>>2497989>Except there's nothing inherently lewd about a kid with her top off, You use the word "kid," but she said she was topless at the pool until the age of 20. There's a big difference between a toddler with no secondary sex characteristics running around naked as the day she was born and unknowing of shame, and a 14-year-old girl in the thralls of puberty, or an 18-year-old adult who can be tried in a court of law for indecent exposure.
>and nothing exploitative if she's just a kid and doesn't care. You are contradicting yourself. See, if she was "just a kid," then she was underage and therefore too young to understand or consent. But how can you be so certain that she was too young to understand, but simultaneously you are certain that there was no exploitation?
>And if nobody forces her to care then even as a teen, why would she start to? What does "forces her to care" mean? Children are influenced by the adult role-models in their lives. This is why it's important to protect them from negative influence, like men who want to see their young relatives naked, and it's what defines the practice of sexual grooming, as I alluded to in an earlier post.
>If it's a private pool, and there's nobody to gawk at her and make her feel awkward, then why would she have a problem with it? You're projecting your own fucked up hangups or experiences.So in your mind, it's not exploitation if an underage girl is properly groomed so she feels comfortable being naked around older men, but if she feels uncomfortable, then it *is* exploitation? That's not how the law defines it, my friend.
>Also, who said she hates men? She did. She's a lesbian.
>If she's a welder, I can guarantee you she interacts with men regularly. All construction work is like that. Not wanting to fuck or masturbate to someone isn't the same as hating them. Do you want to fuck your mom?Rejecting your own biological imperative isn't the same as not tolerating a different person's existence.
