LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!

[Icewraith]

I think this is most often the idea behind identifying oneself as sapiosexual; because of the idea that people tend to be attracted to intellectual peers, describing myself as sapiosexual would implies that I am of above-average intelligence. Having to define the word to most interlocutors is just icing on the cake — "I'm sapiosexual. Oh, you don't know what that is? Allow me to explain."

I'd probably be miserable if I was only looking for my intellectual peer. The more intelligent you are with respect to the general population, the fewer people you're going to find who can actually match your intellect at its strongest points. My original, uninformed idea as a young adult was similar to sapiosexuality in that I thought I was looking for someone who was just as smart as I was before any other attributes. I don't think I ever found that person exactly, especially because as my understanding of intelligence became more nuanced it also became more nebulous. I found several girls who were smart and had a considerably better work ethic than me and no learning disability, and I figured those were who I would be considering. Where this idea fell down was that the one girl I was really after wasn't attracted to me. (Thank goodness, in retrospect.)

The entire concept of sapiosexuality doesn't really make sense to me. Granted, I was raised not to expect other people to be as smart as me, or that what was easy for me was easy for everyone else, and not to devalue people who weren't as smart as I was. After going through high school with smart kids who apparently hadn't been raised with that principle in mind, I understand why my parents bothered. Not that some of the other smart kids were intentionally elitist (I think?), but they were often unintentionally/subconsciously elitist or inconsiderate of other people's feelings because they were RIGHT (also not saying I don't ever do this, but I try not to and accept it's a bad thing when it happens).

Granted, I'd probably reject (also I'm already married, but hypothetically speaking) anyone for a long term relationship who didn't seem to have the real world equivalent of D&D int and wis bonuses that add to become a positive number, but I think there's a big difference between that and considering my entire sexuality based solely on the other person's intelligence. There are plenty of less-intelligent-but-beautiful women I'd be willing to have sex with in a consequence-free hypothetical scenario. That's not saying much though, since in a consequence-free hypothetical scenario there's a bunch of things I'd be willing to try out that as far as I can tell don't work for me in real life (or aren't possible) but I don't have an experiential data point to test.

[SowZ]

Is Sapiosexuality exclusively intelligence that one is attracted to? Could it also be just mental traits in general? So a sapiosexual finds certain mental traits sexually attractive, and physical traits are either a non-issue or an incredibly small one. While this might apply to, say, a number of pansexuals, it certainly would not apply to all and orientations can have overlap.

Well, yes, but like, it's true for everyone in general that you like want a partner you have rapport with. Doesn't make it an orientation. I wouldn't date anyone who is a huge bigot, but that doesn't make me not-bigot-sexual.

Sure. But it begs the question on what could qualify as a valid orientation and what couldn't. What if I was sexually attracted to music? Good music actually turned me on. Could that be an orientation, to the degree that I wouldn't be attracted to someone's physical features but their musical talent?

Yes. Yes it is. Ex #2 fit that mold. Och.

It's become somewhat difficult for me to respect individuals like that, though I realize it is a bias and not really fair, but there it is. I can still respect them if they are good people, but not in the same way I'd like to respect a romantic partner.

[Lanaya]

While my instinct is to agree, I think it not being an orientation makes an interesting tension; what exactly is the difference between being exclusively attracted to, say, men and exclusively attracted to non-bigoted people? What makes one "valid" as an identarian category when the other is not?

Partly the apparently pointlessness of it all. One of the more important parts of declaring a sexual orientation is letting others know whether they're compatible with you. While gender can be a little bit blurry around the edges, it's mostly cut and dry for the vast majority of the population. If I made a dating profile and said on it that I'm gay, most people know whether that means I'm not the one for them. Sapiosexual, on the other hand? What are people going to do, look up some online IQ tests and figure out whether they fall enough standard deviations in front of the mean to be eligible to be in a relationship with you? So it's not very useful in practical terms. It's also terribly vague, since we don't even have any proper definition of intelligence, let alone a way of measuring it. There are so many different kinds of intelligence and so many different ways to measure it, so saying you're only interested in intelligent people is about as useful as saying you're only interested in attractive people.

