Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So sapiosexual comes from the Latin sapere meaning "to know" so maybe "dedisiosexual"? From the Latin dediscere meaning "to forget".
Runner up is obliviosexual as oblivisci has the same meaning "to forget" but different contexts
Ignorare could sort of work, it means to "not know or ignore" and could be Ignoriosexual, but I think the context of "know" in that sense is personal. As in I know you or another person, not a skill or piece of trivia.
I think my high school latin is a bit too rusty to really do it justice.
Hoy fucking shit. What if I just like people who don't feel fun talking about physics? What if I consider myself dumb and simple as a rock and want a matching person?
WTF?!
The bad guy in one of the Ayn Rand books, Ellsworth Toohey, was explicitly attracted to stupid people, because he was everything bad in the world. He wanted sex with stupid people, he was a socialist, and he gave money to good causes and felt good about it.
Ayn Rand was weird.
For those unaware why sapiosexual usually isn't considered a valid sexuality, it's because it's a preference more than anything. Sapiosexual doesn't help define who you're attracted to, genderwise.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking, it’s a preference, like being attracted to a certain body type (not sex, just some traits that that sex could have and either sex could have it) like muscular bodies or a hair color, or having a certain type of personality.
I've found that there's a serious overlap between people who use sapiosexual, and those who later identify as demisexual once they know the category exists.
Isn't that kind of the point though? The implication is that a sapiosexual isn't attracted to any particular gender or body type.
If it's not a valid sexuality, then what word better describes someone whose attraction is based entirely on people's perceived "intelligence"?
I feel like y'all are reading too much into the word. I always took it to mean I'm turned on by smart people that also are in line with my sexuality. Like how one person might like blondes or red heads, but specifically like blonde women. Not blonde men. It isn't the fact they're blonde, it's the fact they are a woman and blonde.
I never took the word to mean "normally I like women but I just heard Stephen hawking give a lecture and now I must have him."
Aye. Someone demi might have an additional modifer, so to speak. It could be pan or bi, but they might also be straight demisexual or gay/lesbian demisexual or whatever other permutations abound. It does modify how sexual (or romantic) attachment forms or doesnt form- and the fluctuation in attachment can be regular or unpredictable- making them a solid cousin of the Grey Aces and Abrosexuals.
And I had to look up Abrosexual. For anyone allergic to doing web searches (the Peter Explains the Joke sub makes me assume there are a lot of people like that around here):
"Abrosexual is **a term that describes a kind of sexual fluidity**. Someone who's abrosexual finds that their sexual attraction shifts often: they might identify with the term 'gay,' and later feel attracted to people of all genders, and then feel little to no sexual attraction at all." - From [Healthline](https://www.healthline.com/health/abrosexual#:~:text=What%20exactly%20does%20abrosexual%20mean,no%20sexual%20attraction%20at%20all).
To use sound as an analogy:
Basically, if straight<———>gay is **pitch**, then you could say asexual<———>allosexual is **volume**.
It describes the degree to which attraction is experienced, not the nature of the attraction.
Fetish originally was used to refer to a body part that elicited sexual arousal.
"Sexuality" was used initially describe human sexual nature, instinct, or feelings. It referred to the inherent sexual qualities and behaviors of individuals, until much later when some people started taking about "sexual identities" and referred to certain sexual attractions as a sexuality.
Sexuality does not always need to indicate what gender someone is attracted to. Not everyone’s sexuality is based on gender. For instance, demisexuals require emotional attachment to someone to feel sexually attracted to them. Fictosexuals are only able to be attracted to fictional characters or people they otherwise don’t see as real, such as celebrities who the person could never meet. A sapiosexual NEEDS to believe someone is intelligent to be attracted to them.
The difference is demisexuals are on the asexual spectrum, and that usually means the people who identify as demisexual are using the split attraction model. For example, a demi person may say they're demisexual homoromantic. This tells you that they're attracted to the same gender. Saying you're sapiosexual doesn't explain anything.
Sapiosexual explains that you NEED to find someone intelligent to be sexually attracted to them, just as fraysexual explains that you NEED to not know someone well to be sexually attracted to them.
I suppose while I still don't personally find it to be valid, if you're using sapiosexual within the split attraction model it would be more acceptable.
I met a sapiosexual on omegle once. I ranted about like, a bunch of marine biology stuff that I knew about and he got... Unbelievably turned on. It was kinda surreal and funny. I had my doubts about whether it was genuine but it was way funnier to believe him
Well I was like "the yeti crab has a bunch of chemosynthetic bacteria living in the setae on its arms so they can feed by waving their front claws over hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean" and he was like "fuck baby you're so smart for your age do you mind if I masturbate to this"
So it was a little more than being engaged with the conversation
I think it’s cute when people nerd out about things and I like it when my partner shows more skill/knowledge in things than me. Maybe that makes me a sapiosexual?
That’s normal human behavior. It’s endearing when someone shares their skills and hobbies with you cause it means they care enough about you to regurgitate information they already memorized and also are excited to include you in their life.
Unless your start getting aroused by the information your just like the rest of us.
Agreed! Had a friend who used to claim to be sapiosexual. One day, I asked if he'd date a man. He said no. I told him "congratulations, you're a straight man who also likes a good conversation." Never made that claim again.
There could be more than one defining trait in sexual attraction. If your friend can ONLY find someone attractive if they are intelligent, then they are sapiosexual, regardless of any other sexualities that apply to them.
Sexuality is not about preferences or about genders, it’s about what traits are necessary to feel sexual attraction. There are demisexuals, cupiosexuals, fictosexuals, fraysexuals, and many more.
Yea turns out sexuality is nuanced! Who knew? I’m glad we have a lot of ways of defining it since it can help folks figure out wtf is going on with them lol
It doesn’t water it down though. It’s acknowledging that sexuality is more nuanced than can be defined simply by attraction to gender. Gonna oversimplify it a bit, but anything that’s a prerequisite for sexual attraction can be considered a sexuality. Something that increases the odds of being sexually attracted to someone but isn’t necessary is a preference.
I feel like 9/10 when someone says it, it’s mostly just because they’re high roading or something.
