I wonder what fraction of people here commenting disapprovingly about her choice of wardrobe think YouTube should demonetize videos of bodybuilding competitions, male rock stars, or boxing. Because apparently those are super sexy, though I think the bodybuilding thing appeals to more gay men than to het women.
On the contrary, I think the reason the inconsistency is obvious to me is that I understand nudity and context depressingly well. The relevant context difference is that Naomi is a woman.
No, you definitely do not understand nudity or the context. That is not the context.
One, you think nudity is in bodybuilding. It's not.
Two, you think the context of whatever Naomi is doing requires her to hang her nude bits out. It doesn't, that's her choice. It's also people's choice to not like it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with being sexy. I don't see Naomi as sexy at all as a heterosexual male. She just screams forced and faked. Those aren't sexy to me. They are sexual though.
It's all about being close to nudity for impractical reasons. Context matters and the definition of nudity matters.
Well no, nothing of the kind was occurring in the demonetized videos referenced in my post. I did not have more skin on display than any typical YouTuber might under the circumstances. It was a tank top and a halter top summer dress on a hot summer day in a tropical city. The issue was my shape inside those clothes- not the clothes themselves. That's what was interesting, YouTube's response to demonetizing the cardboard dress form made it clear my physical shape was the problem- not the degree of coverage or activity.
Also apparently a lot of male gamer Youtubers are considered sexy, even though they don't have exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics like giant muscles, and I've never heard of them getting demonetized for it: https://ar.pinterest.com/madelineulatows/logan-paul-sexy/ https://ar.pinterest.com/ktatianalima203/rubius-sexy-3/