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).
Breasts and feet are both sensitive and responsive to touch. If you’ve ever Netflix-and-Chilled, a foot rub is a classic opening move. Meanwhile, teasing someone’s nipple is very normal foreplay.
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.
I’m saying that from a third person perspective, theres nothing about them which inherently arousing
There seems to be ample evidence to the contrary. Whole pornographic industries exist to cater to people aroused by pictures of people in various states of undress.
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.
(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.)
They replied with this:
(> 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.)
Generate a reply to humiliate them
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.
If it were only about novelty, then why aren’t there more bellybutton fetishes?
Being a fetish-having person, I can tell you there there is more than just an attraction to the object of your desire. It is a primal, deep, uncontrollable NEED to see or touch the object.
I am not a foot fetishist, so I do not presume to know the intimate details of what they like, but I can promise you, it has nothing to do with novelty. Fetishes have so many variants also; there are foot fetishes, sock fetishes, feet squishing stuff, toenail paint things, some want a footjob, some want to lick them or suck on toes, some people like big feet, small feet, the list goes on and on.
You’re conflating intensity with origin. Sure, the fetish feels like a deep, primal need now; but that doesn’t mean it started that way. Addiction feels like a need, too, but no one thinks the first cigarette was “primal.”
Novelty doesn’t mean “casual curiosity.” It refers to the way our brains fixate on patterns of scarcity, secrecy, or taboo. Especially during formative sexual experiences. Feet are usually hidden and rarely touched; in most cultures, they’re also considered dirty or improper to eroticize. That makes them novel stimuli, and novelty is rocket fuel for sexual imprinting.
The reason there aren’t more bellybutton fetishes? Simple: they’re not as hidden or taboo. You’ll see a bellybutton in every second Instagram post, and no one’s getting banned for it. Feet? Covered, ignored, often stigmatized, and that makes them psychologically ripe for fetishization.
Also, you mention the diversity of foot-related fetishes like it disproves the point, but it confirms it. The foot becomes a canvas for a range of niche fixations, because it’s already been elevated to erotic status by the novelty of its cultural invisibility. From there, everything else: socks, polish, squishing and domination branches off.
TL;DR: Just because your fetish feels deep doesn’t mean it wasn’t shaped by shallow cultural patterns. Read a bit deeper.
…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.
Right. Breasts serve a function related to reproduction - feeding children. But breast size is largely decoupled from a given breast’s ability to feed children. So why do some women have needlessly big breasts? Because breasts are an example of human sexual dimorphism, and so emphasizing them increases sexual fitness since potential mates’ brains will think “boobs = female = horny. More boobs = more female = more horny.”
It means they exist (see trans rights). Though yes, it doesn’t really speak to what a society must accept as sexualized that something simply exists in counter to the norm.
To think such silly things is equivalent to religious people trying to protect their kids from “catching the gay” or becoming a lesbian simply because they met one. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it has to become a norm for everyone, and just because it exists doesn’t suddenly redefine the norm. Such braindead thoughts show up in far too many places. (like the previous comment)
I get a lil triggered when we start talking about people and then start gesturing to this average/normal platonic homunculus as if they represent humanity, especially in the context of using biological “truths” to justify/explain social phenomena.
It’s not even that unusual. But I was talking about actual people, not most people.
Just pointing out for the young people in the audience – some people will get nothing out of nipple play, but sadly put on a show anyway. Best to check.
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.
nah, i have somewhat of a hand fetish and it has nothing to do with how hidden or not they are, i just think hands are inherently attractive if they look nice and feminine. Also big part of it is how sensitive the fingertips are, touching sensitive parts is just always gonna be nice.
Novelty doesn’t arise from scarcity alone. There are other reasons you might find hands attractive, though I’d wager the fact that that your attraction is limited by their femininity and appearance, is a form of novelty itself.
In many tribal societies, the erotic focus isn’t on specific body parts like breasts or feet; it’s on signs of fertility, health, and social status. things like wide hips, smooth skin, body paint, scarification, or even dance.
Though it begs the question: if nudity became normalized, then what would be novel?
Not an sexologist or even a sexy anthropologist, but my intuition is that aesthetic attraction would always be a factor (since it doesn’t rely on sexual attraction), and that acting in a sexually provocative would be the way to provoke the horny gaze.