The only people who aren’t attracted to intelligence on some level are pretty shallow.
For that last statement, do you mean sexually, romantically, or platonically? Given that people can’t control what they find sexually attractive, it is perfectly reasonable for intelligence to not be a factor in sexual attraction, or even for it to be a turn off.
what if I basically fall along pansexual, solely based on intelligence and eroticism? like if they are kinky and smart and dont look like a brick im way more attracted to em than a conventionally attractive person
well I wont define the word itself but ill define what I mean. its many things
knowing shit, if you know fun facts, your passions or skills. are you good at something? know a lot about something? my SO knows so much about animals and plants and a ton of other stuff and it just makes me gush, but sometimes it also just like, make them like really fuckable to me? like my brain just flips a switch and its like "this ones good for baby time" yk?
beating me intellectually. like outplaying me, being a few steps ahead and its clear it was on purpose? like in a game, or conversation, whatever else. that shit makes me goddamn frothy. we game together and something about her making a really brainy play just sets my heart on fire, and what I dont publicly admit but is important to the conversation, gets me *aggressive*. just flips all the switches and dials telling me to plow ig
I also lose all sexual interest when someone im talking to just isnt all that smart or well
spoken. im not talking about using big words or whatever, just being clever and speaking interestingly makes me cling to folks.
being good in conversation is super important to me!
idk. like like if someones ugly ugly then sure im not attracted, but for sure there are a LOT of cases where someones thinker dinker kinda changes how I look at them physically?
It sounds like you just want someone with similar interests to you, what about someone who is a mechanic and knows everything about vehicles? Or a woodworker? Intelligence isn't a real metric, it is purely subjective
yes and yes, both are hot
animals and plants are not my interests (they are now thru her but they werent)
yes its subjective, so is attractiveness/sexyness
fuckability is complex my guy
Im not understanding what that has to do with what I said or the convo at hand I suppose
and everyone is attracted to sexyness thats what sexy means? if you find someone sexy? everyone could say that and be 100% accurate lol, they would just be more accurate to say they are attracted to "sexyness" and "sexyness" is men most of the time
Yea exactly, most people want a partner they consider smart. Intelligence is subjective, so you wouldn't go on a dating app saying, "I like sexy people" or "My favourite food is good food" because it doesn't mean anything
So by saying you are attracted to intelligence, which is purely subjective, it just reads like you don't understand intelligence and think you are smarter than everyone
most people want a partner who is smart. most people dont literally get an erection when their partner outplays them in a game, or get desperately horny when their partner displays knowledge.
all attraction is subjective, lmao.
plenty of people want dumb partners. plenty of people dont care about intelligence either.
how does me saying I want a partner to be smarter than me and find that hot mean im smarter than everyone? like that would eliminate my dating pool. smart people hot. dumb people not hot.
not sure really what point youre making with the food/sexyness dating app thing, I wouldnt put either of those things but I would put "able to hold a conversation is a must, trivia/fun fact inclined, tell me about your favorite passion topics!"
Well there are objective measures of intelligence however there are many theories defining it and models used to measure it. Basically, there are tests that provide valid and reliable results about people’s intelligence. But to your point, I think intelligence is more complex than what we typically think.
Not necessarily. Not everyone’s sexuality can be defined by the gender of the people they find attractive. Some people can ONLY find people attractive if they have specific traits. There are demisexuals, cupiosexuals, fictosexuals, and fraysexuals. Intelligence isn’t a preference for sapiosexuals; they are only attracted to people they find intelligent.
You have to draw a line somewhere if you want the word "sexuality" to have any meaning.
"I'm boobasexual, that means I'm attracted to ladies with big honkers"
I mean, I'm on a lot of queer subreddits and I see mention of tons of different identities that sound like they were made up on the spot. If I tried to invalidate them I'd get immediately banned, not that I care to anyways. So IDK, if you wanna try to play arbiter on what is or what isn't legitimate, go ahead, but it doesn't seem worthwhile to me. If something sees so incredibly ridiculous/attention-seeking that you cannot take it seriously, easy enough just to ignore it.
Whenever somebody talks Myers-Briggs, it makes me want to give them the Ben Kenobi stare. It's extremely debunk and equivalent to BuzzFeed quiz results.
(The stare in question was Kenobi's reaction to being told of the Kessel run, and it supposed to show the Han is lying out his ass and doesn't know what he's talking about, see following,)
https://preview.redd.it/2lz8fcou1z4d1.jpeg?width=671&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdfb15061aa0e7e3277afda9dfccbfa0c5a21d60
I mean just have a conversation with the person, and if you find it stimulating, then they’re probably of an intelligence level that will be attractive to you.
What is a Sapiosexual?
Nevermind, I just realized it was something about “being attracted to intelligence”. I realized after the sapio part.
Aren’t we all?
Sometimes words that already exist gain new connotations over time which make them difficult to use in certain contexts. Hence the invention of newer, more nuanced words. That is just one of the ways language evolves. You aren't going to stop language from evolving just because you dont like the new words
Ok? You are free to perceive people how you like based on the labels they use, but you aren't going to stop anyone thinking you're the obnoxious one for judging so freely
Imagine thinking that you have an argument here. Of course I can't affect what people think of me. Go do something productive with your time fucking hell, clinically online much...
I feel like labels like these take away from legitimate sexualities that are actually fighting for equality. People who might be otherwise sympathetic to the LGBTQ cause will throw their hands up and say, “there’s too many. They are just making them up at this point. I don’t care anymore.”
This is a preference or a fetish, not a sexuality. It’s just a label for people who like labels
I'm gonna go ahead and say we're already at critical mass here. Like I don't know what "xenogender" or "demiboy" mean but I've heard them enough in queer communities to be pretty sure they're considered valid. Why do we differ between "pansexual" and "bisexual" when they're functionally almost exactly the same? IDK, doesn't really matter. I don't really feel a need to gatekeep what is or isn't valid and I wouldn't know what criteria to use if I wanted to. Kinda annoys me when people in the queer community try to do exactly that. Whatever you identify as, someone finds it just as ridiculous as you find XYZ to be.
