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?

[–] [email protected] 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 12 points 1 year 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 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

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

[–] idunnololz 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah! They should all be in their underwear! (this is a joke Mr. FBI agent)