I havent played 3 personally, but I’ve heard the story is kinda botched because its so inconsistent, and the pacing is fucked.
With 1 and 2 you had the anime-bullshit layered between the disney-bullshit.
Apparently with 3, it goes:
anime-bullshit > (disney-bullshit * worlds) > heavy anime-bullshit with loads of exposition.
Curious George was transgender?
This is such a terrible take.
Of course AAA and AA mean something in the gaming industry! I’m hardly going to power my controller with a fucking 9V am I?
Installing Arch ‘the proper way’ is a pilgrimage all Linux users should take. After that, they can fly with EndeavourOS at their convenience.
Fun fact, the guy can be seen hiding in multiple early scenes.
“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.
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.
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.
They’re more like depth detectors now. They dont work on magnetism, they work by detecting the ultrasonic echoes of what’s behind the wall.
The Aka and Ngandu (Central African Republic)
The Himba (Namibia)
The Trobriand Islanders (Papua New Guinea)
The Nuba (Sudan)
“I want to stress this finding is not final” - researcher of study.
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).
I beg your pardon?
Nudists think people who wear clothes and dont question whether their shame is vindicated are weird. I’m inclined to agree with them lol.
This right here, is the insult you were looking for.
The answers for this kind of fucked up lay in paradoxes.
For example:
If Trump was just 10% better, he would seem far worse.
What do I mean? Every single day is some new shit we need to digest, yet we hadn’t even spent the time to fully digest the last ridiculous shit he said. If we actually had time to process everything then he would appear far worse.