Originally Posted by Sancta
True, but I wonder if nudity WAS allowed - who would the sicko have been watching then? The nude children, likely.
It's not that likely, imo. There were
places he could have gone to watch nude children, so if that was what he wanted, why was he at a pool where there was no
chance he'd see one? He chose
to hang out somewhere and look at clothed
|No, nothing to back it up. It just makes sense, doesn't it? : Is there anything to back up the claim that it makes no difference whether the child is clothed or not? <--I agree that a pervert will be a pervert regardless the way a child is dressed, but I speculate that being naked piques his interest much more.
Well, no - it doesn't make sense to me.
I've never seen anything about human psychology that suggests that nudity is more titillating, or more likely to promote sexual speculation, than being covered up...never. Citing things like Playboy doesn't even count, for the aforementioned reasons (deliberately provocative poses, etc.). If nudity is the most titillating, why does sexy lingerie even exist? I think the "nudity=sex" mindset is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. We hide nudity and think of it as something sexual, and turn it into something sexual.
I'm not a child, so it's a different issue, but I can guarantee that there's nothing any sexier about my naked butt sitting on the couch reading a book than if I were doing the same thing in clothing.
ETA: I can't prove my point, either...but I do have life experiences that back up the idea that nudity doesn't make a difference to perverts and pedophiles. I have no life experience to suggest the opposite. I just have to wonder how the assertion that pedophiles will obviously
be more interested in a naked child than a clothed one has become such an accepted belief, without being backed up.