It's also not hard to see it as an elitist and snooty way of viewing things. If you're only interested in people who look good you're considered shallow and judged for it. Therefore, if I'm only interested in people who are intelligent I must be a deep and highly respectable person. Whether or not it's intended as such there can be perceived an element of wanting to feel better than other people by declaring yourself to have such an estimable sexuality, while everyone else is just interested in base physical desire.

[SiuiS]

While my instinct is to agree, I think it not being an orientation makes an interesting tension; what exactly is the difference between being exclusively attracted to, say, men and exclusively attracted to non-bigoted people? What makes one "valid" as an identarian category when the other is not?

While this is an interesting discussion, the last time it happened we got the thread locked for over a week and we lost several pages to scrubbing. It may have been tangential but "what makes this respectable as an orientation" is awfully close to "is it okay to be gay" which is a definite No-No in this particular thread and indeed, this particular forum.

[noparlpf]

While my instinct is to agree, I think it not being an orientation makes an interesting tension; what exactly is the difference between being exclusively attracted to, say, men and exclusively attracted to non-bigoted people? What makes one "valid" as an identarian category when the other is not?

Well, both are valid identities in that you can't tell somebody not to identify as something. The question is more whether it's necessary to distinguish sapiosexuality from pansexuality or demisexuality, and if not, which one it's more like.

I think the difference is that to be attracted to "intelligence" or "non-bigotry" or whatever requires one to meet the person and get to know them, which in my opinion is just a subdivision of demisexuality; conversely, an androsexual person is attracted to (certain permutations of) the male body and unintelligence or bigotry are turn-offs after the fact (for example, my brother, who is straight, says that he can find a girl attractive until he finds out how dumb she is).

[Icewraith]

Is Sapiosexuality exclusively intelligence that one is attracted to? Could it also be just mental traits in general? So a sapiosexual finds certain mental traits sexually attractive, and physical traits are either a non-issue or an incredibly small one. While this might apply to, say, a number of pansexuals, it certainly would not apply to all and orientations can have overlap.

I keep trying to come up with examples to argue against physical traits being minor, but in each case there's probably a fetish for that. There's accident victims, where the relationship continues even though one partner may be horribly disfigured. However that's usually a continuance of a preexisting relationship. There's internet relationships of various sorts, but even then the people are representing themselves as something the other person finds attractive.

However, I suppose physicality wouldn't have much to do with it. The heterosexual libido by definition checks out when presented with a same sex partner and vice versa, but it can also check out if the partner is sufficiently unattractive independent of gender. There are other things as well- we talk of people having "types" but I don't think you'd call someone ethnicity-sexual even if they only dated people with that ethnicity. I think what it would mean to be sapiosexual is that the libido wouldn't even engage when presented with an unknown but otherwise ideal partner in perfect, no-consequence circumstances. In theory it could be some specific subset of demisexuality, with the person in question unaffected by pornography (maybe someone delivering a lecture on Kant or solving differential equations in the nude?) and unable to form any kind of attraction to a prospective partner until they've had enough time to gauge their intelligence.

Edit: Ninja'd.

[Coidzor]

Is it possible to be demisexual but only for a certain gender? I haven't been able to find a man sexually stimulating unless I am in a committed, mutual, loving, emotional relationship with them--at least very close friendship. The best I've been able to do for other men seems to be thinking someone looks 'fatherly' or 'brotherly' or somesuch. This made high-school celebrity/crush talk among my friends pretty awkward to deal with, and they all assumed I was just shy about stating my preferences... but through this thread, I've been able to discover that not only demisexual is a Thing people can be, but it actually matches my experiences.

However, where women are concerned, I don't seem to have this restriction. I've found myself able to be sexually attracted to other women I've only just met (yet still only very very occasionally celebrities--I still seem to struggle with that. I think my ability to be sexually attracted to someone might be partially based on "would I actually have a theoretical chance to have a relationship with this person?" but I kind of doubt there is a term for that). For awhile I actually suspected I might be a lesbian; but numerous encounters within my two male relationships have proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.

Probably. Who knows? Demisexuality isn't something we actually understand beyond the most basic level, after all.

