Sexual arousal also tends to inhibit rational thought. I don't mean that in a snarky or sarcastic way, I mean that it is a biological process that has been well-studied and well-established [1]. This has obvious uses for scamming people and doing other things that their executive function might normally catch and prevent.

This is also why sexual imagery should generally be kept out of public spaces, not because of "puritanism" but because it just generally isn't a good idea to go around letting bad actors inhibiting people's executive function willy-nilly. That should generally be denied as a tool to bad actors like scammers.

[1]: For instance https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersPI/Sexual%20A... - note while the title mentions "sexual decision making" it also covers some 'bad decisions' that aren't particularly sexual on their own.

▲

xeyownt 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why would seeing sexual imagery make you less rational? That doesn't make sense.

The study you mention say the people were already in an arousal state (that they had to induce themselves). It's very different from seeing images that you may simply ignore, evaluate differently, etc.

Also, there is the bias that if people are looking for such images (because they really want them), they are probably more willing to drop recommended practices, and hence make irrational moves. So irrationality doesn't come from seeing the images at the first place, but from their willingness to find / see such images.

▲

mrguyorama 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>This is also why sexual imagery should generally be kept out of public spaces, not because of "puritanism" but because it just generally isn't a good idea to go around letting bad actors inhibiting people's executive function willy-nilly

Okay but presumeably humans adapt to the level of "sexuality" around them to some degree (like they do nearly every other stimulus), because otherwise you could show less prude cultures having lower ability to do "rational thought".

Nudity is normal all over the world and yet people seem to function just fine. What constitutes content that justifies sexual arousal is socially constructed!

▲

jerf 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I cited my sources. You're welcome to seek out studies on the question of how it varies between societies, they probably exist somewhere. However as part of the "adaptation" you cite is precisely scammers getting better at scamming people, this isn't something we should treat casually.

It's not as if it's news or anything. "Sex sells" isn't a new phrase. But I think most people assume it's just because it's ambiently appealing, the fact that it also objectively lowers rational barriers to buying what is being sold is less well understood and changes the question from just a matter of appeal to one of psychological abusiveness.

That's how I've come to see it; that sexy chick (sexist language chosen advisedly) on the billboard isn't just a company nicely providing me a beautiful thing to look at for no reason at all, it's an attack on my executive function. It's an incredibly hostile thing to do and should be treated as such.

▲

subscribed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nudity is not inherently sexual, unless your decide to call all the nudist families and communities perverts and child molesters.

But I assume you grew in the culture where all nudity has been fetishised, so you accidentally conflate these two.

▲

vel0city 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Note the above commenter specifically used the language "sexual imagery" and not "nudity". As you point out, what can be considered "sexual imagery" can vary somewhat based on the cultural norms of the society.

	▲	Xirdus 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Somewhat? The variance is off the charts. Without even going to the extremes of casual nudism vs burka, there are cultures where wearing hair down is seen as sexual, and there are cultures were twerking is child appropriate.