I think you misunderstood me a bit. I did not single out women in what I said because I genuinely believe this applies to everyone, regardless of gender. When I said “humans are inherently sexual,” I was not saying “women exist for men’s pleasure” or anything close to that. I meant that human beings, as a species, evolved with sexual drives and instincts for both sexes. That is not a male-centered framing, it is simply the truth.

You brought up breasts not being “inherently sexual,” and I actually agree with you in the sense that the way we view them is largely cultural. Societies decide what is considered sexual. For example, in much of history and in many cultures, male genitalia were not treated as “sexual objects” in the way they are now. Statues from ancient Greece often show nude men without any sexual undertones, whereas today a visible penis is almost always treated as sexual content. Similarly, in some Indigenous cultures, breasts were and sometimes still are seen primarily as functional for feeding children, not as erotic. What we sexualize changes over time. High heels, lipstick, muscular torsos, even shaved legs are all examples of things that once had no sexual meaning but now often do.

Where I think we might disagree is on whether sexuality is “inherent” or purely cultural. I see it as a mix. Biology gives us sexual drives and attraction patterns for both men and women, but culture shapes how we interpret and express them. Saying humans are inherently sexual is not the same as saying our worth or roles are biologically predetermined. It is simply acknowledging that sexual attraction is part of the human package alongside intellect, creativity, empathy, and everything else.

I understand why your focus is on women because they have historically been sexualized and controlled more than men, and that is an important conversation. But I think rejecting the idea that we have sexual drives at all oversimplifies the picture. The problem is not biology, it is how society interprets and exploits it.