The Armpit Question: Thomistic view.

I still don’t get armpit fetishism.
"Muh pheromones" doesnt seem conclusive. I've stared @ the (left) picture for 5min with no feeling but loss. One response I got is that armpits are;

“Soft & warm, sometimes sweaty - it’s basically pussy"

I see this is a line of reasoning no different to Diogenes’ "behold, a man".

According to Diogenes,, when Plato gave the tongue-in-cheek definition of man as "featherless bipeds," Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man," and so the Academy added "with broad flat nails" to the definition.

Between these two arguments - "man" is to "pussy", as "featherless-biped plucked chicken" is to "armpit".

If then, armpits are Diogenes' "pussy", as Diogenes was a poor man, armpits are the poor man's pussy.
Now the poor man is he who has not the wealth to obtain what he desires and so holds onto the possession of the subordinate goods which substitute for it.

So we might correctly say that the poor man does not get what he is substituting for. But if the poor man in this case is substituting in armpits, standing in for pussy, we much conclude that he gets no pussy.

But being the poor man, we might say that he is being acted upon by his passions because he has not the freedom to choose due to the limitations in his wealth limiting his options to purchase.

In such a case, the phrase "what __ does to ___" as an action upon the poor man makes sense to apply to what drives his actions. Also, an inferential argument might note that he is of a certain ethnic group that is most likely to be poor. Perhaps African American [see: "nigga”].

And so in conclusion, we might that this is:

“what no pussy does to a nigga.”