But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright.
Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.
I remember an earlier discussion on HN about Youtube demonetizing other content - videos about guns, I think. My thought then and now is that there are many advertisers on Youtube who would like their ad to run on "ForgottenWeapons shoots a pre-WWII anti-tank rifle" and many (probably not with a lot of overlap) who would like to advertise on "SexyCyborg builds a sexy mannequin". Large, conservative brands probably wouldn't, but Youtube is leaving money on the table if it caters exclusively to those.
You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?
However I do think that western culture is a bit on the prude side and has a strange double standard regarding nude or partially nude bodies depending on gender or its features. Sexualizing one type, while normalizing another.
I'd much rather children grow up knowing what the other gender looks like naked with that knowledge being delivered in some environment other than PornHub. It's insane -- I literally only knew about the female form from reading medical textbooks as a child and had never seen a naked woman until I was 19. Many women have no idea what their own anatomy is, because cultures have such a taboo about it. Yet on American cultural exports, love, breasts or bodies get an 18+ rating and explosions, shooting and murder get a prime-time action TV slot. I don't get it.
Everyone's naked under their clothes.
(1): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/06/john-dillerman...
Use whatever euphemism or descriptive word you want. The point here, is that advertisers do not want to be associated with whatever it is you want you call it.
Call it whatever you want, or use whatever euphemism. But at the end of the day, whatever word you use, the advertisers likely don't want to be associated with it.