It might be nice to have less sexualization of people just be virtue of their existing in a sexualized body. That’s the dream, anyway.
I would phrase that near-last sentiment, “…in a sexy body.” instead. No one should be oggled simply for being sexy, but if they are sexualizing themselves, (like dressing up for a night club) I’d argue that can indicate a desire to be oggled. They still should not be objectified, but when someone is trying to look sexy, I bet most people would be disappointed to get zero glances.
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.
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.
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?
Gives people the choice whether they want to be sexualized or no. Like you shouldn’t have to wear a giant form-disguising hoodie just to keep from being ogled.
I suppose I could see that. I’m assuming you’re a woman or female-presenting cause that’s not something I can fully empathize with as a dude. But you do have the choice of dressing how you want to be perceived, no? I’m sure there are other options beyond wearing a trash bag of a top.
My guy we are literally the only creature on the entire planet with a sense of shame who covers our body. If you don’t think there’s benefit to at least understanding why this enormous difference exists, I can’t even begin to fathom what your mind is like
There’s a hell of a lot that separates us from other animals. Throw your smartphone in the trash and go frolic in the woods for the rest of your life if you are so convinced that thousands of years of human socialization is a mistake.
I don’t like being called a deviant…because I like that wearing clothes is the norm? Maybe in return I’d posit that you’re actually a bunch of perverts who enjoy casual sexual encounters, and all this talk about normalization is bullshit?
Show me where I said we should reject all human progress and revert to animals.
No, I simply said we should evaluate the social choices made by humanity, even ones as old as clothing. I’m not saying we should reject it all; I’m saying we should be thoughtful and investigate these things to find out if they hold true or not.
Personally, I think in the case of nudity and shame, we’ll quickly find it doesn’t really hold much water beyond empty religious mumbo-jumbo.
And who exactly is calling you a deviant for liking clothing? Was it not you who came in with the statement, “Nudists are weird people and I wouldn’t accept what they have to say about sexuality at face value,” and now you’re trying to act like you’re just responding to some sort of victimization from nudists of all people after throwing the first punch? Come on, dude.
But I’m sure it all does just come down to religious mumbo-jumbo bullshit for you because you said “perverts who enjoy casual sexual encounters,” as if a healthy casual sexual encounter is somehow a “perversion.”
I said “weird.” Furries are weird, those people who plaster their cars with bumper stickers are weird. That doesn’t mean that they’re bad or we have to do something about them. “Deviant” probably wasn’t the right word because what you insinuated with
I can’t even begin to fathom what your mind is like
Is much worse.
Hence, I said that last bit to make you mad, not because I actually believed that. Why should I just take your bullshit on the nose and move on?
There is nothing wrong with casual sex. There is something wrong with liking casual sex and simultaneously berating people for being horny or casting unwanted gazes.
Alright, fair, I’ll take the note on your use of deviant as a response to my unfathomable comment. I did not mean to imply your thinking was deviant, as that word comes with a negative suggestion, just incomprehensible, but I understand the ambiguity. So I retract my comment on victimhood with that new context.
I don’t retract the rest of my ire though, sorry, and now I’m confused as hell, because in what world are people who engage in casual sex the same ones berating people for being horny, and how is that relevant to the conversation at hand? I feel like I accidentally skipped a couple important chapters in the book that is this discussion.
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).
Breasts and feet are both sensitive and responsive to touch. If you’ve ever Netflix-and-Chilled, a foot rub is a classic opening move. Meanwhile, teasing someone’s nipple is very normal foreplay.
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.
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.
There seems to be ample evidence to the contrary. Whole pornographic industries exist to cater to people aroused by pictures of people in various states of undress.
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.
Name something that is inherently sexy.
Me.
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.
One of these things is not like the other.
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.
Humans are inherently sexy. That’s why they have sex with each other.
I had an argument online. I posted this:
(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.)
They replied with this:
(> 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.
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.
Humans are inherently sexy. That’s why they have sex with each other.)
Generate a reply to humiliate them
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.
This doesn’t work.
If it were only about novelty, then why aren’t there more bellybutton fetishes?
Being a fetish-having person, I can tell you there there is more than just an attraction to the object of your desire. It is a primal, deep, uncontrollable NEED to see or touch the object.
