... but they don't. Nons are fully aware that people can be attractive before it's socially acceptable to find them attractive.
It's all a big hush job. It's 100% political.
When a non sees a little girl in revealing clothing and says "Hmm, I wouldn't let my daughter wear that... it's inappropriate", they're actually calling her jailbait:
"Those clothes make you look too attractive to belong to an age range that's supposedly sexually unavailable."
It's not those clothes; it's her.
"You make me want to admire you, but I can't because that would make me look like a pedo, so be a good girl and cover yourself up."
The modern-conventional way in which children's sexuality is incorporated into culture: pretending it doesn't exist.
So we end up with a pedophile problem, wherein the physically mature male is viewed as an innate threat to all juveniles unless they either:
A) Downplay their own sexuality, or
B) Downplay the sexuality of juveniles
... through continual reaffirmation through virtue signalling, and it has to be extreme enough to dispel any concern that you may pose a threat to the cult of superiority.
It's just puritanism masquerading as whatever else.
The word "inappropriate" rarely indicates an idea more complex than "shouldn't", and the context usually sums up to "because I know better". Most commonly, the message translates to "you're obviously right but I can't accept it" or "you're much smaller than me so you don't deserve an explanation / the truth".
R a i n b o w l o o m