It was never about protecting children.

By that logic, any attractive female would be a major aspect of sexuality.

Then again, by Liberal logic. They want all women looking ugly or like dudes.

.... yyyyyyes, what is and isn't considered attractiveness easily falls under the term "sexuality".

How basic do you need me to go exactly?

Because that's Granny & Auntie May in their Easter Sunday best on their way to Mass, trashing the US Flag into part of a cuss word while they're at it in the name of a Russian Commie licking traitor who didn't know the street or neighborhood of the Church he pretended to go to was located?

A quick look at my profile shows I prefer butts a wee bit on the meatier side, that ain't stopping me from finding them two hot as heck. What's the point of denial when it's like saying there ain't no flash flood coming while you're already neck deep in it?

Sure, one person's sleeze is another's boudoir, but a pair of sexy assed buttocks at face level is, by definition, a pair of sexy assed buttocks at face level. No double checking on blood engorged genital regions required for confirmation on that one.

Also by that logic.

Heaven forbid going to beach. With all those people in bikinis, I guess that is a very sexualize place for parents to take their kids.

You're doing this on purpose now. Yes, bikinis have long been considered sexualizing garments, which is why in several countries women aren't even allowed to wear them. It's something of an achievement of American liberty that women can wear them on the beach with children around DESPITE the sexuality they imply.

By that same logic guys in shorts are just the same or anything much less for them wearing. (G-strings. Which I believe isn't appropriate anywhere, same with female wearing such in public)

So you saying we should do away with all public places that allow that? Beaches, swimming pools, etc?

I don't see how those have any impact on children in terms of exploiting them sexuality wise. Unless it involves outright nudity which is a big no. (Or again, mentioned G-strings.)

Also the location has to be proper for dress. Usually a lot of places practice the no shirt, no service. I mean, it is common decency to not be walking around topless in a store or other public facility/area(less it allows such or where it may be appropriate due to changing rooms, such as a gym.)

The major exploitation of children is exposing them to other content. While a family may be romantically involved, I do not believe a make out session is age appropriate around children and certain words/terminology/topics, to discuss in their presence, isn't either.

No, YOU'RE saying we should do away with public places that allow that.

You are badly unprepared for this discussion. Take some time to figure out what these words mean first, and really take your time.

⏹️ The logic which asserts that those two men are looking sexy,
while those two women are not looking sexy,
does quite in fact lead to a sound logical conclusion of its own.

Jus' sayin'

When a same-sex oriented couple is thought to be looking too sexy but a hetero man's wet dream coming darn close to true flaunting their lady bits with accentuating apparel isn't seen as sexy at all. I'mmo continue no further on the point I was headed towards with that one,,,

Is it just me, or is it pretty disturbing how these guys are totally fine with almost bare-assed women standing that close to a bunch of little kids?

I thought they were all about protecting the innocence of children

We all knew the whole time that they were using children as an excuse to be a d**k to gay people. We cracked their code a long time ago, they just haven't realized that their code isn't going to get them anything yet.

Indeed