So my question is this: how do other members of the LGBTAI+ community perceive me? Do I still "count" as bi and would be generally welcomed at pride-particular events and support groups? Or would it be better to classify myself as an ally now, since I'm probably never going to have anything other than a heterosexual relationship? No matter what I'm called, I want to continue to give my support.

Depends on if they're ***** or not. Granted, most of the people who'd be ***** to you about it just wouldn't believe that bisexuality exists, either, and would insist that you're a closeted lesbian who is in denial due to enjoying the privileges of being in a relationship with a man and you'll come to your senses sometime between the age of 30 and 45 after your marriage has stagnated in middle-age and you have just the right number of children to be traumatized by divorce.

So you can safely disregard what someone like that would have to say on the subject of your identity.

Am I the only one who has a completely idealistic and unrealistic idea of beauty and is not willing to date anyone who does not meet that impossible fantastical concept and at the same time not being even near it myself?

Does that make me a bad person?

For better or worse, you are not. Just look at any otaku with unrealistically high expectations for the physical appearance of women after having had more exposure to animated and drawn representations and caricatures of women than actual people. Or any woman on any dating site ever, or at least OKC.

Maybe not, but it puts you in rather ugly company. I'd very strongly recommend examining just why this is the case and resolving it.

It came up on AVEN a day or two ago and I thought I'd ask here too. How is sapiosexuality different from pansexuality? Would a pansexual person experience initial physical attraction and then later find unintelligence/boring personality to be a turn-off after the fact, whereas a sapiosexual person would not experience physical attraction (much like an asexual) but then later develops attraction after getting to know the person and finding them "intelligent"? What defines "intelligence"? Humans are notoriously bad at judging intelligence; is it a. relative to the judge, is it b. sharing similar opinions and interests, or c. having varied opinions and interests but being open-minded and willing to discuss them? How is it different from demisexuality?

I suppose for starters there's a more favorable ratio of people being serious about being pansexual rather than jocularly claiming the identity. People jocularly claim to be sapiosexual non-seriously an awful lot more than they would joke about being pansexual when they are not pan.

And then there's the bit that while there is a fair bit of confusion about what pansexuality actually is, the broad strokes are readily grokked, leaving only the confusion and thorny problem of figuring out how it differs from bisexuality; there's even more confusion about sapiosexuality. Is it just an especial preference for intelligence in one's partners? Is it an inability to find someone attractive in any way without them first demonstrating intellect? Is it a kink? Is it a paraphilia? What is it? Disagreement seems to be rather common there.

[Zrak]

While this is an interesting discussion, the last time it happened we got the thread locked for over a week and we lost several pages to scrubbing. It may have been tangential but "what makes this respectable as an orientation" is awfully close to "is it okay to be gay" which is a definite No-No in this particular thread and indeed, this particular forum.

This is my fault for using "valid," which was a poor choice; I didn't mean to question whether either was an acceptable/respectable thing to be, and apologize if I gave the impression of questioning the validity of either in that sense. Perhaps "real" would have been a better qualifier, though that's still ultimately troubled. What I intended to ask was what establishes one as an identarian category and the other as, I suppose, something more along the lines of a preference one happens to hold. Both terms ultimately signify (largely) exclusive attraction to a specific group of people, yet one reads as an Orientation and the other does not. This may still not be the best place for the discussion, but I nonetheless wanted to clarify.

[Lissou]

My take on it is simple: sexual orientation is about the sex of the people you're attracted to. So the options are limited, regardless of whether you want to qualify it depending on your own gender (with words like straight or gay) or not (with words like androsexual or gynosexual). (The other words work fine either way).

However there is more to sexuality than sexual orientations. Other criteria if you will. Relationship orientation about the number of people. Romantic orientation, very similar to sexual orientation but in a romantic manner. Kinky scale. We all have criteria that clearly decide who we may or may not be attracted to based on gender. They can be based on species, age, race, body types, and a ton of other things. All together, they form our sexuality. And some of them are socially acceptable, some of them not so much, but they're not wrong, our actions may be.