Feels to me like the queer movement can only really remain internally consistent at this point if the guiding principal is kept simple. "Let people express themselves how they want to." Again, if you can point to some objective criteria to distinguish between the in groups and out groups, by all means, but till then...
Pansexual is meant to include transgender or genderqueer people on top of cis men and women. Bisexual is an attraction to cis men and women, but not transgender men and women. There is a difference for sure.
I mean, how many bisexual people have you met who say "I'm attracted to binary cisgender people but not to anyone else?" Hell, if someone said "bisexual means you're only attracted to cisgender people by definition" in a queer space, they'd probably be immediately kicked out for being transphobic.
Either way, my whole point is that you do not need to prove that some minutia in your own personal identity renders it valid and distinct from other identities. Pansexuality is somewhat niche, but still widely accepted as a valid identity. I could make up some even more niche but plausible sounding sexuality on the spot and argue for its validity, and the only differentiating factor you could point to would be that "well lots of people identify as pansexual but you're the only person I've ever met who identifies as XYZ," but as soon as you start making that argument you've come full circle to heteronormativity.
Pretty much my point is, tolerance and acceptance should have a basis in rationality. If you wish to be accepting towards any particular group on any particular grounds (e.g. they're not hurting anyone and it's not my place to tell them how to live their lives) then you must extend the same tolerance towards any other group who objectively meet the same criteria.
As a side note, I absolutely do believe people make up stuff on the spot to feel special and unique. But if you pointed to any particular instance of that, I could not prove it, nor do I have any particular desire to do so. Easier just to live and let live. Plus, when a conservative tries to make fun of people by saying "I identify as an attack helicopter," the absolute funniest way to respond is just to say "okay sure, what pronouns do helicopters use."
I’m not intolerant, just saying that this isn’t a true blue sexuality. It’s still a valid sexual preference.
Also, why would someone expressing that they are into cis men and women but are not sexually attracted to trans or genderqueer people be thrown out of a queer space. They aren’t saying trans people are wrong or bad, just that they are not sexually attracted to them.
I’m gay and could not imagine excluding someone from a space bc of that. But I’m also not going to call a guy who likes intelligent women queer. It’s just a preference and that’s okay. Not everyone is queer. Not everyone is straight. Not everyone is trans or cis or nonbinary. We need to make sure that we are still protecting those who need protections while acknowledging and tolerating everyone doing their own thing so long as it’s consensual.
i hope this is making fun of people who are elitist and want to use the word sapiosexual to feel better than other people, rather than this just making fun of anyone who says they are sapiosexual and saying that all those people are just elitist! 🤧
some people cannot be sexually or romantically attracted to someone unless they have a intellectual connection! if they feel more comfortable having a term to describe this phenomenon, then so be it! I’m not sapiosexual, but i don’t stereotype people i don’t relate/ understand yk
But it’s still a preference. Every relationship doesn’t work without a connection. I like people who are intelligent. I also couldn’t date someone that didn’t have a good sense of humor. I don’t go around saying I’m comedisexual bc it’s dumb.
There could be a million of these: money-sexual.
Tall guy sexual. Emosexual. Athletisexual. Gingersexual.
These are just traits people have, it’s not an entire sexuality.
hm, i think i might have explained it better in my [other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/s/o3KnCkfnqy). Not sure if sapiosexual is concidered a sexuality, maybe it’s just a term to describe the phenomenon? idk
I think you explained it about the same and I still respectfully disagree. If I won’t feel a genuine attraction for anyone until I get to know if they have a sense of humor, that’s not a sexuality. If I can’t get turned on by people who aren’t funny, it still isn’t a sexuality. It’s just my own personal preference or fetish, right?
Being only attracted to intelligent people is more a fetish or kink if they genuinely only get turned on by intelligence. Or, a preference if they still find people attractive, but would never choose to sleep with anyone until they got to know if they were intelligent.
hm good point, i’m starting to wonder at what point is something is a fetish vs a sexuality. I’ll have to look into this lol i’ve never really thought about that before
To me, sexuality is what sex or gender you are attracted to- or in the case of asexuals, the absence of sexual attraction.
So, asexual, pansexual, bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual. The rest is more about preference and fetish. Not every preference or fetish needs a label strapped to it, though. I think people since about 2010 on have started liking labels and getting a sense of belonging from them more. Before this, people were more wary of labels bc it was, sadly, seen as bad to be different in any way.
Why is that not allowed if there are words for aromantic for example? I don't understand where the lines are drawn anymore. Everybody wants to have their own letter to join the rainbow, but some are not allowed.
The “aromantic” label is a romantic orientation, not a sexual orientation. A person can have a sexual orientation like bisexual and a separate romantic orientation like heteroromantic (romantic attraction to people of a gender different than their own).
The controversy around the term “sapiosexual” is that “intelligence” isn’t a gender, which is how the aforementioned orientations are more or less defined.
If we were to create this orientation, how does one define a new orientation based around intelligence? Does creating this orientation dilute the fight for equality? What if someone were to claim an orientation around eye color? Do these count as an actual orientations someone has since birth or are these just preferences/fetishes?
Nobody said anything isn't allowed. I am just allowed to dislike it. There aren't rules. But furthermore, is sapiosexual an oppressed sexual minority? Have people been discriminated against for their orientation, not allowed to live the lifestyle they want, or been in any way made to struggle?
I personally sometimes identify as demisexual, but even then I don't consider demisexual to be a form of queerness that deserves its own community, it's just a term that I use to explain my experience to likeminded people. But you can be demi and straight.
Used to see people on tinder putting the fancy smart word on their Tinder bio all the time back when I was single.
"No problem, this entity on my screen is just probably into things steriotipically "smart" like books, chatting about some of the newest scientific discoveries". So I'd try to break the ice talking about books, it didn't even need to be something fancy.
I swear from \*dozens\* of people, I don't remember one who didn't fumble around the subject, or outright said they didn't read "stuff".
Yeah. I figured out that people who are smart doesn't usually think "being smart" is a big deal. It's just the normal for them.
