No reason? How about to feel more of the sun or the water (or the sand, if you want), on one's body?
I suppose, but I think that's a pretty minor reason. (No pun intended.) And I think kids everywhere will be able to survive with just a one-piece until they grow to be an adult.
Are you going to say that minor boys shouldn't ever be pictured as being shirtless, because they're just "showing off their bodies!"?
Wear one of those swimming shirts, boys!
A boy's/man's torso isn't seen as too indecent in society. Whether that's logically consistent though... I dunno. I don't know what to think about that. That's probably some society nonsense there too though if I had to pick a side.
Is showing skin itself inherently sexually suggestive?
It depends on the context and also depends on if it's public-facing or not.
Not to mention symbolism as well.
There's a ton of different symbols out there. We don't need to expose minors just to get a specific one that could easily be conveyed by something else.
And look at anime for example I mean sure some of it is shock value in the case of say cough Elfin Lied cough, to make a point or get a emotional response from the viewer. Or what about a show that made for the teenage demographic? Or the Simpson Movie that showed Bart streaking around Springfield?
Nope. Wildly tasteless and should probably be banned. Japan has a NOTORIOUS problem with sexualization of minors too, and THAT is not just me either, so I don't think anime should be seen as this moral guide either.
Speaking of, according to the rules, such art is already accounted for:
Yes. And no mod approval was sought.
a little girl in a neutral pose in a perfectly acceptable swimsuit
Hard disagree. It's not a perfectly acceptable swimsuit. Not for a child. Bikinis should be for adults only, just like a lot of other things. Fucking hell, guys, I'm not asking kids to wear a damn burka here.
is clearly not treated as "pornographic" or "sexually suggestive"
Which is a problem with society. One of many.
So that same bikini on a cat would turn the cat into something ban-worthy and sexual.. to you?
No. Animals strut around "naked" all the time and trying to clothe every one of them is an utterly ridiculous proposition. And besides. Most of them have fur that covers them up. Hence, a bikini on a cat is not banned.
But they are allowed there, and bad things don't happen every time they do.
So? Why does a bad thing have to happen every time? Also, I disagree with the nudist concept anyway. Normalizing nudity, assuming we're just talking about adults, and making it something boring and standard is not a good idea. Nudity (with consenting adults) should be an exciting and intimate thing to see and clothing can actually be used to enhance one's natural sexuality anyway.
Did you just walk out from the 1850's?
Well, I certainly feel apart from a lot of humanity if that's what you're asking. lol Besides that, I still have some beliefs from my old LDS religion. I've taken what I think to be logical beliefs and have discarded the rest.
It really isn't. The reason it's constantly brought up as a comparison is because they're both similar in their treatment as opposites.
Once again, we're back to, "Well society says it's this way." I don't give a shit what society says (in this particular instance). I make my own damn opinions. Society has a LOT of wrong ideas. And that is partly why we're here at Sanctuary. To ask questions, debate, and to toss out stuff that doesn't make any sense but is held onto just because someone's daddy's daddy said it was ok. (Or not ok.)
So, with that, violence, I think, should not be lumped in with nudity/sexuality because they are two very different processes with different effects and societal considerations even if the two may share mental pleasure sometimes as a commonality. Eating ice cream also gives pleasure. Does that mean we should put ice cream on the same level, society wise, as the thrill of destruction and lump ice cream into violence too?
The same can be said of all the under 18 pictures plastered all over facebook and instragram and tiktok and social media in general.
And we all know now what a fucking great idea that was. (It wasn't.)
It doesn't generate the amount of harm you think,
It doesn't always need to generate an amount of harm every single time for something to be considered for a ban. Should we let toddlers play with burning hot stoves just because "Well, they don't hurt themselves EVERY time!"
I think you have to face the fact that you're still a bit prudish
Total nonsense. Just because I disagree with the over-exposure of minors on the internet, especially with sexually evocative clothing, doesn't make me a prude. There should be clear lines for ethics. This is one of them. We have the whole ENTIRE spectrum of human sexuality that we can indulge in. We have an entire sub-forum dedicated to allow people to post all the porn they want. But for some reason, you guys still wanna have it out with me because you think people should be able to post pictures of over-exposed children here. Really, guys? C'mon. Children can't consent and their bodies shouldn't be paraded around the internet anyway.
but other people don't see why you should be the moral arbiter either.
Well, uh... It's kinda my site, so I actually am. lol BUT... I still freely allow and encourage discussions, and you guys also know that you can actually persuade me to other points of view successfully if your points are logical and fair. That said, I'm not seeing that here at all. The best argument I've seen made so far was journalism.
