Zozano @ Zozano @aussie.zone

Posts

12

Comments

1,098

Joined

2 yr. ago

Hey man, its your $20. Do whatever you want with it lol.

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.

Lemmy when someone uses AI to get a cheap (0.001 worth of electricity), instant answer instead of spending 20 minutes wading through SEO sludge and AI-generated garbage designed to maximize page time:

“Nooo! It’s destroying the planet!”

Lemmy when someone powers Doom: Dark Ages with a nuclear reactor on a 20,000 RGB space heater:

“Based.”

The sad fact: it's lukewarm at best, but people are committed to reheating it.

Read it again. They do call it evil lol.

• First sentence of their third post.

I didnt dismiss it as 'simply' doom posting,

• I agreed; there is a lot of serious issues at play here.

I did argue a point; my point:

• This is alarmist doom-posting. "REJECT THE INEVITABLE". Famous last words before getting trampled by the passage of time.

I'm sure the horseshoe makers, telephone switchboard operators, and scribes all feel your pain.

AI isn’t “fascist propaganda” any more than the printing press was. They're blaming a tool for the actions of people.

Yes, there are serious issues: privacy, misinformation, exploitation; but reducing it all to “AI is evil” is lazy, alarmist nonsense.

They're not critiquing tech; they're moralizing to a crowd that already agrees with them. If you want change, start making arguments, not doomposts.

Before reading the context I thought this was an AI generated photo of Darth Vader dreaming of the childhood he never had.

Somehow, the reality is sadder.

"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 work because 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I never implied the body shouldn't be considered sexual, I was just explaining why certain body parts are.

Precisely. It's amazing how people have misinterpreted what I've been saying lol.

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.

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.

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.

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.

For me, more boobs = udders = cow ≠ sexy

I'm more of a B - C type of guy.