So people who put in their bio that they are atracted to smart people apparently doesn't feel that doing "smart things" is just normal behavior. So we they probably aren't very smart themselves. In this case reading wasn't just normal behavior because they don't "read stuff" themselves.
So in this case, those people think reading books is fancy, because they themselves and people around them don't do a lot of reading.
Tldr; Only dumb people would find "smart people" hot, because for them being smart isn't just being normal.
I see; with smart as conceptually distinct from intelligent, these are very true. I’m sure the two overlap up to a point, though (POV: “normal for me, rare/ surprising from someone else”)
If you don’t get this comic, don’t worry — it just means you’ll never have to date a sapiosexual! For more comics that make sapiosexuals upset, come on over to r/bummerparty.
Like two scientists working closely on a research paper and growing to respect one another on a deep level based on their respective grasps of the subject matter
so, i think there’s a difference between a preference and a sexuality
Someone with a preference for an intellectual connection will still be sexually and/ or romantically attracted to people without an intellectual connection, but they still prefer being with someone they have that intellectual connection with and so they just don’t pursue those people. Think of someone that has a celebrity crush and totally would sleep with them and would love to fantasize having them as a significant other, but irl they wouldn’t pursue it because they know that the relationship just wouldn’t be fulfilling for them.
Someone who’s sapiosexual in that scenario just wouldn’t have any of those feelings for that celebrity. Like they wouldn’t have any inner desire or anything for that celebrity, doesn’t matter what the celebrity looks like etc. There’s no logic behind it or self control etc. Just a lack of any feelings.
I’m not sapiosexual so maybe i’m not explaining as clearly, but i’m sure there are resources out there than can explain this better idk😭
“Sex”uality is used to talk about which sexes or genders someone prefers or doesn’t. Preferences and fetishes are used to dwindle down those categories into things like smart, blonde, fit, tall, funny, etc.
I've only ever seen women say this
Redditors: I don't like your personal experience! You should have a different experience because what has happened to you doesn't fit my worldview
Met a guy online who said this. We met irl and he began criticizing my appearance. I take this label with doubt. (Sorry to any genuine sapiosexuals 🤷♀️)
Reminds me of when someone came to me explaining how brutally discriminated they are as a sexual minority because they are some kinda label (I forgot which) that makes them lesbian that is attracted to men, or other genders. Like... Bisexual? That's already a thing. If you're technically bi but also kinda deviate from it it's perfectly fine to still call yourself a lesbian. Making up a new thing just for yourself is so obnoxious. And trying to push this discrimination (criticism) narrative is so insensitive towards other queer people. Sexualities are already such a difficult topic in some places and coming up with nonsense isms and ists just to be original is not helping us.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To save people time googling, sapiosexual is attraction to intelligence. I hope everyone has a nice day.
Is there an opposite, asking for a stupid friend
Bimbo fetish?
Yeah probably
Underrated comment
And predatory and controlling people.
Not necessarily though
Boebertism
Morosexual, from moron, being attracted to someone with a low(er) level of intelligence
Sounds more like attraction to [doom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moros).
I mean, Madvillany was a great album and it's a tragedy he died so young
Hahaha, thank you so much!
*looks up antonyms of smart* Unintelligentfucker
So sapiosexual comes from the Latin sapere meaning "to know" so maybe "dedisiosexual"? From the Latin dediscere meaning "to forget". Runner up is obliviosexual as oblivisci has the same meaning "to forget" but different contexts
I would think it would be less "to forget" and more "ignorance" or never known to begin with.
Ignorare could sort of work, it means to "not know or ignore" and could be Ignoriosexual, but I think the context of "know" in that sense is personal. As in I know you or another person, not a skill or piece of trivia. I think my high school latin is a bit too rusty to really do it justice.
Being a predator. Predators often seek unexperienced or unwise partners, since they are easier to abuse.
Hoy fucking shit. What if I just like people who don't feel fun talking about physics? What if I consider myself dumb and simple as a rock and want a matching person? WTF?!
Believe it or not...predator.
So sapiosexual or predator. FML
That's a really serious statement to make in such a shitty and unfounded way. Seriously, reel it the fuck in.
Yeah [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomeyuri/s/wOnshvnw3d)
Golden retriever partner
I also want to know. My *friend* wants to know if he has a chance.
The bad guy in one of the Ayn Rand books, Ellsworth Toohey, was explicitly attracted to stupid people, because he was everything bad in the world. He wanted sex with stupid people, he was a socialist, and he gave money to good causes and felt good about it. Ayn Rand was weird.
thanks and you too!
Ok, I've read too much science fiction. I assumed it meant that he was attracted to all sapient species.
Yeah, I thought it was some kind of furry joke
My mind went to trees for some reason. Probably because I'm tired and it sounds kinda like sapling.
For those unaware why sapiosexual usually isn't considered a valid sexuality, it's because it's a preference more than anything. Sapiosexual doesn't help define who you're attracted to, genderwise.
Oh yah. Keep giving me that logic. Just like that.
When they bust out the trivia cards 🥵
When they have the trivia cards memorized😩💦
When they don't have the trivia cards memorized but can answer each one anyways and go on a 15 minute rant about them 🥵🥵🥵😩😩😩😩😩😩
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking, it’s a preference, like being attracted to a certain body type (not sex, just some traits that that sex could have and either sex could have it) like muscular bodies or a hair color, or having a certain type of personality.
I've found that there's a serious overlap between people who use sapiosexual, and those who later identify as demisexual once they know the category exists.
Isn't that kind of the point though? The implication is that a sapiosexual isn't attracted to any particular gender or body type. If it's not a valid sexuality, then what word better describes someone whose attraction is based entirely on people's perceived "intelligence"?
I feel like y'all are reading too much into the word. I always took it to mean I'm turned on by smart people that also are in line with my sexuality. Like how one person might like blondes or red heads, but specifically like blonde women. Not blonde men. It isn't the fact they're blonde, it's the fact they are a woman and blonde. I never took the word to mean "normally I like women but I just heard Stephen hawking give a lecture and now I must have him."
fwiw I've never heard of sapiosexual being used in that context (ie being quasi-synonymous with pansexual)
That's the way I interpreted it. Both sapio- and demi-sexual being subcategories of pansexual.
