Lingerie Is Not Sexual

Imagine a society that associates blue jeans with sex.  If people wear blue jeans in this hypothetical culture, it is expected for them to be about to engage in sexual behaviors, or that, at the very least, they are trying to feel sexy.  If a society viewed blue jeans as related to sexual activity, that society would have a false understanding of the nature of both sexuality and blue jeans.  Many Americans would probably see very quickly that there is nothing about blue jeans on their own that has to do with sexual feelings or activities.  Only a highly unintelligent person would fail to realize this.

If one said the same about lingerie, though, those same people would likely disagree.  That lingerie, a type of undergarment, is objectively nonsexual in itself is just as easily demonstrable, though this truth is mostly unacknowledged (as is the fact that there is no logical connection between lingerie and a specific gender, though my culture associates lingerie almost exclusively with women).  The fallacious beliefs about sexuality that people often subscribe to are absurd!

In itself, there is nothing about lingerie that is affiliated with sexual behaviors or feelings, just like there is no connection between sexuality and male muscularity, bikinis, or nudity.  Just like there is no inherent connection between sexuality and a man being shirtless or a woman wearing shorts, what people classify as lingerie is not connected to sexuality by logical necessity.  It is cultural forces, not reason or Scripture, that hold up such clothing as sexual (just like it is solely cultural forces that affiliate such clothing mostly with women, due to false assumptions about men and women).  Transparency and sensual designs don't make clothing itself sexual.  It could have been some other style of clothing that was deemed as having to do with sex.

Whether someone perceives lingerie to be sexy, though, is a totally different matter.  Sexiness is a purely subjective thing, having only to do with a person being sexually attracted to another person or sexually aroused by a situation, thing, or person.  Someone can perceive a nonsexual thing to be sexy [1], just like someone might not be sexually stirred on either a physiological or mental level by something that is inherently sexual.  While sexiness pertains to the subjective perceptions of an individual, a thing--an act, a feeling, or a situation--is either sexual or nonsexual, and only a relatively minuscule number of behaviors and feelings are truly sexual by nature.  The vast majority of things people consider either sexy or sexual are objectively nonsexual in themselves.

The nuances of sexuality can be discovered through reason and experience, and sometimes these nuances, as with other subjects, are far deeper than some might expect.  But these nuances are still true, and they are still provable.  The truth is that there is nothing sexual about lingerie itself, just like there is nothing sexual about a myriad of other things that people might mistake as sexual--always due to faulty epistemology and metaphysics.  When a person challenges social consensus with reason, what comes to light might be very surprising to them.


[1].  “Sapiosexuals are sexually attracted to intelligence, yet there is nothing sexual about intelligence.  Demisexuals experience sexual attraction to people they are very emotionally close to, yet there is nothing sexual about emotional intimacy.  Likewise, some women might be sexually attracted to male muscularity (and vice versa), although there is nothing sexual about muscularity.  Or some people might find a certain hairstyle or smile sexy, when there is nothing sexual about hair or smiling.  Some men might perceive a specific bikini to be sexy and some women might perceive shirtless men to be sexy, although there is nothing sexual about either bikinis or shirtlessness."
--https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-nature-of-sexiness.html