Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
A 2024 study found that participants reported more sexual arousal from suggestive images they believed—or were told—showed real people than from images they believed or were told were AI-generated. The result concerns perceived authenticity and self-reported ratings, not a finding that AI images can never be arousing.
What the study actually tested
The paper, “Real is the new sexy: the influence of perceived realness on self-reported arousal to sexual visual stimuli,” examined whether beliefs about an image’s origin changed viewers’ responses. It was published by Marco Marini, Alessandro Ansani, Alessandro Demichelis, Giovanna Mancini, Fabio Paglieri and Marco Viola in Cognition & Emotion in 2024. The journal article is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2023.2296581.
The researchers used 60 images of models in underwear in two preregistered online studies. Participants rated how aroused they felt; the measure was a self-report, not a physiological recording such as heart rate or genital response.
What participants reported
In both experiments, images perceived or labeled as real received significantly higher self-reported arousal ratings than images perceived or labeled as artificially generated. As the authors write in the abstract, “In both cases, Realness correlated with significantly higher scores on self-reported sexual arousal.”
#1 Best Overall
This wording matters. The central variable was what participants believed or were told about the images, rather than a clean test of whether the underlying files were actually photographs or AI creations. The result therefore points to an authenticity effect in the viewing situation, not proof that real imagery is intrinsically more sexually appealing than every AI image.
How the two studies differed
| Study | Participants | Presentation and task | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | 57 | Participants viewed images individually, rated their arousal and judged how likely each image was to be AI-generated. | Higher perceived realness was associated with higher self-reported arousal. |
| Study 2 | 108 | The same image set was shown in blocks labeled either real photographs or artificially generated; participants then rated arousal. | Images in the “real” blocks received higher self-reported arousal ratings. |
The sample counts and design are reported in the study record and article abstract: Roma Tre University repository and the journal article.
Are AI-generated images still capable of arousing viewers?
Yes, according to the researchers’ interpretation. In comments reported by PsyPost, Alessandro Demichelis and Alessandro Ansani said that allegedly fake images were still capable of generating arousal, “especially in men,” but at a lower amount than images considered real. That is an interpretation of the study’s relative ratings, not a claim that the effect applies to every man or every viewer. Read the report at PsyPost.
What the finding does—and does not—show
It does show
- Beliefs about authenticity were linked to participants’ reported sexual arousal in both studies.
- Images described as real outperformed images described as AI-generated under the tested conditions.
- People could still report arousal to images they believed were artificial.
It does not show
- That all AI-generated sexual or suggestive images are less arousing than all photographs.
- That image quality, composition or realism was independently responsible for the difference; the experiments centered on perceived or assigned labels.
- That AI imagery cannot substitute for real imagery in every context.
- That the results predict physiological arousal, relationship behavior or population-wide preferences.
Important limits on generalization
The stimulus set was narrow: 60 suggestive images of models in underwear. The studies relied on online self-reports and did not test a broad range of sexual content, identities or preferences. Reporting on the work noted that participants were heterosexual, so the findings should not be generalized automatically to people of other orientations or to viewers with different interests; see Futurism’s report.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11The sample sizes—57 people in Study 1 and 108 in Study 2—are useful for the preregistered experiments but are not a prevalence survey of how people generally respond to AI images. The available reports do not establish a population effect size.
Why the label may matter
A “real” label can signal that a person depicted in the image exists, that the scene records an event, or that the image carries a different kind of human presence. An AI label can instead make viewers attend to fabrication, manipulation or the absence of a photographed individual. The experiments cannot determine which of these meanings drove the ratings, but they demonstrate that the belief attached to the image changed reported response in this sample.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.The practical answer to the headline
When these participants thought suggestive images were real, they generally rated them as more arousing than when they thought the images were AI-generated. That is a relative, self-reported effect under a specific experimental setup—not a verdict that AI-generated imagery is inherently unattractive or incapable of producing sexual arousal.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
