girls whose clothes left parts of their torso or thighs uncovered did so as an invitation for any other student to touch these body parts. And that, upon being touched there, girls were not permitted to move away or in any way prevent the touching. All other provisions of the CCC remained, however, including one that prohibited girls from showing sexual excitement publicly. Just as unclothed thighs and torso invite touching, the public display of sexual excitement is considered an invitation for sexual contact. Thus an obviously excited girl is deemed "asking for it" and can be raped without recorse (for her) or penalty (for the boy). This act is termed "consensual rape" by the CCC.
The Dean was very satisfied that these provisions would cause girls to cover up.
And some girls did cover up. Those girls who continued to wear short dresses had to suffer the indignity of being felt up while standing, say, in the cafeteria line. Picture the girl, wearing a micro-minidress that comes down exactly even with her crotch. A boy standing behind her in line is permitted to feel her soft inner thighs, and she is prohibited from running away or making any move to prevent him. Also, because of the rule against showing sexual excitement, she must focus all her energy on keeping her pussy dry. If she loses that fight, the boy has every right to rape her on the spot. As you can imagine, some boys used these provisions of the CCC to first fondle, then excite, and finally rape girls at will.
So more and more girls covered up, which made the Dean happy. And the Inspectors were happy, too, because they had the opportunity to strip girls wearing dresses that covered too much. So a fine balance existed, in which girls could wear dresses that were just so long (to avoid being fondled and then raped) but not too long (to avoid being publicly stripped by Inspectors).
With these provisions of the Dress Code and the Code of Conduct, the girls went around mostly wearing micro-minidresses, and never any panties. Some found that their shirts were long enough to cover them sufficiently, and so they would wear t-shirts as micro-minidresses. Some found that they were "damned if they do, damned if they don't" and gave up wearing bottoms at all, reasoning that an occasional rape was better than failing an inspection and having to attend a hearing in the nude. Other girls opted for the occasional day of nudity in exchange for immunity from being raped. Alas, the only one who was not completely happy was the Dean, who watched the decorum of his College decline even further under the new rules.
|