Someone who is attracted to smart people will still have an orientation. I guess the only thing a sapiosexual person cannot be, logically, is asexual. Any other orientation works. That they choose to define their attraction to smart people are more relevant than their sexual orientation is their own decision, but it doesn't mean it replaces their orientation anymore than if I said my being attracted to nerds, or to, say, human beings or adults or something super general like that takes the place of my sexual orientation. They just all coexist in me. Some are so basic I never mention them. Some are unusual enough to get a mention. And some might be pretty essential (someone might be unwilling to have a partner who doesn't share their kinks for instance) but they're just a different set of criteria than sexual orientation.

Maybe if we lived in a society that didn't divide gender to thoroughly, our main criteria would be a completely different one, and the one of "the gender of people you're attracted to" would be considered something people do have, but that isn't so important or relevant or defining. But in our actual society it makes enough of a difference that it's a category of its own.

[SiuiS]

This is my fault for using "valid," which was a poor choice; I didn't mean to question whether either was an acceptable/respectable thing to be, and apologize if I gave the impression of questioning the validity of either in that sense. Perhaps "real" would have been a better qualifier, though that's still ultimately troubled. What I intended to ask was what establishes one as an identarian category and the other as, I suppose, something more along the lines of a preference one happens to hold. Both terms ultimately signify (largely) exclusive attraction to a specific group of people, yet one reads as an Orientation and the other does not. This may still not be the best place for the discussion, but I nonetheless wanted to clarify.

Defaulting to validity was me hoping that I could get folks to move on due to a technicality if they didn't agree. The original hot topic was "what's the difference between a fetish and an orientation", and tread a lot of this same ground.

[Zrak]

I think it's more just my general fascination with the foundations of identarian categories. Since I don't really personally identify as anything in any but the most flippant, off-handed terms, it mystifies me why people Identify As some things while they merely are other things.

[SiuiS]

That is indeed interesting. I come from the other direction; I identify by whatever is convenient and technically applicable most of the time. Why one would keep a specific mask and not others is indeed fascinating.

Perhaps when one identifies as a thing, they acknowledge it, adn when one "simply is" a thing, it is acknowledged by others?

[SowZ]

That is indeed interesting. I come from the other direction; I identify by whatever is convenient and technically applicable most of the time. Why one would keep a specific mask and not others is indeed fascinating.

Perhaps when one identifies as a thing, they acknowledge it, adn when one "simply is" a thing, it is acknowledged by others?

It would be interesting to see if, in a culture where being gay or something just wasn't a big deal and fluid gender identities/orientations were also taken in stride, such a culture would place a big deal on labels like gay or trans or what have you? In my society, at least, such labels can be important and helpful to people. But I wonder how much of that would change in this hypothetical culture.

[Zrak]

Well, but there are even a lot of things that people acknowledge they are that they don't really identify as, in the sense of it being considered by them or others to be an identarian category; there's clearly a difference between describing oneself as something and identifying as something.

[noparlpf]

It occurs to me that one can occasionally hear a heterosexual man refer to himself as "an ass man". Maybe we'd end up with more categories like that instead.

[SiuiS]

Well, but there are even a lot of things that people acknowledge they are that they don't really identify as, in the sense of it being considered by them or others to be an identarian category; there's clearly a difference between describing oneself as something and identifying as something.

You'll have to spell out for me the difference and why it matters I'm afraid. I don't see it as more than a semantic difference and looking into indentation categories doesn't help because easy access sources are written lamely and also seem like simple semantics.

[Anarion]

You'll have to spell out for me the difference and why it matters I'm afraid. I don't see it as more than a semantic difference and looking into indentation categories doesn't help because easy access sources are written lamely and also seem like simple semantics.

A difference (I don't know if this is the intended one) is how much the concept means to one's sense of self. So, for example, I don't personally put much value in gender labels. I am a man, if you happen to ask, or if I need to provide a description of what I look like to somebody. But it wouldn't really bother me if I were a woman and actually I tend to get mistaken for a woman on phone calls sometimes because my voice is kind of high and I almost never correct people.

