Compared to the highly sexualised clothing a lot of pop stars, models and celebrities wear this pic is nothing, are we saying none of those women should ever be permitted to work with children? No kinky women who may have posted a pic of their outfit on the way to a club, or been inadvertently photographed inside? No punks or goths who may have worn bondage or fetishy type clothing and been photographed in it at some point?.
There is a difference between being 'photographed in it' and posting it on social media. I am sure that you, as an adult, don't need the difference explained.
Why, why does it make them a safeguarding risk? Is it the existence of a picture that makes them dangerous?
It is the series of photographs that indicate that this individual has a lack of boundaries and knowledge of what is appropriate for GG leadership. The leaders are expected not to post images of themselves of a 'sexual nature'. It is in the rules. And there is the poses with guns that would be considered not representing good weapon use.
Or is it the fact they are expressing a sexualty outside of heterosexual and traditional norms?
You are reaching here. Where are YOUR boundaries on how far you are allowing 'sexualities' to be working with children? I can mention a few that will get deleted.
You are also missing the entire point of if a 'sexuality' is being made a rather large focus of someone's social media, it raises red flag. Regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual.
You are making this about something it is not for the purpose of processing your own activist agenda. Not one person has mentioned anything about this person being a homosexual male. Not one. But you are falling into whatever false argument to try to convince people.
Are we really saying no-one slightly kinky can ever be allowed to work with kids? There'd be hardly anyone left
Again, you are the one here progressing that the majority of people must have some sort of 'kink' or fetish in their lives. And frankly, if that 'kink' or fetish was one that could put children in harms way via lowered boundaries, then yes, I agree that they should never be allowed to work with kids. Lowered boundaries is in no way beneficial to protecting children from abuse if you cannot recognise the abuse.
And there's a difference between not age appropriate and not intended for children. No kid is going to look at that pic and be corrupted or harmed.
That we will disagree on. You are set on trying to lower children's and women's boundaries.
They see far worse in music videos, on television and in computer games all the time.
That is up to the parents. Parenting a child means limiting access to what they see, even in music clips.
Ever heard of Catwoman?
You are really reaching here. Catwoman... what sexual activity in an age appropriate movie are you referring to?
Or Sedusa, a character in the Powerpuff Girls? Or watched a video by Rhianna or Madonna even?
Again, parenting does mean that you can limit what a child watches. Children do survive not watching music videos you know. It does happen and there are parents who choose to not expose their girls to videos of sexual objectification.
This isn't about online porn,or safeguarding, it's social conservatism as extreme as anything feminists fought against in the 60s and 70s.
And there is that 'you are not the cool girls' argument again. I think you will find that many feminists will have the opinion that you are talking nonsense.
Just own it, you are trying to convince parents that lowering sexual boundaries is good for children.