I did not mean much or expect much when I asked the question about sapiosexuality. I only met one gentleman (well, I did not meet him, I came across his profile on a dating site) who claimed to be a sapiosexual. Unfamiliar with term, I looked it up and I would have probably forgotten it if not for the gentleman who brought the term to my attention. He turned out to be rude and, honestly, not very intelligent.
Now I came across this term again - a sapiosexual is a person who is AROUSED by intelligence. I asked the question and the replies (the majority of them) indicated that most people agree with the term. I find it ambiguous, inaccurate and pretentious.
I cannot single-handedly prove my point - maybe there is nothing to prove, but I think a sapiosexuality is nothing but a linguistic construct. I love sophistication, but not "look at me I am so clever thing, I have coined another sexuality thing!"
The question was closed due to the high flow of comments - not answers, but comments. So, I hope that in this forum, the respondents try to think about it. After all the emphasis is on INTELLIGENCE, not on arousal. Take some time, talk it with your work buddies during the lunch hour, collect some intelligence. By the way, when I looked up "sapiosexual" on HP, it asked me "Did you mean ASEXUAL?" And I thought - precisely. Asexual. I am the wrong person to ask, I did not coin the term. I don't have a problem with intelligence which can be both - sexy and infuriating. Depends on the dose of it.
Thank you in advance for anyone who would bother to answer!!! Cheers!
I think that you are over-thinking this.
First, the word in not in Merriam-Webster, so I’m not sure if it is really a word.
However, I have found a definition on the Internet that states it is “a form of sexual orientation characterized by a strong attraction to intelligence in others, regardless of gender and/or conventional attractiveness.”
I would not say they are asexual, because that would make them, “free from or unaffected by sexuality.” This would only be the case if they only want a platonic relationship with everyone.
(I also think arousal and attraction are two different things, but that is another discussion.)
If the person claims to be sapiosexual and is physically attracted to and aroused by both males and females, I think that would make them bisexual.
I guess the real answer is, there is no real answer, because it depends on how the person is using the word.
However, I would also like to add that I personally find ignorance and stupidity a turn-off. No matter how good looking the lady is, if she can’t have an intelligent conversation, I wouldn’t want to date her.
Does that make me a hetero-sapiosexual? People are using that term on the Internet.
So, maybe all people would fit somewhere on a continuum of sapiosexuality.
Then again, I could be wrong.
I would like to correct a point; and this is what seperates sapiosexuality from "just liking smart people" - it isn't just attraction, it IS arousal as well.
I am very firmly heterosexual, so to say that I am attracted on smarts alone is a lie; but it makes a massive difference to the attractiveness of someone; I will have no interest in someone at all and then they say something that's blindingly insightful and my head will be turned.
I've had two relationships in which Scrabble and Cryptic Crosswords have played a role in foreplay - that is both activities would often lead straight into snogging. During a crossword (and it'd have to be a cryptic - straight crosswords wouldn't be challenging enough or exciting - you don't make any discoveries during a straight crossword; there's no mental gymnastics) a display of insight in which one of us impressed the other would cause us to spontaneously want to kiss each other. So yes, it isn't just attraction, it can be arousal too.
But you know, if you say Scrabble is seductive to someone it's taken as a joke, so I guess this isn't normal. One of the objections to Sapiosexual as a word is people say "well doesn't everyone find intelligence sexy?" - apparently not.
Debates can do it too; if an attractive girl produces a killer argument in a debate (it doesn't matter whether she is my opponent or my ally), if it's one that I hadn't thought of but wish I had, I get that sort of groan of desire feeling in the gut.
Although I was talking to someone about that "grocking" moment in meeting someone, where you both discover something you're both passionate about like a certain author or an idea and you say "oh my god, you get this!!" and suddenly you're the only two people in the room - and again, it seems not everyone gets that. Maybe everyone does get that in some way or other and that's not a big deal.
Check out the episode of Sherlock, A Scandal in Belgravia for an excellent example of how sapiosexuality can work.
I don't really understand why people are angry about the word or want to deny it's existence. Particularly when we are very firmly told not to objectify or quantify people isn't it nice to know there are some people out there who don't judge you just on how you look or how much you earn?
IMO, coining the term "sapiosexual" is the young disillusioned hipster's response to how vapid and superficial many people are, especially since and as a result of the advent and ubiquity of reality television shows. It's not an absolutism, and I agree that anyone aroused by intelligence and wit is a sapiosexual, regardless of their basic orientation. I also agree that it is extremely difficult to use the term without sounding like a pretentious jerk.
I don't get it. What's the problem? Who really cares if someone's turned on by intelligence or not? It's not for me to say whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, if it happens well, then, it happens.
Well, there is no problem. Not a fundamental problem.
I am curious what people think.
Let's accept sapiosexuality, not that it immediately arouses our brains to understanding the term since half of it is veiled in Latin. From a scientific point of view, let's assume that arousal for certain people originates in the area of the brain where there are no sexual arousal should be.
It is know that we are being aroused by smells (probably more so) than by intelligence.
So, here the new term - olfactosexuality.
I have read an advice for men, a very specific piece of advice - if you want to attract women, eat celery.
Apparently, women are celery-smell-sexuals or what would be proper term be?
And there is clearly a preference for red colour for both sexes, so we are rubellasexuals. Rubella sounds like a disease, but it means "red" in Latin.
This sexuality classification is positively fun.
And, no, there is no problem. The way I see it - there are no problems, there are only opportunities.
Thank you for dropping by!
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.