(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.
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.
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
“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 workbecause 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 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 was your opening point.
The sensation of another human body is consistently and universally sexually arousing to any predisposed toward arousal.
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.
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.
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.
Which is why strip clubs, presumably, never do any business?
How do your eyes work?
Why are you being a Titty Flat-Earther?
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’.
By processing signals, not generating meaning. You don’t get horny from photons; you get horny from associations.
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.
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.
Omit the anatomy and see how much context you sell.
You quite literally do. If your eyes are closed, the visual medium has no effect.
You’re arguing against how eyeballs work, at this point
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.”
Sure. Now omit the context and see how much bare anatomy sells. Oh right, that’s why porn has genres, costumes, settings, and storylines.
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.
Nah, I’m arguing against how your brain works; specifically, its need to reduce complex psychological responses to caveman-tier hot take bullshit.
checks the ad revenues on literally any low-rent basic bitch porn site
Significantly more.
Okay buddy. Take a walk and touch grass.
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.