I feel like the simple solution is that if you can't have topless kids because of pervs, then you can't have topless kids and gender isn't part of it

Comments like this are why I left reddit. This is a completely hinged and totally reasonable thought process that calls in a question, a lot of facets of the issue and ways them against each other appropriately. Maybe something more crazy would spark a bunch more replies but I totally like that Lemmy is a place that just lets people be normal.

To answer your question, it could be legal grey area because not all pictures depicting nudity are automatically considered pornographic, if you are speaking in terms of legal precedent regarding obscenity in the US.

To further muddy the issue, photographing other peoples kids is considered creepy by nearly everyone but it isn't expressly illegal unless certain localities have specific statutes against it. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, so you have the potential situation where people are doing a presumptively legal activity in a public area where photographing that activity could be illegal depending on... intent?

Further, the courts have ruled that getting naked in public in the act of protesting something is part of protected speech. Presumably that applies to people of all ages and sexes as well but I doubt it has ever been tested.

This is a western society problem, in tribes where women don't cover their breasts the men are interested in other parts.

You are inventing a problem that does not exist. Go take a walk where it is allowed and see how many girls are walking topless in the street.

The true problem is not a problem, it's the reality of human sexuality where most men and some women see female breasts as sexual most of time.

There are different situations where nudity of all kinds is not perceived sexually, that doesn't affect the general rule that I shouldn't run around the block all naked.

Saying it's not equal because men too have nipples and those are not perceived as sexual is kinda strange. Let's abolish pregnancy leaves then. Gender may be a social construct by now, sex is obviously not, and (most) humans are not hermaphrodites, so the rules can't be the same.

This is a nothing burger of a subject frankly, we already know that real world doesn't fit ideal ideas. If some ideal idea would describe the real world, then you'd only need that ideal idea to know it all and other information wouldn't matter. Some religious fanatics are actually trying, destroying all the knowledge and art not coming from their holy book.

This doesn't work, the real world is as complex as all the information in it. An action is good or bad only in a particular real situation.

Which is also why choosing a seemingly ideal enough principle and trying to fit it to everything, pretending that makes everyone equal, is a lie.

So you feel that women should be arrested and prosecutable if their nipples are exposed?

That's very misogynist. And no, you can't argue for the law to "save the women" from all those perverts. Because the whole point of this is to free women from the bullshit laws that allows society to prosecute them while pulling double duty by effectively shaming their bodies.

Most women are not going to run around topless voluntarily. But, even if they did - say a group of girls or women decided to go skinny dipping or whatever at a lake, do you really believe they should go to jail for that?

Don't mansplane and tell everyone these laws are for women's own good, because they aren't. Inventing this bizarre photographic scenario is just bizarre. It's a fiction of your imagination and is a straw man argument.

You are correct that the true problem is men, but not how you think it is.