I hope i don't get downvoted for this
-
What's up with that. Why would you walk through piles of corpses barefoot.
She probably floats with special Pictos that only work when her feet are exposed.
-
Even the researchers behind the study say, “I want to stress this finding is not final.” That should tell you something.
The sample size is small and limited to a single cultural group. Meanwhile, we’ve got plenty of anthropological evidence showing that in many societies where breasts are regularly exposed, they’re not treated as sexually arousing. So no, this study doesn’t magically override decades of cross-cultural data.
That said, the idea that breasts signal health or fertility? Sure, obviously. Just like wide hips, clear skin, or symmetrical faces. But biological relevance doesn’t automatically make something a fetish object. We don’t jerk off to white blood cell counts.
And yeah, obesity isn't typically seen as attractive because it signals potential health risks (dont cross post this on tumblr).
The study is interesting, but it doesn’t prove breasts are inherently sexual. It just adds a datapoint to a complex picture where biology and culture play roles.
Meanwhile, we have numerous examples of cultures where tits hang loose on the daily, and aren't seen as inherently arousing.
Source? Not to say you're lying, I'd just like to read more about it
-
Did you just have this on hand, waiting for the perfect moment to deploy it?
I typed "deer god" into google
-
I typed "deer god" into google
Well I just saved it to deploy anytime I see "deer god" from now on.
-
Nudists think people who wear clothes and dont question whether their shame is vindicated are weird. I'm inclined to agree with them lol.
I'm not surprised since your OP is boilerplate nudist justification and not really any exploration of paraphilia.
I think there's a mile in between puritanical shame and thinking the body isn't and shouldn't be considered sexual and is fit for public consumption. Why is it important to desexualize the human body? What's the benefit?
-
You're not picking up what I'm laying down.
I'm not arguing that feet and breasts aren't capable of providing sexual stimulation from a first person perspective. I'm saying that from a third person perspective, theres nothing about them which inherently arousing; that arousal stems from novelty.
Just like mouth, ears and all kind of body parts are capable of providing sexual stimulation without being considered arousing in the sense we still view breasts/ass and such.
-
Nudists think people who wear clothes and dont question whether their shame is vindicated are weird. I'm inclined to agree with them lol.
Honestly visiting an onsen was somewhat of an eye opener. I felt pretty comfortable with my body when all these normal dudes were naked and nobody cared about each others bodys.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I love pantsI love feet
Feet pants
Pants feet
-
Deer God: what
-
“I am a man that’s made of meat,
While you’re on the internet, looking at feet”"I'm subscribed to your mom's OnlyFans
I spent five bucks a month to get pictures of her flappy giblets" -
I always feel silly to be such a vanilla romantic. I don't need much more than a snuggle and a little poop on my chest.
It's the simple pleasures.
-
...that's not what secondary sex characteristic means. As the article you linked says, that just means physical characteristics unrelated to the reproductive system that differ between the sexes. Some of the other examples given include the Adam's apple in men and longer arms relative to height in women. While some of these things can be sexually attractive or related to sexual attractiveness in some way, certainly we don't societally put them in the same sexual category as women's breasts.
Breasts are larger than they need to be, and they're that size all the time. One hypothesis is that they're used to signal sexual maturity and attract mates.
But aside from that, breasts and nipples are definitely a bigger erogenous zone than most parts of the body, probably second only to genitals. And they're directly involved in reproduction as you need them to feed babies.
And most importantly, most societies view them as sexual even if some don't. So what makes something sexual anyway? That's a subjective thing, it works by consensus.
-
I always feel silly to be such a vanilla romantic. I don't need much more than a snuggle and a little poop on my chest.
-
I kinda would rather be attracted to feet, if I'm honest.
it's certainly cheaper
-
This post did not contain any content.
Eemmmmm fungi
-
I love pants
I love feet
Feet pants
Pants feet
Look at this graph!
-
Well I just saved it to deploy anytime I see "deer god" from now on.
-
I always feel silly to be such a vanilla romantic. I don't need much more than a snuggle and a little poop on my chest.
Ah, a Cleveland Steamer afficionado
-
I typed "deer god" into google
And when he came by, just snapped a photo?
-
I became interested in why foot fetishes occur recently.
Basically, it's the same reason why breasts are considered sexual (they aren't); it's all about novelty. If we lived in a nudist colony, neither feet, nor breasts would be considered sexy.
Feet get covered by shoes, making them more novel.
Tribal cultures dont regarded breasts, or feet, as sexy.
Though it begs the question: if nudity became normalized, then what would be novel?
People would find personalities, voices, power dynamics, and fantasies more or less erotic than they are now (for most people).
Dressed people ofc!
