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.
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.