>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!

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.

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.

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.