Was CHRIS BROWN Wrong Or Right To Be Upset About The Way His Daughter Was Dressed Online?

(And even the most decent of man who’s never touched children and has no desire to touch children knows how even that man’s mind operates—upon arousal).

Sometimes, ‘arousal’ is simply like that of an aroma that pasts your nose and can make you hungry for whatever that smell told your mind it was, and voila! On your mind is on one thing: getting that thing run past your nose.

[clickandtweet handle=”” hashtag=”” related=”” layout=”” position=””]Men are built differently than women (physically) and things happen to men (physically) upon arousal (even if they didn’t expect to, intend to—or they know it’s indecent to). [/clickandtweet]

[clickandtweet handle=”” hashtag=”” related=”” layout=”” position=””]That’s the point where a man has to behave (morally) with the same zeal and morality as his personal decision to be monogamous. Morality and a decision doesn’t change the fact that something got run past his nose and his body and mind took notice and/or reacted .[/clickandtweet]

Other men know that even their own bestie will be taken aback at seeing a pic like such-of his daughter (a picture where the typical/norm is to see-on a child: pale, pink tights). But instead, on Chris’ daughter’s pic-(instead of tights) she was bared thigh and dressed in all black.

It’s like the spiel I gave about fashion and communication. Provocative (or even suggestive) fashion speaks a language, and as humans in a society of social ‘norms’; when we are conditioned and used to seeing a particular norm (whether it be on an adult news anchor, or a child). So when ‘fashion’ deviates from that norm and is replaced by skin baring…it sends a ‘message’…not to mention, [although the child was in a child’s leotard and leg warmers], she just so happened to have on all black. And color (like fashion) is ‘communication’ nonetheless-its fashion’s “first cousin.”

Although the babies mom’s argued that nothing was wrong with the picture and ‘suggested’ that anybody who thought of the pic to be anything other than an innocent child taking a picture most probably has something wrong with them [sic], just like she ‘suggested’ only sick person could see anything more than innocent, the same goes for the picture, itself, being relatively suggestive and in the eyes of the beholder.

Look at the pic once again, turn away from it and read this.

Whereas, a grown woman could put on that same ballerina outfit-same color, and same sitting pose; because her bare thigh is showing, it would be thought to be sexy (like that of a woman in a school girls uniform and pigtails communicates).

But if that same grown woman wore that same ballerina outfit in pale pink (same sitting pose, same bare thigh), it would go over ‘weird’ at first (because one would have to think about what a grown woman dressed like such is suggesting). But once thoughts are collected, it would go over well (with the effect/communication suggesting “sexy” and playful-a grown woman in a school girl uniform with pigtails).

However,