> avogadro wrote:
>the person, wasnt a child. she's 23. it means that if it isnt obvious to every dumbass that an adult is an adult at a glance, then anything that can be interpreted sexually isnt allowed.
I know
I wasn't defining the whole context of the story,
>' ". . . [the ad] could be seen to sexualise a child".'
It was just that specific sentance and what the advertising standards authority were trying to portray to get it pulled off the magazine.