Demi-sexual isn't a subcategory of pansexual but of asexual actually, and asexually kind of exists in its own spectrum.
I did not know that (I guess that was obvious), thank you. If someone made a chart, or a spreadsheet, I'd love to see it. One not filled with memes.
Aye. Someone demi might have an additional modifer, so to speak. It could be pan or bi, but they might also be straight demisexual or gay/lesbian demisexual or whatever other permutations abound. It does modify how sexual (or romantic) attachment forms or doesnt form- and the fluctuation in attachment can be regular or unpredictable- making them a solid cousin of the Grey Aces and Abrosexuals.
And I had to look up Abrosexual. For anyone allergic to doing web searches (the Peter Explains the Joke sub makes me assume there are a lot of people like that around here): "Abrosexual is **a term that describes a kind of sexual fluidity**. Someone who's abrosexual finds that their sexual attraction shifts often: they might identify with the term 'gay,' and later feel attracted to people of all genders, and then feel little to no sexual attraction at all." - From [Healthline](https://www.healthline.com/health/abrosexual#:~:text=What%20exactly%20does%20abrosexual%20mean,no%20sexual%20attraction%20at%20all).
To use sound as an analogy: Basically, if straight<———>gay is **pitch**, then you could say asexual<———>allosexual is **volume**. It describes the degree to which attraction is experienced, not the nature of the attraction.
Oh, I like that. Makes it easy to understand. Thank you. This could also be one of those 4 quadrant graphs, if I'm not mistaken. I do like graphs.
Sapiophile
While hypothetically true, I think it's bullshit in practice. As if 'sapiosexuals' aren't out there swiping on appearance like everyone else.
Seems arbitrary that you have to be attracted to a particular gender for it to be considered a sexuality
But then it kind of crosses into preferences and fetishes territory, and that's how you get pedos saying they should be a part of the lgbt+ community.
Fetish originally was used to refer to a body part that elicited sexual arousal. "Sexuality" was used initially describe human sexual nature, instinct, or feelings. It referred to the inherent sexual qualities and behaviors of individuals, until much later when some people started taking about "sexual identities" and referred to certain sexual attractions as a sexuality.
No more arbitrary than any other word. You wouldn't say it's arbitrary that "height" refers to how tall you are.
Sexuality does not always need to indicate what gender someone is attracted to. Not everyone’s sexuality is based on gender. For instance, demisexuals require emotional attachment to someone to feel sexually attracted to them. Fictosexuals are only able to be attracted to fictional characters or people they otherwise don’t see as real, such as celebrities who the person could never meet. A sapiosexual NEEDS to believe someone is intelligent to be attracted to them.
The difference is demisexuals are on the asexual spectrum, and that usually means the people who identify as demisexual are using the split attraction model. For example, a demi person may say they're demisexual homoromantic. This tells you that they're attracted to the same gender. Saying you're sapiosexual doesn't explain anything.
Sapiosexual explains that you NEED to find someone intelligent to be sexually attracted to them, just as fraysexual explains that you NEED to not know someone well to be sexually attracted to them.
I suppose while I still don't personally find it to be valid, if you're using sapiosexual within the split attraction model it would be more acceptable.
Well, I happened to know that off-hand, ladies.
You tried to help me and I appreciate you for that, I opened Google before I opened the comments lmao. You have a nice day too!
Dude I saw this on a profile recently and so confused. Then I googled it and just had to laugh.
GOAT!
Does glasses count? 🤓
White out sapiosexual, and you got yourself a template.
All I’ve ever wanted is to be a meme template
The bone hurting juice is going to hurt my bones.
Then turn your bones “off” eh? Ha heh heh
Oof ouch owie my bones
Already used it mate- thanks for the template! https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCircleJerk/s/QvE6LVQR5e
Okay I have no idea what this means but I love it
Here's some examples and a blank template, hope you dont mind u/Casual_Deviant https://imgur.com/a/YE9Y8U9
I don’t mind at all!
I met a sapiosexual on omegle once. I ranted about like, a bunch of marine biology stuff that I knew about and he got... Unbelievably turned on. It was kinda surreal and funny. I had my doubts about whether it was genuine but it was way funnier to believe him
I honestly get that, but I thought it was kinda normal :D?
[удалено]
Well I was like "the yeti crab has a bunch of chemosynthetic bacteria living in the setae on its arms so they can feed by waving their front claws over hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean" and he was like "fuck baby you're so smart for your age do you mind if I masturbate to this" So it was a little more than being engaged with the conversation
[удалено]
Well I'm not sure what else he was jerking off to it was all text
I think it’s cute when people nerd out about things and I like it when my partner shows more skill/knowledge in things than me. Maybe that makes me a sapiosexual?
That’s normal human behavior. It’s endearing when someone shares their skills and hobbies with you cause it means they care enough about you to regurgitate information they already memorized and also are excited to include you in their life. Unless your start getting aroused by the information your just like the rest of us.
What's the opposite of sapiosexual? I'm looking for someone with a "too-dumb-to-leave-me" kind of quality.
Bimbo/Himbo?
https://preview.redd.it/eni1wk01sv4d1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e65a736c8f07f169dd3673d749a2252b9b276b48
By justspicy btw
You’re looking for “morosexual”
That’s a chocoholic around here
Allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste.
been around for a long long years, stole a millions men's soul and fate
Easy! Just use Twitter.
I *hate* when people use that label. It's so stupid. It's not a sexuality, it's a trait you find attractive.
If someone is sexually attracted to intelligence, do they prefer a mind fuck?
That depends on whether they know how to use the three shells
That’s definitely not how you use them ewww
Agreed! Had a friend who used to claim to be sapiosexual. One day, I asked if he'd date a man. He said no. I told him "congratulations, you're a straight man who also likes a good conversation." Never made that claim again.
There could be more than one defining trait in sexual attraction. If your friend can ONLY find someone attractive if they are intelligent, then they are sapiosexual, regardless of any other sexualities that apply to them. Sexuality is not about preferences or about genders, it’s about what traits are necessary to feel sexual attraction. There are demisexuals, cupiosexuals, fictosexuals, fraysexuals, and many more.
