Yes they did, they labelled the child's dancing provocative, meaning sexually provocative. I am beginning to see why you call yourself Simple.Because that what every sicko in this thread has kept saying, that the child is acting in a sexual manner, dancing sexually. Don't try and back pedal now. I have addressed every point put to me, many times in this thread
to summarise
a) a child cannot be a sex object, only an adult can project that onto her
b) If you feel provoked (sexually) by a childs dancing, regardless of how she moves, the problem lies with you and not the child
c) Children don't do anything sexual, they merely mimic and copy. (What appears sexual to you, is not sexual to the child)
d) Adults who project their sexual hangups onto a child THEY feel is doing something sexual only exacerbate the issue, confuse the child and inadvertently steer them towards losing their innocence sooner.
e) Children aren't responsible for adults sexual attraction to them, regardless of what they wear or do.A pedo sees provocation (sexual) where there is none, which is what you and several others in this thread have been doing. Pedo's see a child acting sexually when they are not. Pedos don't care what a child says, wears or does, they are attracted to children sexually regardless.I think it is definitely pushing the boundaries to cause a reaction. It's definitely controversial. Dance is an art form like any other, it is expressive and confrontational at times. Would you feel the same if it was a boy dancing the lead part and women stroked him at the end? Or would you see that as a female expression of tenderness and love?
I think what you and others are doing is feeding into the stereotype of men (meaning all men) as sexual predators. This is patently false and something that feminists have promoted constantly. It is also a slippery slope like I said, as such an argument is often used as a justification by pedos after they have raped a child.
Nice going, you have managed yet again to project how you think people are reacting rather than how they are.
Im glad you finally admitted that men stroking little Asia was "pushing the boundaries to cause a reaction" , although I think the line was crossed myself.
Now , why were they pushing the boundaries ?
You did say that a child can never be a sexual object, so what boundaries were pushed?
Surely you didnt see that act as sexual in any way did you?