I've seen a lot on people in twitter discussing wether people should do "kinks"(?) in pride because they might scar the children for life and other arguments. Also calling people like the youtuber Big Joel pedos for thinking this is not a huge deal.
What happened? Maybe this is an american thing but since when have kids been brought to pride?
Or the beach for that matter. Is someone wearing a speedo in a pride parade more offensive than someone wearing a speedo on the beach?
Speedos are often seen as inappropriate too if they expose too much.
Oh god, no, not a human body. What if someone sees a genital? Considering only 100% of us have them, it could scar children to learn about the existence of something so rare!
Yeah I mean who cares about all the people who don't want me exposing my genitals in their face /s
How dare checks notes a community for vulnerable and often abused people not want me to expose myself to them without consent.
No one needs your consent to exist exactly as they are without shame. No one should have to cover up any part of their natural human body because you don't like to see it. If we operated under that logic all the time, fat people would never be allowed to leave the house no matter how covered up they are.
How about you think about it for a second and realize there's an obvious difference between someone being fat, and someone exposing themselves in public.
Would you throw out those same defenses of "natural human body" if it was some cishet dude swinging his dick around at a group of women at a pool? No, that would be sexual harassment. Some asshole chud getting angry that fat people exist is completely different than that.
What about dick pics? "oh that's no different than sending a pic of their face, it's all the human body"? No, it's sexual harassment and not appropriate unless they consent first.
Sure, the difference is the way you're framing it. A person being naked is not doing anything morally wrong, but you frame it as though the decision not to cover their body is some kind of inherently malicious act. They're not just choosing not to hide their body, they are "exposing themselves." As though the natural, normal state of a human is to be covered and ashamed, and that by choosing to take off their clothes, these people are going out of their way to do some kind of harm.
Do you notice how in both of your examples, the actual harm being done is that the naked person is harassing someone? That is because even you cannot adequately describe how being naked is an issue, so you must invent something actually harmful for the naked person to be doing while they are naked. Why can't the naked person just, you know, not swing his dick around at a group of women at a pool? Why can't he just hang out inside the pool like everyone else? Well, because then it would be obvious he's not doing anything wrong and you wouldn't have a point.
Can't a clothed person also harass women at the pool?
Yes exposing yourself to non consenting people is harassment. A dick pic is harassment because it's not consented to, if it was the mere sending of an image of your body without asking first than selfies and face reveals would be considered harassment which they are clearly not. It being the genitals is an inherent part of why dick pics are considered wrong.
Also sure, he could just be sitting around naked in public but that's still inappropriate to be doing since no one around you is consenting to that. It is inherently harassment.
This is different than, say, a cis woman not wearing a shirt because cis men can do that too and they're fighting for equal rights on the measure. But your genitals are a different question and revealing them in public isn't ok.
There's a specific context behind a dick pic that makes it harassment though. I don't think that the fact that it's genitals that makes it inherently wrong, it's the intent behind it, and it's the fact that you are sort of virtually putting an erect penis into someone's face expecting a response. If exposed genitals themselves are inherently wrong I don't see why flaccid penises on marble statues in a public park or museum wouldn't be considered wrong as well.
When you say "revealing them in public" it makes me think of a public flasher/predator or something and that's not how I'd personally categorize the vast majority of "near nudity" I see at pride events.
But by your standards, it is entirely reasonable to say that both are wrong and that men should also be legally forced to cover their nipples because I don't wanna see any nips.
Anyway, to cut through all the bullshit that this conversation could descend to, I have a simple question: Why do I need your consent when deciding what I want to wear?
And some people think bikinis are inappropriate. It's not my place to tell someone at a beach what they can or can't wear.
As long as the bikini (or speedo) properly covers things up then fuck the complainers, but if it's too small and shows things or is see through in some way tan it's not ok.
Those are pretty subjective measures though. What's "too small" to one person isn't going to be to another... like some people will think thong bottoms are way too far and some people think it's no big deal. I even think the "see through" thing is kind of a grey area. A lot of bathing suits get a little see through when they get wet. Hell, lots of people don't like wearing bras and don't feel like they need to cover themselves up if, god forbid, an outline of a nipple is visible.
Breasts and nipples are completely different than genitals, there are double standards around people with flat chests vs breasts (mostly men vs women so it's very misogynistic based) but genitals aren't acceptable for either.