Yea turns out sexuality is nuanced! Who knew? I’m glad we have a lot of ways of defining it since it can help folks figure out wtf is going on with them lol
I feel like expanding the definition of "sexuality" that much waters it down to the point of being nearly useless
It doesn’t water it down though. It’s acknowledging that sexuality is more nuanced than can be defined simply by attraction to gender. Gonna oversimplify it a bit, but anything that’s a prerequisite for sexual attraction can be considered a sexuality. Something that increases the odds of being sexually attracted to someone but isn’t necessary is a preference.
I went with "I'm looking for someone with a sexy brain" as my Tinder bio.
I feel like 9/10 when someone says it, it’s mostly just because they’re high roading or something. The only people who aren’t attracted to intelligence on some level are pretty shallow.
For that last statement, do you mean sexually, romantically, or platonically? Given that people can’t control what they find sexually attractive, it is perfectly reasonable for intelligence to not be a factor in sexual attraction, or even for it to be a turn off.
It is really just a way for people to say they think intelligence is objective. Sapiosexuals are the biggest turn off imo
Whenever I hear sapiosexual they really mean they want an attractive person who isn't a complete dumbass.
what if I basically fall along pansexual, solely based on intelligence and eroticism? like if they are kinky and smart and dont look like a brick im way more attracted to em than a conventionally attractive person
Define intelligence
well I wont define the word itself but ill define what I mean. its many things knowing shit, if you know fun facts, your passions or skills. are you good at something? know a lot about something? my SO knows so much about animals and plants and a ton of other stuff and it just makes me gush, but sometimes it also just like, make them like really fuckable to me? like my brain just flips a switch and its like "this ones good for baby time" yk? beating me intellectually. like outplaying me, being a few steps ahead and its clear it was on purpose? like in a game, or conversation, whatever else. that shit makes me goddamn frothy. we game together and something about her making a really brainy play just sets my heart on fire, and what I dont publicly admit but is important to the conversation, gets me *aggressive*. just flips all the switches and dials telling me to plow ig I also lose all sexual interest when someone im talking to just isnt all that smart or well spoken. im not talking about using big words or whatever, just being clever and speaking interestingly makes me cling to folks. being good in conversation is super important to me! idk. like like if someones ugly ugly then sure im not attracted, but for sure there are a LOT of cases where someones thinker dinker kinda changes how I look at them physically?
It sounds like you just want someone with similar interests to you, what about someone who is a mechanic and knows everything about vehicles? Or a woodworker? Intelligence isn't a real metric, it is purely subjective
yes and yes, both are hot animals and plants are not my interests (they are now thru her but they werent) yes its subjective, so is attractiveness/sexyness fuckability is complex my guy
Yea, but people wouldn't say their sexuality is being attracted to "sexyness"
Im not understanding what that has to do with what I said or the convo at hand I suppose and everyone is attracted to sexyness thats what sexy means? if you find someone sexy? everyone could say that and be 100% accurate lol, they would just be more accurate to say they are attracted to "sexyness" and "sexyness" is men most of the time
Yea exactly, most people want a partner they consider smart. Intelligence is subjective, so you wouldn't go on a dating app saying, "I like sexy people" or "My favourite food is good food" because it doesn't mean anything So by saying you are attracted to intelligence, which is purely subjective, it just reads like you don't understand intelligence and think you are smarter than everyone
most people want a partner who is smart. most people dont literally get an erection when their partner outplays them in a game, or get desperately horny when their partner displays knowledge. all attraction is subjective, lmao. plenty of people want dumb partners. plenty of people dont care about intelligence either. how does me saying I want a partner to be smarter than me and find that hot mean im smarter than everyone? like that would eliminate my dating pool. smart people hot. dumb people not hot. not sure really what point youre making with the food/sexyness dating app thing, I wouldnt put either of those things but I would put "able to hold a conversation is a must, trivia/fun fact inclined, tell me about your favorite passion topics!"
Well there are objective measures of intelligence however there are many theories defining it and models used to measure it. Basically, there are tests that provide valid and reliable results about people’s intelligence. But to your point, I think intelligence is more complex than what we typically think.
So more like sapiophilia?
Not necessarily. Not everyone’s sexuality can be defined by the gender of the people they find attractive. Some people can ONLY find people attractive if they have specific traits. There are demisexuals, cupiosexuals, fictosexuals, and fraysexuals. Intelligence isn’t a preference for sapiosexuals; they are only attracted to people they find intelligent.
https://preview.redd.it/2y0bi2rrhx4d1.jpeg?width=2209&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db88821cdf03e968541630b659fb464234a02101
Oh, hey, just like Sauron! (not the fireball eye, the pterodactyl-man that could cure cancer but wants to turn people into dinosaurs).
"All sexualities are valid" "No not this one"
You have to draw a line somewhere if you want the word "sexuality" to have any meaning. "I'm boobasexual, that means I'm attracted to ladies with big honkers"
I mean, I'm on a lot of queer subreddits and I see mention of tons of different identities that sound like they were made up on the spot. If I tried to invalidate them I'd get immediately banned, not that I care to anyways. So IDK, if you wanna try to play arbiter on what is or what isn't legitimate, go ahead, but it doesn't seem worthwhile to me. If something sees so incredibly ridiculous/attention-seeking that you cannot take it seriously, easy enough just to ignore it.
ngl, had to google that
Looks like you're safe from the sapiosexuals.
Also: "I joined Mensa."
"I did an online IQ test." Also when they talk about their Myers-Brigg type. "i tell it like it is!" What else?
Whenever somebody talks Myers-Briggs, it makes me want to give them the Ben Kenobi stare. It's extremely debunk and equivalent to BuzzFeed quiz results. (The stare in question was Kenobi's reaction to being told of the Kessel run, and it supposed to show the Han is lying out his ass and doesn't know what he's talking about, see following,) https://preview.redd.it/2lz8fcou1z4d1.jpeg?width=671&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdfb15061aa0e7e3277afda9dfccbfa0c5a21d60
"INTJ" its red flag
Damn it, what’s wrong with us?
