What always bugs me about this is that they had the boys in underwear. Like, if it's fine to symbolize with clothed girls, why do you need to do it differently with boys?

[–] FoundTheVegan@kbin.social 77 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

100% with ya, the double standards are kinda crazy. The differnce between the first two panels is pretty stark in regards to the kid, even if the point is essentially the same.

My take is that male bodies need to exposed in order to be sexualized so they read vulnerable, but female bodies are can be read as sexualized and vulnerable regardless how they are presented. But that doesn't really explain panel 4 & 6.

Weird choices. If anyone knows who the artist is, I'd be curious how they would talk about this.

[–] creditCrazy@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

With the priest it makes sense to me considering they are infomas for being pedophiles but the rest yea why couldn't they have been clothed

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Especially since #1 and #2 are both instances of sexual violence.

I'd have dresses #1 in a choir boy outfit, #4 in a hospital johnny, and #6 can wear whatever honestly.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 8 points 11 months ago

Because only the males are fit to actually dress like Jesus. /s

[–] nodsocket@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why do you care?

[–] crystal@feddit.de 45 points 11 months ago

Because sexism is bad

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

I think it’s Just more apparent