Maybe because this all started with underwear?

You're clearly not interested in actually talking if your takeaway from either of my messages was to get upset about the exact extent of body hair removal I assumed you were referring to.

Ah, excuse me for thinking that your comment about removing body and genital hair to more closely resemble a child had anything to do with an implied sexualization of children. It's only what every other person thought, and also a common claim.

You might go and actually read my comment, as opposed to throwing a fit because you dislike one sentence where I use a word you don't want me to use. I spend most of it talking about how society values purity and cleanliness, which hair removal is associated with.

I was actually trying to engage in a positive tone in good faith, unlike you it seems who I'm not pretty sure is just going for the argument and has no interest in anything other than getting to yell.

It's fucking embarrassing how poor your reading comprehension is.

Ah, what sweet irony, considering you obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

Huh. I always just look or feel for the flap.

I mean, social standards having a sexist bias and hence people inside that society earnestly express the standards they were raised in is a thing.

It's not that society makes women want what men want, it's that society sets standards that everyone works towards, and it's also set different ones for men and women.
There's no harm to a cute bow on underwear, nor to recognizing that fashion trends currently find that less acceptable on mens clothing.

The people who tie different gender standards and norms back to the sexual are just making it weird for no good reason.

If you actually look at the history of body hair removal, it's almost always been associated with cleanliness and purity and from there social status.

The modern variation started with darwinism and the assertion that body hair was more primitive and undeveloped. Hairlessness was then cast as more evolved. Spectrum of ape to human has a clear hair gradient, so obviously less hair means less ape-ish, and hence more desirable.
In the past few hundred years the evolution aspect has been giving way to the purity and cleanliness aspect again.

The sexism is in who our society finds purity and cleanliness more important for. Trying to tie that double standard back to pedophillia just makes people more prone to dismiss the entire thing.

The driving factor can be seen more in how people talk about beards, but also womens. People say clean shaven men look clean, professional, and so on. We all know what images come to mind if I say to picture a neckbeards room.
People aren't infantalizing men by appreciating a removal of a prominent secondary sexual characteristic.
For women, you said it yourself:

finds natural body hair on women to be grotesque

You didn't say "old", or any of the myriad fucked up terms some people have for women older than 25, you said "grotesque". Society finds it gross or unclean.

The sexism is right on the label. You don't have to go digging for it.
Society has significantly higher standards for hair removal for women than men, likely related to how society has higher standards of "purity" for women than men. Men have an "out" where the masculinity of male hair can also be positive, but there's no corresponding feminine hair boost.

Are you arguing about sexism in clothing design by seemingly implying that women don't wear work boots?

Possibly not the best way to argue about the sexism endemic in clothing design.

.... What are you talking about? Bow ties are a notable example of mens formal wear.
They're commonly seen at weddings and the most formal of events like major award events.

Just look at those infantalized... Nobel prize winners, monarchs and national leaders?

Oh, and don't forget that formal naval military attire involves a neckerchief tied quite prominently in a bow much like the underwear.

You put bowties on children because they also snag less, and it's cute when kids wear formal attire.

They would have done better to make it more about talking someone into it or pestering them than about "hesitation". Maybe "reluctant" would have been better.
Sometimes people need to do a little internal status check. "I had a headache all day, am I not feeling it or would it be a fun alternative to ibuprofen?"

If, as you say, consent doesn't matter for animals, then you can't rape one at all and we can fall back to the more conventional "abuse", "mistreatment" or "animal cruelty".

Your "contextual inference" seems to be the inference of consent, so I'm confused by what you mean. If consent doesn't matter then clearly it doesn't matter if the goat is tied to a pole.

I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. If you kill a goat, you're a goat killer. If you buy a puppy, you're a puppy buyer. If you fuck a goat you're a goat fucker, and unless you passed the impossibly high bar of proving consent, you're a non-consensual goat fucker, commonly called a "goat rapist".

If you can adequately prove to me that the animal understood and consented then what happens between you and the goat is your own business.
It takes more than enthusiastic participation: it also requires the ability to appropriately conceptualize what's being consented to. It's why drugging someone and then using their enthusiasm as consent doesn't fly, or why a 13 year old can't consent to a relationship with someone much older than them.

A goat understands goat sex well enough that we all generally agree they can consent if they're obviously into it.
A goat does not understand interspecies sex well enough to consent, regardless of their interest or arousal.

At best your claim is that sometimes it's closer to "statutorily raping" an animal, commonly known as "rape".

So put the horse back in the barn before you let the horse out of the barn.

"build it at the gym and show it off in the kitchen"

The only way excercise significantly contributes to weight loss is by building more muscle mass, particularly lean muscle, that burns more calories at rest.
Since your resting metabolism is a bit more than half of the calories you burn in a day, making it larger adds a notable chunk to the "Out" side of "calories in < calories out", in some cases making it so the out side is capable of being larger than the minimum a person needs to eat to be healthy.

By happy coincidence, it also makes it easier to excercise, makes you feel better and be healthier, and helps with awkward panting.

Your conclusion is correct, but your terminology is wrong.

What we call AI today is AI, because AI doesn't mean "capable of thought", consciousness, sapience or anything like that.
It's capable of producing a coherent output adapted to observed circumstances. That's roughly as far as the notion of intelligence goes, and it's a very low bar. You don't need a lot of intelligence to be intelligent.

The people who coined the term were interested in how you make computers react to their inputs dynamically instead of acting closer to what we might now think of as a saved macro.
"It's intelligent because rather than comparing against a list of every known typo, it sees it's not a word in its list, and then replaces it with the one requiring the fewest edits to reach. It learns by adding your corrections to the known word list."