I hope i don't get downvoted for this
-
This post did not contain any content.
I don’t really get it tbh….
-
Chocolate starfish, leather cheerio, balloon knot.
I don't know what a cheerio is but the others I can see. Thanks for clarifying
-
You're still not getting it. The key word here is 'inherently'.
The sexual interest in people of different states of undress, or specific attire, is just another form of novelty, and influenced by culture.
The key word here is ‘inherently’.
Name something that is inherently sexy.
-
I don't know what a cheerio is but the others I can see. Thanks for clarifying
They're great for breakfast!
-
They're great for breakfast!
wrote on last edited by [email protected]This looks like what I would call a beignet, and indeed I can see the resemblance with the sheriff's badge
-
The key word here is ‘inherently’.
Name something that is inherently sexy.
You're asking the wrong question. The point isn’t to name something “inherently sexy”, the point is that nothing is.
“Sexy” isn’t an objective property of an object or body part; it’s a subjective response rooted in psychology, biology, and culture. Trying to find something “inherently sexy” is like trying to find something inherently funny or inherently sad. it only makes sense in relation to the observer’s mind.
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever... they’re all loaded with associative meaning, shaped by exposure, taboo, and novelty. The fact that entire industries exist around them doesn’t prove inherent arousal; it proves market demand for culturally conditioned preferences.
If breasts were inherently sexy, then every culture in history would have treated them as such, and that’s just not the case. Look at tribes where breasts are no more sexual than elbows.
Fetish, attraction, arousal… it’s all downstream of context. Nothing’s inherently sexy. That’s the whole damn point.
-
You're asking the wrong question. The point isn’t to name something “inherently sexy”, the point is that nothing is.
“Sexy” isn’t an objective property of an object or body part; it’s a subjective response rooted in psychology, biology, and culture. Trying to find something “inherently sexy” is like trying to find something inherently funny or inherently sad. it only makes sense in relation to the observer’s mind.
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever... they’re all loaded with associative meaning, shaped by exposure, taboo, and novelty. The fact that entire industries exist around them doesn’t prove inherent arousal; it proves market demand for culturally conditioned preferences.
If breasts were inherently sexy, then every culture in history would have treated them as such, and that’s just not the case. Look at tribes where breasts are no more sexual than elbows.
Fetish, attraction, arousal… it’s all downstream of context. Nothing’s inherently sexy. That’s the whole damn point.
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever… they’re all loaded with associative meaning, shaped by exposure, taboo, and novelty.
One of these things is not like the other.
If breasts were inherently sexy, then every culture in history would have treated them as such
Naked bodies are inherently sexy and every culture in history has treated them as such. The details vary by the presenter, with different individuals and venues paying special attention to this or that attribute. But you're arguing against the "inherentness" of human attraction to other humans.
That's not a discussion of artistic (or, I guess, pornographic) merit. It's merely an expression of an asexual subjective view.
And that's why you're stumbling. You don't seem to want to acknowledge other human bodies as sexy. You're blinded by your own personal biases and projecting it onto others.
Nothing’s inherently sexy
Humans are inherently sexy. That's why they have sex with each other.
-
Deer god, why the fuck did you make foot people so vocal?
-
Yeah, being into feet isn't inherently bad. But foot fetishists are always so damn creepy about it.
Toupee fallacy
-
I oscillate between wishing I was attracted to basically everyone with every possible kink (outside of the unethical options) and no attraction at all.
Hot take: pansexual people are better off than people with a specific genital fetish.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
I like the theory that the reason people like feet is because the area of the brain that controls your feet is close to the area that makes you feel things and in some people the "wires" can cross:
https://www.audacy.com/987thespot/latest/biologist-explains-why-some-people-have-foot-fetishes
-
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever… they’re all loaded with associative meaning, shaped by exposure, taboo, and novelty.
One of these things is not like the other.
If breasts were inherently sexy, then every culture in history would have treated them as such
Naked bodies are inherently sexy and every culture in history has treated them as such. The details vary by the presenter, with different individuals and venues paying special attention to this or that attribute. But you're arguing against the "inherentness" of human attraction to other humans.
That's not a discussion of artistic (or, I guess, pornographic) merit. It's merely an expression of an asexual subjective view.
And that's why you're stumbling. You don't seem to want to acknowledge other human bodies as sexy. You're blinded by your own personal biases and projecting it onto others.
Nothing’s inherently sexy
Humans are inherently sexy. That's why they have sex with each other.
It's tempting to reduce complex human experience to simplistic absolutes, but that doesn't make them true. Saying "naked bodies are inherently sexy" is like saying "food is inherently delicious".
Both depend entirely on context, culture, and individual perception. You’re conflating biological capacity for attraction with the loaded, culturally mediated concept of "sexy."
Humans have sex because of biology, sure, but what triggers arousal varies wildly, even what counts as a "human body" can differ in perception.
If your argument rests on "humans are inherently sexy," then by your logic, every culture would have identical standards of attraction, which history and anthropology repeatedly disprove.
