Images Of Lingerie Are Not Erotic Media

In order for something to qualify as erotic media, it must be erotic in some way.  In other words, it must be sexual.  A video of a man and woman sexually fondling each other's bodies is an example of erotic media, as is a written story about a person's self-pleasuring or sexual introspection if it is intended to sexually excite readers.  A video of an attractive, shirtless man that emphasizes his body does not fall within the category of erotic media, as is the case of an image of a beautiful, nude man or woman.  The factor that determines if something is erotic media is not its perceived sexiness, but its actual nature.

Parts of Western culture confuse sexiness for a confirmation that something is sexual, despite personality traits, everyday clothing, and facial and other bodily features being objectively nonsexual in nature.  However, it is not just everyday clothing that men and women wear in public which is nonsexual; lingerie itself, clothing socially associated with and sometimes worn during periods of sexual expression, is not itself erotic.  Thus, it is in one sense unsurprising that pictures or videos of models simply standing or walking around in lingerie are often treated as "erotic media."

Just as pictures of shirtless men or women wearing bikinis are not erotic media whatsoever (except in very specific potential cases where they involve sexual contexts or intentions), no matter how sexy they might be to viewers of the opposite gender, pictures of women or men in lingerie are not erotic media by default.  Looking at pictures or videos of models of the opposite gender in lingerie is not an inherently sexual activity in part because there is nothing erotic about mere imagery of the opposite gender in lingerie, even if the models are very attractive and in highly revealing clothing designed for sensual impact on observers.

Looking at mere images of the opposite gender in lingerie is not necessarily the same as looking at erotica.  Even if the models intended or hoped for viewers of the opposite gender to respond with sexual excitement, the images themselves, if they only depict models standing or posing the way "normally" clothed models would, have no logical connection to sexuality.  Of course, some members of one gender are very likely to find some lingerie-clad bodies of the opposite gender sexually exciting, but this is also true in the same of personalities, emotional connections, and clothing that the general public does not associate with sexuality and sexiness.

Ultimately, lingerie is perceived to be inherently sexual for the same reasons opposite gender friendships, flirtation, bikinis, female breasts, male shirtlessness, and nudity are perceived by many to be sexual: stupidity and cultural conditioning.  Some people find these things sexually attractive or arousing in some, most, or all cases, and they fail to distinguish between the subjective experience of "sexiness" and the logical nature of certain behaviors, clothing, and body parts.  It is not irrational to sexually enjoy clothing or the bodies of the specific members of the opposite gender one might be attracted to, but it is irrational to consider something sexual because it is subjectively arousing.