Originally Posted by mommy68
I disagree. I agree that nudity can be seen as sexual and not sexual. And certainly a child on a beach running naked is not being sexual BUT to a sexual predator they are. So that's the thought in my mind.
If there's a sexual predator (pedophile variety) on the beach, they're more than likely getting off on watching your kid, whether your kid is naked or not. That's reality. Wearing a swimsuit doesn't protect them from a pervert's imagination, any more than a woman wearing a swimsuit protects her from males noticing her body. Since I can't get into the head of a pedophile, I don't know for sure, but I have come across things that make me suspect that a childish swimsuit is actually more
of a turn on for these people, as it emphasizes their pre-pubesence status. We cannot
protect our children from being used to fuel the fantasies of perverts, except by keeping them in the house 24/7. It simply can't be done. A scrap of clothing certainly isn't sufficient.
|And I do see nakedness as more sexy depending on how it is delivered to the person seeing it and depending on the behavior of the person who is seeing it. If a perve looks at a naked girl posing sexy in Playboy then uhhh..yeah, it's safe to assume he's not just looking at it for no reason other than to get off. Why would someone buy the magazine in the first place if they weren't intending on looking at it for that reason?
Of course they're buying it to look at the girls. However, you'll also note that girls in Playboy aren't innocently running down the beach or building a sand castle. That's the thing. Nudity, by itself, isn't really that titillating for many (most?) people. If it were, the poses in Playboy wouldn't be necessary, yk? It's not a magazine full of naked people going about their day...it's a magazine full of naked people, with unusually "good" bodies (by our cultural standards, anyway), airbrushed to "perfection", and striking very
provocative poses. Playbody isn't about nudity - it's about sex.