Criticizing the sexualization of increasingly young girls is not just "being offended."

Recently, British gymnast Louis Smith was called out on social media for posting a picture of then-16-year-old Carly Patterson's bottom with the caption "My sport has its moments." Instead of reacting with remorse, he tweeted that he would only apologize when the woman (publicly) found offense with the post.

The problem with sexualizing young girls isn't whether or not it's offensive. It's not okay to call someone a derogatory term even if the person directly involved has no problem with that word or phrase. Why is it different in this case? Even if Carly Patterson finds the post acceptable -- or decided not to speak out since the picture was taken so many years ago -- many of us do not and cannot because of the greater issues involved with posts like Smith's.

Smith's post is one of many that contribute to a culture of early sexualization of children, particularly females. Usually by law in the U.S., these people are not allowed to participate in sexual activities with older partners. People in countries without these laws are also starting to realize the necessity of relevant limits. The girls are still developing physically, mentally and emotionally. They aren't ready to perform intimate activities. What makes them ready to be sexualized and seen in that context? Nothing good can come out of exploiting images of young individuals for those purposes.

People argue that making posts on social media is not an issue. After all, these things only happen online, where many people who read and share pictures may not ever meet the children offline. However, normalizing the sexualization of children and young teenagers extends beyond the internet. Because of cultural behaviors like that, many people continue to find fault with systems that punish statutory rape. They have become so used to allowing themselves to think of juveniles as potential sexual partners that they start seeing it as an acceptable action.

Whether or not the victim in question finds something offensive is not the bar that determines the acceptability of a morally wrong action. It has to do with the safety of children and people who are not yet fully grown. It's about protecting both ourselves and the people around us.