Originally Posted by Sancta
I don't know how much I believe this. If that was the case, then they could just sell Playboy with fully clothed models, no?
Sure, the sex magazines feature naked women. But, guys still comment sexually on models on the cover of Cosmo or whatever who are fully dressed. I've heard dozens, if not hundreds, of sexually speculative comments about actresses that the men making the comments have never seen naked. I've personally had some pretty intense fantasies about men I've seen walking around in jeans and t-shirts.
In any case, Playboy - at least the last time I flipped through one - doesn't feature naked women walking on the beach. It features naked women in very sexually provocative positions, with captions and quotes that are definitely intended to provoke sexual thoughts. Most times when I've seen an ordinary woman naked (in a movie or something), the guys in the room have been not very interested. Playboy (and the rest) sell fantasy, not sex.
|The fact is that a perv is going to have a tougher time thinking up pervy thoughts about a clothed child than one whose parts are just there for him to watch.
Do you have any evidence to support this at all? I've seen this sentiment many times, but nobody has anything to back it up, except gut feeling. Nudity doesn't equal sex between adults, so there's no reason to assume that it does so for a pedophile. (I have to say that clothing has never inhibited my
ability to think "pervy thoughts".)
|I mean, seriously, if a sicko is hanging out at a beach, which kids is he going to be watching? The clothed ones or the naked ones?
Well, the sicko at my community poll went there, precisely so that he could observe kids in bathing suits
. There were always at least some naked kids around outside...but in the summer, he haunted an indoor pool, with "no nudity" rules. So...I'd guess it really depends on the sicko.
A fig leaf is a symbol. It's not going to stop sexual speculation, whether the person wearing it is a child or an adult.