• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12 months ago

    My “opening point” was that feet and breasts aren’t inherently arousing from a third-person perspective

    Which is why strip clubs, presumably, never do any business?

    So now we’re back to sensation, not observation.

    How do your eyes work?

    Flat Earth nonsense also rarely comes into dispute in certain circles.

    Why are you being a Titty Flat-Earther?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months ago

        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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          “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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            Now omit the context and see how much bare anatomy sells.

            checks the ad revenues on literally any low-rent basic bitch porn site

            Significantly more.

            I’m arguing against how your brain works

            Okay buddy. Take a walk and touch grass.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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.