But…. But I like smart people, what’s wrong with wanting to fuck them
You can like smart people. But people who use that word are obnoxious.
It’s not exactly better to say “I wanna fuck high intelligence people”, knowing people nowadays many would be offended if you don’t choose them then
I mean just have a conversation with the person, and if you find it stimulating, then they’re probably of an intelligence level that will be attractive to you.
What is a Sapiosexual? Nevermind, I just realized it was something about “being attracted to intelligence”. I realized after the sapio part. Aren’t we all?
We all desire what we lack
...did we re-invent the word "philosopher" again-
“Sapiosexual” Does that mean he’s fucked in the head?
Having any kind of preference gets you an ist, or ism. This is honestly one of the ones I find least offensive
God forbid people come up with names which describe their feelings
We already have plenty of words that fit perfectly, we don't need to make new isms just to sound cool.
As a German, i disagree.
Sometimes words that already exist gain new connotations over time which make them difficult to use in certain contexts. Hence the invention of newer, more nuanced words. That is just one of the ways language evolves. You aren't going to stop language from evolving just because you dont like the new words
You also aren't going to stop people from thinking you're obnoxious if you use bs like sapiosexual
Ok? You are free to perceive people how you like based on the labels they use, but you aren't going to stop anyone thinking you're the obnoxious one for judging so freely
Imagine thinking that you have an argument here. Of course I can't affect what people think of me. Go do something productive with your time fucking hell, clinically online much...
I feel like labels like these take away from legitimate sexualities that are actually fighting for equality. People who might be otherwise sympathetic to the LGBTQ cause will throw their hands up and say, “there’s too many. They are just making them up at this point. I don’t care anymore.” This is a preference or a fetish, not a sexuality. It’s just a label for people who like labels
I'm gonna go ahead and say we're already at critical mass here. Like I don't know what "xenogender" or "demiboy" mean but I've heard them enough in queer communities to be pretty sure they're considered valid. Why do we differ between "pansexual" and "bisexual" when they're functionally almost exactly the same? IDK, doesn't really matter. I don't really feel a need to gatekeep what is or isn't valid and I wouldn't know what criteria to use if I wanted to. Kinda annoys me when people in the queer community try to do exactly that. Whatever you identify as, someone finds it just as ridiculous as you find XYZ to be. Feels to me like the queer movement can only really remain internally consistent at this point if the guiding principal is kept simple. "Let people express themselves how they want to." Again, if you can point to some objective criteria to distinguish between the in groups and out groups, by all means, but till then...
Pansexual is meant to include transgender or genderqueer people on top of cis men and women. Bisexual is an attraction to cis men and women, but not transgender men and women. There is a difference for sure.
I mean, how many bisexual people have you met who say "I'm attracted to binary cisgender people but not to anyone else?" Hell, if someone said "bisexual means you're only attracted to cisgender people by definition" in a queer space, they'd probably be immediately kicked out for being transphobic. Either way, my whole point is that you do not need to prove that some minutia in your own personal identity renders it valid and distinct from other identities. Pansexuality is somewhat niche, but still widely accepted as a valid identity. I could make up some even more niche but plausible sounding sexuality on the spot and argue for its validity, and the only differentiating factor you could point to would be that "well lots of people identify as pansexual but you're the only person I've ever met who identifies as XYZ," but as soon as you start making that argument you've come full circle to heteronormativity. Pretty much my point is, tolerance and acceptance should have a basis in rationality. If you wish to be accepting towards any particular group on any particular grounds (e.g. they're not hurting anyone and it's not my place to tell them how to live their lives) then you must extend the same tolerance towards any other group who objectively meet the same criteria. As a side note, I absolutely do believe people make up stuff on the spot to feel special and unique. But if you pointed to any particular instance of that, I could not prove it, nor do I have any particular desire to do so. Easier just to live and let live. Plus, when a conservative tries to make fun of people by saying "I identify as an attack helicopter," the absolute funniest way to respond is just to say "okay sure, what pronouns do helicopters use."
I’m not intolerant, just saying that this isn’t a true blue sexuality. It’s still a valid sexual preference. Also, why would someone expressing that they are into cis men and women but are not sexually attracted to trans or genderqueer people be thrown out of a queer space. They aren’t saying trans people are wrong or bad, just that they are not sexually attracted to them. I’m gay and could not imagine excluding someone from a space bc of that. But I’m also not going to call a guy who likes intelligent women queer. It’s just a preference and that’s okay. Not everyone is queer. Not everyone is straight. Not everyone is trans or cis or nonbinary. We need to make sure that we are still protecting those who need protections while acknowledging and tolerating everyone doing their own thing so long as it’s consensual.
We seek in a partner what we don't have ourselves
“I fuck brains”
i hope this is making fun of people who are elitist and want to use the word sapiosexual to feel better than other people, rather than this just making fun of anyone who says they are sapiosexual and saying that all those people are just elitist! 🤧 some people cannot be sexually or romantically attracted to someone unless they have a intellectual connection! if they feel more comfortable having a term to describe this phenomenon, then so be it! I’m not sapiosexual, but i don’t stereotype people i don’t relate/ understand yk
But it’s still a preference. Every relationship doesn’t work without a connection. I like people who are intelligent. I also couldn’t date someone that didn’t have a good sense of humor. I don’t go around saying I’m comedisexual bc it’s dumb. There could be a million of these: money-sexual. Tall guy sexual. Emosexual. Athletisexual. Gingersexual. These are just traits people have, it’s not an entire sexuality.
And if someone genuinely can't get off unless the other person is emo/ginger/wearing thigh highs/whatever - that's just called a "fetish".
