So you believe it's irrelevant and should not be discussed?

No more than a) barman sells beer to 20 year sold in USA (1), b) someone leaks a photo of it, c) the authorities find out, d) the twit gets charged.

Hence my question: "What am I missing?"

It fits a pretty simple pattern: "someone broke a local law, it leaked, got punished".

(1) although legal elsewhere

Generally we shouldn't be glad when inhumane laws are enforced, yes?

Even if you supported anti-pornogrophy laws (I know you aren't saying that), another reason why this should be challenged is because it's going to be enforced in gender-biased ways. Primarily women will share a disproportionate burden of scrutiny for this law, particularly so in the case of revenge porn or deepfake.

It's important to advocate for treating women fairly, even when that comes at the cost of cultural insensitivity.

Indecent exposure laws tend to primarily target men. Anti-pornogrophy laws tend to primarily target women.

What conclusions can we make of a culture that have both laws that get enforced in their gender-biased ways?

That there seems to be much of sexual frustration in the men of that culture. Hard to say about the women's sexual frustration because it manifests differently.

It seems that indecent exposure in combination with public urination is quite common. Not sure how much correlation that has with sexual frustration.

> hurr-durr inhumane laws

Dura lex, sed lex.

Laws were humane enough when allowed one to run for president

The issue is that this local law Is flawed, and this flawed law double tapped with criminal activities to hurt female citizens. That is why most of us emphasize with the victim here, but concern less about an underage getting beer from some barman exposed.

If a law is considered unfair that's a perfectly fine topic of discussion. You are being obtuse on purpose.

Or, more interestingly, game consoles...