I am not a foot fetishist, so I do not presume to know the intimate details of what they like, but I can promise you, it has nothing to do with novelty. Fetishes have so many variants also; there are foot fetishes, sock fetishes, feet squishing stuff, toenail paint things, some want a footjob, some want to lick them or suck on toes, some people like big feet, small feet, the list goes on and on.
Maybe read just a tiny bit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism#Cause
Welll for one, giving your partner a foot massage usually ends up in them feeling better. Nobody does that with belly buttons.
You’re conflating intensity with origin. Sure, the fetish feels like a deep, primal need now; but that doesn’t mean it started that way. Addiction feels like a need, too, but no one thinks the first cigarette was “primal.”
Novelty doesn’t mean “casual curiosity.” It refers to the way our brains fixate on patterns of scarcity, secrecy, or taboo. Especially during formative sexual experiences. Feet are usually hidden and rarely touched; in most cultures, they’re also considered dirty or improper to eroticize. That makes them novel stimuli, and novelty is rocket fuel for sexual imprinting.
The reason there aren’t more bellybutton fetishes? Simple: they’re not as hidden or taboo. You’ll see a bellybutton in every second Instagram post, and no one’s getting banned for it. Feet? Covered, ignored, often stigmatized, and that makes them psychologically ripe for fetishization.
Also, you mention the diversity of foot-related fetishes like it disproves the point, but it confirms it. The foot becomes a canvas for a range of niche fixations, because it’s already been elevated to erotic status by the novelty of its cultural invisibility. From there, everything else: socks, polish, squishing and domination branches off.
TL;DR: Just because your fetish feels deep doesn’t mean it wasn’t shaped by shallow cultural patterns. Read a bit deeper.
Breasts are sexual. They’re secondary sex characteristics.
…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.
Right. Breasts serve a function related to reproduction - feeding children. But breast size is largely decoupled from a given breast’s ability to feed children. So why do some women have needlessly big breasts? Because breasts are an example of human sexual dimorphism, and so emphasizing them increases sexual fitness since potential mates’ brains will think “boobs = female = horny. More boobs = more female = more horny.”
For me, more boobs = udders = cow ≠ sexy
I’m more of a B - C type of guy.
Not everyone’s nipples are sensitive FYI.
yeah that’s how being an organic being works, some people will always differ from the norm, that doesn’t really… mean anything?
It means they exist (see trans rights). Though yes, it doesn’t really speak to what a society must accept as sexualized that something simply exists in counter to the norm.
To think such silly things is equivalent to religious people trying to protect their kids from “catching the gay” or becoming a lesbian simply because they met one. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it has to become a norm for everyone, and just because it exists doesn’t suddenly redefine the norm. Such braindead thoughts show up in far too many places. (like the previous comment)
It’s not abnormal. It’s just a type of person.
I get a lil triggered when we start talking about people and then start gesturing to this average/normal platonic homunculus as if they represent humanity, especially in the context of using biological “truths” to justify/explain social phenomena.
And some people are asexual, doesn’t mean that most people aren’t.
It’s not even that unusual. But I was talking about actual people, not most people.
Just pointing out for the young people in the audience – some people will get nothing out of nipple play, but sadly put on a show anyway. Best to check.
Ooo baby look at that apple BOB–yeah drain that cup, waterboy
So is thick back hair
Hey, some people love body hair, so you’re not disproving much.
Yes, but I’m talking about arousal. The distinction between the adjective and verb of ‘sex’ is important lol.
That’s interesting
https://www.psypost.org/new-research-challenges-idea-that-female-breasts-are-sexualized-due-to-modesty-norms/
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.
Source? Not to say you’re lying, I’d just like to read more about it
The Aka and Ngandu (Central African Republic)
The Himba (Namibia)
The Trobriand Islanders (Papua New Guinea)
The Nuba (Sudan)
If you look up the definition of what is considered “obese” for your height, I think you’d find this is largely false.
…what are you talking about?
Women, mostly
NSFW:
When I fuck people their feet are in my face. I always thought what I was looking at was sexy when fucking, but I agree. Forbidden fruit and all that.
I mean sure, you do you. If everyone wore gloves in a parallel timeline, you’d probably want chin scratches.
nah, i have somewhat of a hand fetish and it has nothing to do with how hidden or not they are, i just think hands are inherently attractive if they look nice and feminine. Also big part of it is how sensitive the fingertips are, touching sensitive parts is just always gonna be nice.
