An Example Of Lingerie's Nonsexuality

Although it is easy to find examples that demonstrate that there is nothing sexual about a man walking around without a shirt or a woman wearing a bikini [1] (even though logic proves these facts on its own without examples involving actual people), examples of lingerie in explicitly nonsexual contexts are less common.  Many people consequently fail to recognize the nonsexuality of lingerie.  This is not because lingerie is inherently sexual, as it is itself nonsexual [2]; this is because fewer people display or wear it without sexual motives.

Nevertheless, is not impossible to find examples of lingerie in nonsexual contexts.  Singer Elize Ryd, one of three vocalists for the pop-metal/deathcore band Amaranthe, wears what practically amounts to lingerie during some of her performances, and yet I doubt anyone would call the setting of her concerts sexual.  There is no talk of sexuality and no sexual behaviors are engaged in.  The videos below show Elize wearing lingerie-like stage costumes while singing with her band.

Of course, some men might find Elize's clothing to be sexy--meaning that they find it sexually attractive or are mentally aroused by it--but this does not mean that her costumes are sexual in nature; it only means that some men appreciate them in a sexual way or have a sexual reaction to them on a psychological level.  In the same way, women might find shirtless men to be very sexy, but this has nothing to do with whether or not a man has done anything sexual by forgoing a shirt.

The truth of the matter is that lingerie is objectively nonsexual [2] in the same way that male shirtlessness or bikinis are nonsexual.  Some men and women might find the collarbones, legs, abdomens, or genitalia of the opposite gender to be sexually exciting, but no part of the human body is sexual on its own, regardless of how it is showcased or exposed by clothing.  The body can be displayed with sexual intent, just as certain clothing can be worn with sexual intent, and yet this intent cannot make the human body (or clothing) sexual in itself.  Lingerie is no different.

That lingerie is often worn by men and women in explicitly sexual contexts--no matter what sexist nonsense is uttered by some people, there is such a thing as male lingerie and women can thoroughly appreciate it--with the intent of arousing a partner is irrelevant to whether or not it is sexual.  Even if someone refuses to allow reason to illuminate the matter on its own, they should be able to at least comprehend that arousal does not indicate that a thing is sexual, as many everyday examples prove.  It only takes consistent rationality to realize that even lingerie is nonsexual.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/bikinis-are-not-sexual.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html