I hope i don't get downvoted for this
-
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.
-
A foot fetish sort of works its way into your brain over time. The synapses for feet and sexual attraction are extremely close to each other, so when you do things like, hold someone's feet during sex, or give them a foot rub during foreplay, there's a chance your brain may start making that connection that feet are an erotic thing. For me, it started after being married for a few years, and she just sort of flexed her toes during sex in such a way that it gave me goosebumps, in a good way. Granted I'd been giving her foot rubs for a few years by that point...but oh...my god. When it clicked that it was a turn on for me, it was a game changer.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I can understand that. You might want to look up what the definition of a synapse is, but honest questioner seeking real answers in your area: your crush, presuming no ethical, or moral complications, would you rather she A: let you give her a 5-minute foot massage with oil, or B: show you her bare breasts from six feet away. Defend your answer with citations as necessary. I understand what a kink is, but being a boring vanilla, if choosing one precluded the possibility of the other possibility forever, the choice is obvious for me.
-
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
I feel like this is absurd with even a little bit of thought. Why does this sort of explanation apparently only work for feet and not other fetishes? Why does it matter if wires can get crossed for nerves in the feet if most people with foot fetishes are into other people's feet and not having things done to their own feet? This gets mentioned a lot online but it makes no sense.
-
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.
Strip clubs prove people pay to perform arousal cues.
But this won't work, because there's nothing inherently sexy about arousal cues. Therefore, nobody goes to them and the businesses all fail immediately.
Context sells, not anatomy.
Omit the anatomy and see how much context you sell.
You don’t get horny from photons
You quite literally do. If your eyes are closed, the visual medium has no effect.
I’m not dumb enough to confuse popularity with proof
You're arguing against how eyeballs work, at this point
-
Strip clubs prove people pay to perform arousal cues.
But this won't work, because there's nothing inherently sexy about arousal cues. Therefore, nobody goes to them and the businesses all fail immediately.
Context sells, not anatomy.
Omit the anatomy and see how much context you sell.
You don’t get horny from photons
You quite literally do. If your eyes are closed, the visual medium has no effect.
I’m not dumb enough to confuse popularity with proof
You're arguing against how eyeballs work, at this point
"There's nothing inherently sexy about arousal cues. Therefore, nobody goes to them..."
You’re trying to sarcasm your way around a syllogism that doesn’t follow. Arousal cues work because of conditioned association. That’s the point. Still not "inherent."
"Omit the anatomy and see how much context you sell."
Sure. Now omit the context and see how much bare anatomy sells. Oh right, that's why porn has genres, costumes, settings, and storylines.
"You quite literally do [get horny from photons]."
No. You get visual input from photons. Interpretation happens in the brain. By your logic, a baby looking at porn would pop a boner. Try again.
"You're arguing against how eyeballs work."
Nah, I’m arguing against how your brain works; specifically, its need to reduce complex psychological responses to caveman-tier hot take bullshit.
-
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 are hot cause i can feel a lot of emotion through them
-
Feet are hot cause i can feel a lot of emotion through them
I mean like the emotion of the person the feet are on
-
"There's nothing inherently sexy about arousal cues. Therefore, nobody goes to them..."
You’re trying to sarcasm your way around a syllogism that doesn’t follow. Arousal cues work because of conditioned association. That’s the point. Still not "inherent."
"Omit the anatomy and see how much context you sell."
Sure. Now omit the context and see how much bare anatomy sells. Oh right, that's why porn has genres, costumes, settings, and storylines.
"You quite literally do [get horny from photons]."
No. You get visual input from photons. Interpretation happens in the brain. By your logic, a baby looking at porn would pop a boner. Try again.
"You're arguing against how eyeballs work."
Nah, I’m arguing against how your brain works; specifically, its need to reduce complex psychological responses to caveman-tier hot take bullshit.
Now omit the context and see how much bare anatomy sells.
checks the ad revenues on literally any low-rent basic bitch porn site
Significantly more.
I’m arguing against how your brain works
Okay buddy. Take a walk and touch grass.
-
Hot take: pansexual people are better off than people with a specific genital fetish.
I'm bi (specifically polysexual, but that gets confusing because its less well known and I'm also polyamorous) and my attraction to specific genitals is roughly equal to body morphology and a cute face's importance, but I'm simply way less less picky about them.
I wish I was just as non-picky about the body morphology and cute faces. My romantic life would probably have been way more fulfilling at this point if that had been the case.
-
Now omit the context and see how much bare anatomy sells.
checks the ad revenues on literally any low-rent basic bitch porn site
Significantly more.
I’m arguing against how your brain works
Okay buddy. Take a walk and touch grass.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Porn revenue proves anatomy is sexy? Cool, by that logic, McDonald’s proves burgers are inherently gourmet.
You’re not making arguments, you’re just stapling confidence to correlation and calling it a worldview.
-
We're on thin ice here, because some people conflate dressing sexily with looking cool more than wanting to be desired sexually, but in general I agree with your edit.
Yea, that's why I said nightclub, where social interaction and maybe sexyness is generally a significant part.
If someone simply looks sexy in their work uniform... yea, not the best time unless there are other clues. lol
