"Studies" can show a lot of convenient things. Just don't ask them to replicate.

I think 100 years ago the metrics for good vs bad would have been different, fwiw.

That's why I said >I'm not an expert in this matters

but if you know any relevant studies claiming that nudity is not harmful for kids, please show them to me.

The onus is generally on whoever claims the presence of an effect, harmful or otherwise. The null hypothesis is always that there is no effect.

When dealing with laws and culture, it seems the onus would be on the side wanting to change the status quo. Without a reason, why would they use political capital/effort on this (or anything else)?

There are multiple onuses, determining whether a status quo should change is only one of them. But where status quo is also an expression of power, there can also be an onus to justify its existence. If that scenario arises, generally those demanding change have already met the criteria (at least those available to them). At which point the status quo thing is in the same philosophical position of making a claim and has the logical burden of proof that the status quo itself is justified.

This reasoning is sometimes used hastily in radical-left politics, eg in some forms of anarchism where any power relationship is subject to justifying its existence. But, and I’m saying this no longer an anarchist, you don’t need to be a radical or revolutionary to see it play out.

This is essentially exactly how many cannabis legalization efforts have worked. After decades of dedicated effort to establish plurality support for questioning the status quo of prohibition, the question of whether prohibition is justified becomes scrutinized at a policy level and it the justification isn’t there. The only remaining barriers are weak pluralities and successful counter-marketing. If either of those are absent, the unjustified status quo has been changed.

Which is all to say, the onus isn’t on anyone to unjustify something that’s wrong, the onus is to motivate people to know and care that it’s wrong, and to agree that it matters. From there, the onus is the same as GP said: you’re making the claim, you defend it. Otherwise the assumption is just, like, your opinion man.

"But where status quo is also an expression of power, there can also be an onus to justify its existence."

That's literally every law.

"Which is all to say, the onus isn’t on anyone to unjustify something that’s wrong"

The onus would be to show that "something" is wrong for that logic to even apply. As you said "you’re making the claim, you defend it.". Society already decided that it was wrong and formed a law, so now it's time to hear why it shouldn't be (I'm interested in research on either side).

I disagree. You're essentially claiming that the need to prove an effect is removed once something is enshrined into law and that's not only illogical but dangerous to boot.

"You're essentially claiming that the need to prove an effect is removed once something is enshrined into law"

This is a gross misinterpretation bordering on trolling. I'm not sure how you could even come to this position.

Please show me how what I've actually said is illogical and dangerous. Please remember that in the scenario we are talking about neither side has provided evidence one way or the other. Somebody would need to provide evidence one way or the other to shift the status quo, as shifting that requires flipping the convictions of the population, or at least the leaders.

You seem to be more interested in the argument than the conversation. Thankfully, I no longer want either.

You have to prove harm, not the other way around

Jesus H Christ. Stop sowing this absolute garbage. Proof? How about the fact that we didn't go extinct prior to the invention of clothing? How about the necessity of it for procreation, birth, rearing, washing? If you think the very sight of a naked body is harmful, you are a sick fuck, and that's the nicest way I can put that while getting my meaning across. Please get therapy before your anxieties boil over and make you harm others or vote for like-minded idiots.