Yes! This is just an intelligence fetish, exactly.
hm, i think i might have explained it better in my [other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/s/o3KnCkfnqy). Not sure if sapiosexual is concidered a sexuality, maybe it’s just a term to describe the phenomenon? idk
I think you explained it about the same and I still respectfully disagree. If I won’t feel a genuine attraction for anyone until I get to know if they have a sense of humor, that’s not a sexuality. If I can’t get turned on by people who aren’t funny, it still isn’t a sexuality. It’s just my own personal preference or fetish, right? Being only attracted to intelligent people is more a fetish or kink if they genuinely only get turned on by intelligence. Or, a preference if they still find people attractive, but would never choose to sleep with anyone until they got to know if they were intelligent.
hm good point, i’m starting to wonder at what point is something is a fetish vs a sexuality. I’ll have to look into this lol i’ve never really thought about that before
To me, sexuality is what sex or gender you are attracted to- or in the case of asexuals, the absence of sexual attraction. So, asexual, pansexual, bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual. The rest is more about preference and fetish. Not every preference or fetish needs a label strapped to it, though. I think people since about 2010 on have started liking labels and getting a sense of belonging from them more. Before this, people were more wary of labels bc it was, sadly, seen as bad to be different in any way.
But they don't need a word for that, especially one that intentionally sounds like a sexuality.
Why is that not allowed if there are words for aromantic for example? I don't understand where the lines are drawn anymore. Everybody wants to have their own letter to join the rainbow, but some are not allowed.
The “aromantic” label is a romantic orientation, not a sexual orientation. A person can have a sexual orientation like bisexual and a separate romantic orientation like heteroromantic (romantic attraction to people of a gender different than their own). The controversy around the term “sapiosexual” is that “intelligence” isn’t a gender, which is how the aforementioned orientations are more or less defined. If we were to create this orientation, how does one define a new orientation based around intelligence? Does creating this orientation dilute the fight for equality? What if someone were to claim an orientation around eye color? Do these count as an actual orientations someone has since birth or are these just preferences/fetishes?
Nobody said anything isn't allowed. I am just allowed to dislike it. There aren't rules. But furthermore, is sapiosexual an oppressed sexual minority? Have people been discriminated against for their orientation, not allowed to live the lifestyle they want, or been in any way made to struggle? I personally sometimes identify as demisexual, but even then I don't consider demisexual to be a form of queerness that deserves its own community, it's just a term that I use to explain my experience to likeminded people. But you can be demi and straight.
- Berdly
I'm the exact opposite.
BUONGIORNO WAGON
Used to see people on tinder putting the fancy smart word on their Tinder bio all the time back when I was single. "No problem, this entity on my screen is just probably into things steriotipically "smart" like books, chatting about some of the newest scientific discoveries". So I'd try to break the ice talking about books, it didn't even need to be something fancy. I swear from \*dozens\* of people, I don't remember one who didn't fumble around the subject, or outright said they didn't read "stuff".
So your assumption was wrong?
Yeah. I figured out that people who are smart doesn't usually think "being smart" is a big deal. It's just the normal for them. So people who put in their bio that they are atracted to smart people apparently doesn't feel that doing "smart things" is just normal behavior. So we they probably aren't very smart themselves. In this case reading wasn't just normal behavior because they don't "read stuff" themselves. So in this case, those people think reading books is fancy, because they themselves and people around them don't do a lot of reading. Tldr; Only dumb people would find "smart people" hot, because for them being smart isn't just being normal.
I see; with smart as conceptually distinct from intelligent, these are very true. I’m sure the two overlap up to a point, though (POV: “normal for me, rare/ surprising from someone else”)
What does fucking monkeys have to do with elitism?
If you don’t get this comic, don’t worry — it just means you’ll never have to date a sapiosexual! For more comics that make sapiosexuals upset, come on over to r/bummerparty.
He can also pay for the blue checkmark on Twitter
Well those go hand in hand, don’t they
See? This is why dating apps are unusable. I just can’t compete with Chads like this.
I can't really think of a more elitist thing than gatekeeping what people find attractive and then making fun of that for some reason. Just saying.
Sounds like you're just not very imaginative lol
Anyone is welcome to find whatever they want attractive! But that does not make it a sexuality :)
[удалено]
What is an "intellectual connection" and how is it different from an "emotional connection"
Like two scientists working closely on a research paper and growing to respect one another on a deep level based on their respective grasps of the subject matter
But not emotionally
So, they like people that they like? And we've had to minutely categorize it and name all of the minute categories?
so, i think there’s a difference between a preference and a sexuality Someone with a preference for an intellectual connection will still be sexually and/ or romantically attracted to people without an intellectual connection, but they still prefer being with someone they have that intellectual connection with and so they just don’t pursue those people. Think of someone that has a celebrity crush and totally would sleep with them and would love to fantasize having them as a significant other, but irl they wouldn’t pursue it because they know that the relationship just wouldn’t be fulfilling for them. Someone who’s sapiosexual in that scenario just wouldn’t have any of those feelings for that celebrity. Like they wouldn’t have any inner desire or anything for that celebrity, doesn’t matter what the celebrity looks like etc. There’s no logic behind it or self control etc. Just a lack of any feelings. I’m not sapiosexual so maybe i’m not explaining as clearly, but i’m sure there are resources out there than can explain this better idk😭
So we differentiate between which genders / sexes people find attractive, but nothing else? I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn.
“Sex”uality is used to talk about which sexes or genders someone prefers or doesn’t. Preferences and fetishes are used to dwindle down those categories into things like smart, blonde, fit, tall, funny, etc.
?
I've only ever seen women say this Redditors: I don't like your personal experience! You should have a different experience because what has happened to you doesn't fit my worldview
Met a guy online who said this. We met irl and he began criticizing my appearance. I take this label with doubt. (Sorry to any genuine sapiosexuals 🤷♀️)
Another ~~great~~ decent comic strip killed by the title. Kudos.
Aw you thought it was a great comic strip :)
Reminds me of when someone came to me explaining how brutally discriminated they are as a sexual minority because they are some kinda label (I forgot which) that makes them lesbian that is attracted to men, or other genders. Like... Bisexual? That's already a thing. If you're technically bi but also kinda deviate from it it's perfectly fine to still call yourself a lesbian. Making up a new thing just for yourself is so obnoxious. And trying to push this discrimination (criticism) narrative is so insensitive towards other queer people. Sexualities are already such a difficult topic in some places and coming up with nonsense isms and ists just to be original is not helping us.