Novelty doesn’t arise from scarcity alone. There are other reasons you might find hands attractive, though I’d wager the fact that that your attraction is limited by their femininity and appearance, is a form of novelty itself.
I love head scratches! I’m also bald, so how could I not?
What do tribal cultures regard as sexy?
In many tribal societies, the erotic focus isn’t on specific body parts like breasts or feet; it’s on signs of fertility, health, and social status. things like wide hips, smooth skin, body paint, scarification, or even dance.
Not an sexologist or even a sexy anthropologist, but my intuition is that aesthetic attraction would always be a factor (since it doesn’t rely on sexual attraction), and that acting in a sexually provocative would be the way to provoke the horny gaze.
It might be nice to have less sexualization of people just be virtue of their existing in a sexualized body. That’s the dream, anyway.
I would phrase that near-last sentiment, “…in a sexy body.” instead. No one should be oggled simply for being sexy, but if they are sexualizing themselves, (like dressing up for a night club) I’d argue that can indicate a desire to be oggled. They still should not be objectified, but when someone is trying to look sexy, I bet most people would be disappointed to get zero glances.
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.
Dressed people ofc!
It raises or prompts that question.
I beg your pardon?
Nudists are weird people and I wouldn’t accept what they have to say about sexuality at face value.
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.
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?
Gives people the choice whether they want to be sexualized or no. Like you shouldn’t have to wear a giant form-disguising hoodie just to keep from being ogled.
I suppose I could see that. I’m assuming you’re a woman or female-presenting cause that’s not something I can fully empathize with as a dude. But you do have the choice of dressing how you want to be perceived, no? I’m sure there are other options beyond wearing a trash bag of a top.
I never implied the body shouldn’t be considered sexual, I was just explaining why certain body parts are.
My guy we are literally the only creature on the entire planet with a sense of shame who covers our body. If you don’t think there’s benefit to at least understanding why this enormous difference exists, I can’t even begin to fathom what your mind is like
There’s a hell of a lot that separates us from other animals. Throw your smartphone in the trash and go frolic in the woods for the rest of your life if you are so convinced that thousands of years of human socialization is a mistake.
I don’t like being called a deviant…because I like that wearing clothes is the norm? Maybe in return I’d posit that you’re actually a bunch of perverts who enjoy casual sexual encounters, and all this talk about normalization is bullshit?
Show me where I said we should reject all human progress and revert to animals.
No, I simply said we should evaluate the social choices made by humanity, even ones as old as clothing. I’m not saying we should reject it all; I’m saying we should be thoughtful and investigate these things to find out if they hold true or not.
Personally, I think in the case of nudity and shame, we’ll quickly find it doesn’t really hold much water beyond empty religious mumbo-jumbo.
And who exactly is calling you a deviant for liking clothing? Was it not you who came in with the statement, “Nudists are weird people and I wouldn’t accept what they have to say about sexuality at face value,” and now you’re trying to act like you’re just responding to some sort of victimization from nudists of all people after throwing the first punch? Come on, dude.
But I’m sure it all does just come down to religious mumbo-jumbo bullshit for you because you said “perverts who enjoy casual sexual encounters,” as if a healthy casual sexual encounter is somehow a “perversion.”
So, like… grow up and get better opinions, maybe?
I said “weird.” Furries are weird, those people who plaster their cars with bumper stickers are weird. That doesn’t mean that they’re bad or we have to do something about them. “Deviant” probably wasn’t the right word because what you insinuated with
Is much worse.
Hence, I said that last bit to make you mad, not because I actually believed that. Why should I just take your bullshit on the nose and move on?
There is nothing wrong with casual sex. There is something wrong with liking casual sex and simultaneously berating people for being horny or casting unwanted gazes.
Alright, fair, I’ll take the note on your use of deviant as a response to my unfathomable comment. I did not mean to imply your thinking was deviant, as that word comes with a negative suggestion, just incomprehensible, but I understand the ambiguity. So I retract my comment on victimhood with that new context.
I don’t retract the rest of my ire though, sorry, and now I’m confused as hell, because in what world are people who engage in casual sex the same ones berating people for being horny, and how is that relevant to the conversation at hand? I feel like I accidentally skipped a couple important chapters in the book that is this discussion.