Breasts are sexual. They’re secondary sex characteristics.
Comment on I hope i don't get downvoted for this
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
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.
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).
cattywampas@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
taulover@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
…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.
cattywampas@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
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.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Not everyone’s nipples are sensitive FYI.
blarghly@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.”
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Ooo baby look at that apple BOB–yeah drain that cup, waterboy
coacoamelky@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
That’s interesting
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Yes, but I’m talking about arousal. The distinction between the adjective and verb of ‘sex’ is important lol.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
So is thick back hair
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Hey, some people love body hair, so you’re not disproving much.
rbamgnxl5@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
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? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism#Cause
A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Welll for one, giving your partner a foot massage usually ends up in them feeling better. Nobody does that with belly buttons.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
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.
lena@gregtech.eu 3 weeks ago
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
“I want to stress this finding is not final”
Relatively small sample size of one group of peoples.
Meanwhile, we have numerous examples of cultures where tits hang loose on the daily, and aren’t seen as inherently arousing.
But the implication that breasts signal cues about health is kinda a no brainer. It’s why obese people aren’t considered attractive (dont cross post this on tumblr).
lena@gregtech.eu 3 weeks ago
Meanwhile, we have numerous examples of cultures where tits hang loose on the daily, and aren’t seen as inherently arousing.
Source? Not to say you’re lying, I’d just like to read more about it
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
The Aka and Ngandu (Central African Republic)
The Himba (Namibia)
The Trobriand Islanders (Papua New Guinea)
The Nuba (Sudan)
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
It’s why obese people aren’t considered attractive
If you look up the definition of what is considered “obese” for your height, I think you’d find this is largely false.
Xanthrax@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
When I fuck people their feet are in my face.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
I mean sure, you do you. If everyone wore gloves in a parallel timeline, you’d probably want chin scratches.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
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.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
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.
Xanthrax@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I love head scratches! I’m also bald, so how could I not?
Carmakazi@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Nudists are weird people and I wouldn’t accept what they have to say about sexuality at face value.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Nudists think people who wear clothes and dont question whether their shame is vindicated are weird. I’m inclined to agree with them lol.
lowleekun@ani.social 3 weeks ago
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.
Carmakazi@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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?
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
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.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
I never implied the body shouldn’t be considered sexual, I was just explaining why certain body parts are.
Vespair@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
My guy we are literally the only creature on the entire planet with a sense of shame who covers are 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
renamon_silver@lemmy.wtf 3 weeks ago
What do tribal cultures regard as sexy?
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
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.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
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.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
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.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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
Valmond@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Dressed people ofc!
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
It raises or prompts that question.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
I beg your pardon?
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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 classic foreplay.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
You’re not picking up what I’m laying down.
I’m not arguing that feet and breasts aren’t capable of proving sexual stimulation from a first person perspective. I’m saying at from a third person perspective, theres nothing about them which inherently arousing; that arousal stems from novelty.
lowleekun@ani.social 3 weeks ago
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.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Precisely. It’s amazing how people have misinterpreted what I’ve been saying lol.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
Zozano@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
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.