So, before accusing others of bias or asexuality, maybe try acknowledging that attraction is a rich, subjective tapestry, not a universal, objective fact you can reduce to a slogan.
Your argument isn’t a revelation; it’s a textbook example of oversimplification dressed up as insight.
-
Also all the shit the sonic freaks are into.
-
It's tempting to reduce complex human experience to simplistic absolutes, but that doesn't make them true. Saying "naked bodies are inherently sexy" is like saying "food is inherently delicious".
Both depend entirely on context, culture, and individual perception. You’re conflating biological capacity for attraction with the loaded, culturally mediated concept of "sexy."
Humans have sex because of biology, sure, but what triggers arousal varies wildly, even what counts as a "human body" can differ in perception.
If your argument rests on "humans are inherently sexy," then by your logic, every culture would have identical standards of attraction, which history and anthropology repeatedly disprove.
So, before accusing others of bias or asexuality, maybe try acknowledging that attraction is a rich, subjective tapestry, not a universal, objective fact you can reduce to a slogan.
Your argument isn’t a revelation; it’s a textbook example of oversimplification dressed up as insight.
The point isn’t to name something “inherently sexy”
This was your opening point.
Humans have sex because of biology, sure, but what triggers arousal varies wildly
The sensation of another human body is consistently and universally sexually arousing to any predisposed toward arousal.
Your argument isn’t a revelation
It's rarely come into dispute.
-
Toupee fallacy
Sure, but you won't get guys at a bar trying to lure you onto pissing in their mouth or exchange Cleveland steamers. But most women have had a guy go straight to "nice toes"
-
Surprisingly Sonic isn't pregnant here.
-
Omg, feet.
-
The point isn’t to name something “inherently sexy”
This was your opening point.
Humans have sex because of biology, sure, but what triggers arousal varies wildly
The sensation of another human body is consistently and universally sexually arousing to any predisposed toward arousal.
Your argument isn’t a revelation
It's rarely come into dispute.
You’re moving the goalposts so fast they should put you in the Olympics.
My “opening point” was that feet and breasts aren’t inherently arousing from a third-person perspective, you know, the thing you still haven’t directly addressed. You’ve been flailing around, trying to inflate “humans are sexy” into some grand counterpoint, but that’s just vague noise.
"The sensation of another human body is consistently and universally sexually arousing to any predisposed toward arousal"
Cool. So now we’re back to sensation, not observation. You just quietly conceded my original distinction: that first-person experience (touch, proximity, intimacy) can trigger arousal because of biology, but that doesn’t mean the sight of a foot or breast is inherently sexy in the third-person sense. That’s context-dependent. Congratulations, you’ve arrived at my argument, just a few posts late.
“rarely come into dispute”
is not the flex you think it is. Flat Earth nonsense also rarely comes into dispute in certain circles. The fact that pop culture defaults to “sexy = naked human” doesn’t prove it’s some universal truth, it just proves how shallow and repetitive most sexual representation is.
-
You’re moving the goalposts so fast they should put you in the Olympics.
My “opening point” was that feet and breasts aren’t inherently arousing from a third-person perspective, you know, the thing you still haven’t directly addressed. You’ve been flailing around, trying to inflate “humans are sexy” into some grand counterpoint, but that’s just vague noise.
"The sensation of another human body is consistently and universally sexually arousing to any predisposed toward arousal"
Cool. So now we’re back to sensation, not observation. You just quietly conceded my original distinction: that first-person experience (touch, proximity, intimacy) can trigger arousal because of biology, but that doesn’t mean the sight of a foot or breast is inherently sexy in the third-person sense. That’s context-dependent. Congratulations, you’ve arrived at my argument, just a few posts late.
“rarely come into dispute”
is not the flex you think it is. Flat Earth nonsense also rarely comes into dispute in certain circles. The fact that pop culture defaults to “sexy = naked human” doesn’t prove it’s some universal truth, it just proves how shallow and repetitive most sexual representation is.
My “opening point” was that feet and breasts aren’t inherently arousing from a third-person perspective
Which is why strip clubs, presumably, never do any business?
So now we’re back to sensation, not observation.
How do your eyes work?
Flat Earth nonsense also rarely comes into dispute in certain circles.
Why are you being a Titty Flat-Earther?
-
My “opening point” was that feet and breasts aren’t inherently arousing from a third-person perspective
Which is why strip clubs, presumably, never do any business?
So now we’re back to sensation, not observation.
How do your eyes work?
Flat Earth nonsense also rarely comes into dispute in certain circles.
Why are you being a Titty Flat-Earther?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Which is why strip clubs, presumably, never do any business?
Strip clubs prove people pay to perform arousal cues. not that tits are magic arousal buttons. Context sells, not anatomy. I guess you need to look up the definition of 'inherently'.
How do your eyes work?
By processing signals, not generating meaning. You don’t get horny from photons; you get horny from associations.
Why are you being a Titty Flat-Earther?
Because I’m not dumb enough to confuse popularity with proof.
Also, being a Flat-Titty Earther would land me in a lot of trouble.
