It has always rubbed me the wrong way when software is described as "sexy." There is something about the context that just seems off. Well, I just got around to reading a book I've been intending to read since 2006, "Female Chauvinist Pigs" by Ariel Levy. It's about how pop-culture & the media have managed to convince much of society that it is "empowering" for a woman to um…objectify herself quickly, before a man does (you can probably guess by my phrasing that I do not agree with the women who buy into this, and neither does the author). Anyway, there's a paragraph in there that sums up nicely my discomfort with the use of the word "sexy" to describe, well, things that have nothing to do with, you know, sex:
Sex appeal has become a synecdoche for all appeal: People refer to a new restaurant or job as “sexy” when they mean hip or powerful. A U.S. Army general was quoted in The New Yorker regarding an air raid on the Taliban as saying “it was sexy stuff,” for instance; the New York Times ran a piece on the energy industry subheadlined “After Enron, Deregulation Is Looking Less Sexy.” For something to be noteworthy it must be “sexy.” Sexiness is no longer just about being arousing or alluring, it’s about being worthwhile.
OK, so your software is "worthwhile" then. Got it. Congratulations, I guess? But…why??? Is it faster than the alternative? Does it have a more intuitive UI? Does it colour-coordinate better than the garish purple, green, and red interface full of <blink> tags of the alternative? Does it take what is normally a complicated 15-step manual process and distill it into a simple 3-step process wherein the computer intuits many of the steps itself? If so, say that! That'd be an actual useful description!
Feminist aside: the flipside of this is the implication that if a thing or person isn't "sexy," it's worthless.