On the other hand, I'm also a gamer and I identify as a gamer. If people in a conversation start talking about how games are only for kids, or start off on how games encourage violence, I find it agitating and bothersome. It compels me to speak out against it because it's a threat (albeit a minor one) to my own sense of self. Similarly, I might get very upset or defensive if somebody told me that I was a mean person or that I took advantage of my friends and family for my own self-aggrandizement. Because I don't think of myself as a selfish or mean person (and those two are easy examples because almost nobody thinks of themselves as selfish and mean).

So, the distinction I see is that there are things you would use to describe yourself, but you don't much care if people get them wrong or criticize you for them. And there are things you identify as, where they form a part of your overall self-image and mistakes or criticism with regards to those things makes you upset and defensive.

[SowZ]

A difference (I don't know if this is the intended one) is how much the concept means to one's sense of self. So, for example, I don't personally put much value in gender labels. I am a man, if you happen to ask, or if I need to provide a description of what I look like to somebody. But it wouldn't really bother me if I were a woman and actually I tend to get mistaken for a woman on phone calls sometimes because my voice is kind of high and I almost never correct people.

On the other hand, I'm also a gamer and I identify as a gamer. If people in a conversation start talking about how games are only for kids, or start off on how games encourage violence, I find it agitating and bothersome. It compels me to speak out against it because it's a threat (albeit a minor one) to my own sense of self. Similarly, I might get very upset or defensive if somebody told me that I was a mean person or that I took advantage of my friends and family for my own self-aggrandizement. Because I don't think of myself as a selfish or mean person (and those two are easy examples because almost nobody thinks of themselves as selfish and mean).

So, the distinction I see is that there are things you would use to describe yourself, but you don't much care if people get them wrong or criticize you for them. And there are things you identify as, where they form a part of your overall self-image and mistakes or criticism with regards to those things makes you upset and defensive.

There's a lot of truth there, however, sometimes people don't bother being called something because they don't think it is an offensive thing to be called. I've been mistaken as gay on occasion, typically I'll correct them but not always. I'm not sexually interested in men, but I couldn't really care less if someone thinks I am. I don't view it as an insult, even though being interested in women is probably a pretty big deal. But then again, maybe not. I don't actively pursue relationships or really care too much if I'm in one, I'm perfectly happy alone. So maybe I'm disproving my own point and supporting yours. I'm not sure.

[Coidzor]

There's a lot of truth there, however, sometimes people don't bother being called something because they don't think it is an offensive thing to be called. I've been mistaken as gay on occasion, typically I'll correct them but not always. I'm not sexually interested in men, but I couldn't really care less if someone thinks I am. I don't view it as an insult, even though being interested in women is probably a pretty big deal. But then again, maybe not. I don't actively pursue relationships or really care too much if I'm in one, I'm perfectly happy alone. So maybe I'm disproving my own point and supporting yours. I'm not sure.

As one of my highschool friends found out, however, it rather presents an obstacle to a heterosexual's romantic endeavours when their social circle(s), or, indeed, the surrounding community all decide that the person is homosexual as the result of rumors gone wild.

[Zrak]

You'll have to spell out for me the difference and why it matters I'm afraid. I don't see it as more than a semantic difference and looking into indentation categories doesn't help because easy access sources are written lamely and also seem like simple semantics.

I think the main distinction between self-description and self-identification is, as Anarion said, the concept's centricity to your sense of self. An Identarian group basically externalizes this; you think the concept represented by the category is central to one's sense of self. The distinction between "Gamer" as a type of person one can be and "gamer" as a descriptor denoting a kind of hobby in which one participates may appear to be mere semantics, but the former implies a value or level of importance the latter does not. Identification is fairly straightforward and generally harmless, while the definition (and delineation) of Identarian groups/categories is often inscrutable and often extremely problematic.

[SowZ]

As one of my highschool friends found out, however, it rather presents an obstacle to a heterosexual's romantic endeavours when their social circle(s), or, indeed, the surrounding community all decide that the person is homosexual as the result of rumors gone wild.

I can see that. I don't really date, though, or place any sort priority on being in a relationship. It just doesn't matter to me much. I can see where that would be quite troublesome for someone who wanted to date people, though.

[Mono Vertigo]

We're reaching the end of this thread, so I made a second edition there! Feel free to resume any discussion there.