It’s interesting that you point out Krishna was only a boy during his days of the leela; but I think that it is a spiritual-romantic story and personally like Krishna being depicted as a youth in images of the leela. I don’t have any objection to what you’re saying though.

I think you’re being very defensive of Hinduism – it is the oldest surviving religion that has survived gigantic tsunamis and is thriving today. Of course it faces a tsunami of a different nature today and I can understand your defensiveness from that perspective, but don’t think it is necessary. I know Krishna married 16000 women because he widowed them by killing a villain (I forgot his name) and widow remarriage was frowned upon at that time – so he was a reformer too.

I’m sorry the word ‘playboy’ I’ve used for Krishna offends you. I don’t mean to offend at all and have used it in the devotional-romantic sense or in Bhakti.

The original imagery doesn’t look alright in the first instance because Krishna was a child of 8 years of age when this dance leela took place. Yet time and time again Krishna is depicted as an adult Krishna dancing with the young ladies.
By the age of 12 he had left the village to the city. So this whole image is wrong. It seems to have been romanticised by I don’t know who in paintings but the false image has been accepted by Hindus now.
Because of this today Hindus are forever trying defend the actions of Krishna in this leela.

He married 16,000 women for a good reason and not out of some fetish lust which seems to be another teasing point by the nonHindus.
Again the story is far too long to write here.

He cannot be termed a playboy because of his age. He was lovable, cuddly cute little child but never a playboy.