Comment on I hope i don't get downvoted for this

• Zozano@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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.

  source

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The key word here is ‘inherently’.

    Name something that is inherently sexy.

    source

    • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Me.

      source
    • Zozano@aussie.zone ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments