>>5400
>Enough to avoid the encouraging of sexual attraction in others.
What's wrong with being sexually attracted towards someone?
>Emphasis on the word 'encouraging' since of course some humans are able to be sexually attracted to anything.
That still doesn't answer the question when tongues, handholding, and just being simply "cute" could be construed as "encouraging" sexual attraction.
>In general however, you can't go wrong with covering the whole-chest and legs up to at least mid-thigh.
So you're telling me that fourth pic would have to cover up?
>While the social rule of modesty, propriety, or decency is technically not the same as the rule of chastity, the two often go hand-in-hand and it is a good rule besides.
Why?
>If people violate the rules of propriety in their time and place to arouse lust in themselves or others, they are acting against chastity.
We already have a term and laws for that, it's called "sexual harassment". However those laws have been abused to the point that simply talking to or even correcting a woman is now seen as "sexual harassment" and can get you fired when you legitmately did nothing wrong.
>When they intentionally break these rules to shock or embarrass others, they may not be unchaste, but they are being uncharitable.
And what if there's nothing wrong with what the person is actually doing, but someone takes offense to it anyway because they're just that damn shallow? Such as wearing a T-shirt that promotes a religious beliefs or a political candidate (Regardless if one actually holds the views expressed on the shirt).
>Almost as if every. Single. Time. Any of these are had neither side changes their mind or agrees on anything.
>I've been on the internet for almost 20 years and never seen it happen even once.
Ever consider that it's because you're asking the wrong questions or having the wrong arguments? Or that your goal is to "own" the other person instead of trying to understand why the person has the arguments that they do?
>So blatant strawmen are your idea of a hard argument?
Thus far in the argument, you've firmly established that women having anything
less than 80% of their body covered is the indications of a "whore". Why is it incorrect to come to that conclusion?
>There's a different between gym-wear and Ivy from soul calibur
You're right. The reason Ivy doesn't wear clothes is for her own self-defense. Because being in the nude allows her to better communicate with and weild her talking magical sword.
>>5401
>No one is saying that artists cannot draw nude females.
Yes, it is. That's what the argument inevitable becomes every single damn time.
>There is a clear difference between making a sketch of a nude woman and designing a female game protagonist who wears nothing but a miniskirt and bra.
No there isn't. It's admiration of the female body. The only difference is the medium that it's accomplished within. Anything beyond that is just people making excuses for why it's acceptable in one circumstance but not in another. This has been the joke about a lot of "moral panics" over the years where it's "illegal" for children to view nude women in
Playboy, but it's A-okay to see nude women in
National Geographic.
The context doesn't fucking matter as it's the same content.
>The female gym clothes that are considered "in fashion" today are nearly identical to underwear. Skin-tight clothes, bra-like tops, very short shorts, stretchy pants that show the shape of the lower body, everything is designed to show as much skin as possible. This is not needed to have a successful, comfortable workout.
As I man, I disagree. Whenever I go for a hike, the only clothing I have on is short shorts, shoes, socks, and a hat.
>The reason why these clothes are worn are to show off, to be proud
What's wrong with that?
>to make others feel lustful, and maybe even for the woman to satisfy some lustful urge of her own
Again, men do the same thing.
>Sure, many women may wear sports bras and mini shorts and yoga pants because their best friend said they were cool
Or because they're comfortable.
>Very few people have an aversion to actual discussion. Especially on an imageboard like this.
I take it you haven't visited some of the other boards on the site.
>Topics like religion and modest female character design are common topics for people to not take seriously.
Probably because majority of the people arguing for "modesty" don't actually understand what they're arguing for, and so repeat the same arguments the baizuo use as justification for turning female characters into trannies. And then you people come here and whine about how there's no more appealing female characters, and people point this out, and you're upset because you think it's "all" about people wanting to jack off instead of it being the simple fact that people like attractive female girls who are not afraid to show that they are attractive female girls. IOW, you're your own worst enemy who doesn't understand your own damn arguments.
>Men, besides the inevitable rare outliers, do not do the exact same thing.
Yes, we do.
>If a male gymgoer wanted to dress similarly to the average female gymgoer and get a lot of attention, he'd walk in shirtless, wearing only a speedo or tight boxer briefs. And shoes.
So what men were wearing to the gym from the 1980's to the Aughtd.