Kim Kardashian Didn't Photoshop Out Her Belly Button, OK?

OK so the Kardashians Photoshop their pictures once in a while.

So Kourtney sometimes has an extra toe. So Khloé's head is sometimes out of proportion. So Kim sometimes has a calf twice bigger than the other. And a third hand. And likes to do a spot of virtual redecorating.

So what??? Who among us hasn't edited out a zit, right? And that is exactly the same thing. EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Anyway, considering the amount of Photoshopping they do, it's not particularly surprising that fans are poised to look out for signs of bad edit jobs whenever one of them posts a photo. And look, most of the time, it's pretty harmless fun.

But in the latest occurrence, Kim wasn't too happy about claims around the internet that she'd edited out her belly button from a recent pic, in which she's posing happily makeup-free (KIM KARDASHIAN, MAKEUP-FREE!!!) by a pool, wearing a SKIMS set and black sweatpants.

I'm really confused about these claims, because the celeb is clearly wearing high-waisted underwear that presumably covers her belly button, and the bottoms are even a little see-through so you can see a dark shadow where I'm assuming said belly button is.

Kim saw some tabloid reports about her alleged "Photoshop fail," and took to her Stories to laugh at their absurdity.

She first shared a screenshot of a Daily Mail article whose title starts with, "Where on earth is your belly button?"

She followed it up with a screenshot from Page Six, captioning it, "Come on guys... . Seriously! This is so dumb! Claiming I photoshopped out my belly button????"

She then took the opportunity to push SKIMS to her followers, writing an infomercial-like sales pitch. "Belly button insecurities?!" she began. "Well... why don't you head on over to skims.com to conceal that saggy belly button of yours with a great pair oh high waisted underwear like I did! You're welcome!!!"

Look, I'm glad she's standing up for herself, but I could really have done without the body-shaming joke, TBH. What is this, 2004?