I hope i don't get downvoted for this
-
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.
Precisely.
It's amazing how people have misinterpreted what I've been saying 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?
I never implied the body shouldn't be considered sexual, I was just explaining why certain body parts are.
-
Kids. Thank god I'm not attracted to kids. Or animals. Anything else is fair game. Feet attached to a consenting adult are fine. Don't see the big deal. I like to spit-shine the rusty sheriff's badge, so why the fuck would I care if someone likes a boring regular appendage like a foot?
âUnless there's some angle to this non-foot people don't understand? Like, maybe being turned on by feet is comorbid with an uncontrollable need to blast rope over any uncovered foot you see? Now that would suck.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I'm trying real hard to figure what a rusty sheriff badge is an allegory for
...... OH
-
So very true. People always think there's something wrong with you.
If you dont mind me asking, is it all sex or specific kinds?
Ive found this is also me to a degree. Enjoy performing things for the partner, but anything done to me does nothing including PiV.
Difficult to find discourse involving this so Apologies if this is prying lmao
I find the wide variety of ace experiences super interesting. For my part, I'm bi and also demisexual (and I have been working hard at practicing not ace-erasing myself).
An example of the interesting variety I mean is how libido and attraction aren't necessarily coupled, and also that even besides those factors, there's a spectrum of ace attitudes towards sex. I had a friend who had a high libido, but was also quite sex-repulsed. That is to say that she masturbated plenty, but had no inclination towards sex. This caused some tension when she entered into a romantic relationship with an allosexual woman who had some difficulty understanding an ace person being both sex repulsed and high libido (though tbf, my friend was learning how to navigate the line between enjoyable cuddles and unpleasantly sexual stuff. She also tried to fit into the model of aceness similar to what you describe, but she found that her discomfort with sex was such that it made her feel less close to her partner (in contrast to how our sex-ambivalent ace friends had described their experiences).
-
Precisely.
It's amazing how people have misinterpreted what I've been saying lol.People get emotional around this topic pretty fast. Don't take the downvotes personally, i found your statements perfectly rational.
-
This post did not contain any content.
What's wrong with feet?
-
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
-
personally, it's kinda hard to say? i have felt romantic attraction exactly once in my life, so i know i'm not fully aromantic, but also it's only happened once so i'm probably on the aro spectrum somewhere
but yes, there are many people who are asexual but who still feel romantic attraction to others
(and of course, not all attraction is sexual or romantic, there is also aesthetic attraction for example (literally just when you find people pretty), which i do feel, my meme was pretty reductive all things considered, but then again it's just a meme)
So I know with a rather high degree of certainty I'm ace, but I continue to have trouble untangling aromanticism from my aversion to people and mild paranoia.
-
It's not a good day to have eyes
-
I'm trying real hard to figure what a rusty sheriff badge is an allegory for
...... OH
Tongue-punching the fart box
-
I'm trying real hard to figure what a rusty sheriff badge is an allegory for
...... OH
Chocolate starfish, leather cheerio, balloon knot.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I donât really get it tbhâŚ.
-
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 âinherentlyâ.
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 âinherentlyâ.
Name something that is inherently sexy.
You're asking the wrong question. The point isnât to name something âinherently sexyâ, the point is that nothing is.
âSexyâ isnât an objective property of an object or body part; itâs a subjective response rooted in psychology, biology, and culture. Trying to find something âinherently sexyâ is like trying to find something inherently funny or inherently sad. it only makes sense in relation to the observerâs mind.
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever... theyâre all loaded with associative meaning, shaped by exposure, taboo, and novelty. The fact that entire industries exist around them doesnât 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 thatâs just not the case. Look at tribes where breasts are no more sexual than elbows.
Fetish, attraction, arousal⌠itâs all downstream of context. Nothingâs inherently sexy. Thatâs the whole damn point.
-
You're asking the wrong question. The point isnât to name something âinherently sexyâ, the point is that nothing is.
âSexyâ isnât an objective property of an object or body part; itâs a subjective response rooted in psychology, biology, and culture. Trying to find something âinherently sexyâ is like trying to find something inherently funny or inherently sad. it only makes sense in relation to the observerâs mind.
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever... theyâre all loaded with associative meaning, shaped by exposure, taboo, and novelty. The fact that entire industries exist around them doesnât 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 thatâs just not the case. Look at tribes where breasts are no more sexual than elbows.
Fetish, attraction, arousal⌠itâs all downstream of context. Nothingâs inherently sexy. Thatâs the whole damn point.
Feet, breasts, lingerie, whatever⌠theyâre 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.
Nothingâs 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
