Is the term "sapiosexual" ableist?

I am so happy I have only come out to myself at this point, never knew sexuality was so incredibly site specific. Will I need to bring google along as I meet to decode? Attraction used to be so simple, damn kids :bang:.

 

*smile* And just to be clear, I don't personally have issues with any of these questions, because although I may say "I am attracted to this type," I never say "I cannot be attracted to this type". I simply cannot rule anything out, because every single categorical statement I've ever tried to make (e.g., I'll never do X; I am not attracted to X; X is not as worthwhile as Y; whatever) has turned out to have exceptions...after 25-35 years, you learn to just stop making those statements...a little later, you learn to stop making the assumptions that *lead* to those statements.

I may have (or develop) a distaste for an individual...at least for a while. But I don't believe I've ever successfully maintained a distaste for a category of individuals. Homophobes and other bigots come close...but I have more compassion than to hate them back: I feel for the pain they hold that leads them to hate...hate hurts the hater more than the hated. So I'm cautious around such people...but I don't assume I'll never like them.

 

I agree with Chip, as well as you guys on this...there seem to be SO many labels. I mean, why don't I come up with a label for being attracted to rebellious 80s-looking-punk-rock skater-guys? Or skinny gay men into dressing up in latex puppy and animal outfits? Or whatever other odd things might turn me on?

These labels seem to know no bounds, and I wish people would talking things they find attractive of are drawn to, and turning them into 'preferences'.

A lot of times, I almost get to feeling like I'm looked down at for being gay, and told I'm 'locked in a gender binary', and so forth, as if just being gay is no longer a pure enough expression of one's sexual preference.

 

Liking a clever person is not a sexuality. That's like saying liking blondes is called blonde-sexual. Seriously.

 

Isn't demi-sexual also a thing though?

In that you're less phsycially attracted to a person and more emotionally attracted? Couldn't intelligence also work that way?

I think it's entirely possible for a person to only be able to connect with someone who can interact with them on an intellectual level.

 

I dunno anymore, maybe demisexual is a thing, but it seems more like a mild clarification to me.

I'd like to have Chip weigh in again. (Edit: Thanks, beat me to it!)

It's possible for people to only be able to 'connect' with so many different things and sorts of people, that I can't see why they all need labels. In any event, if somebody says they're demi-sexual, I take it to mean half-sexual, and that just confuses me, or I picture a demi-tasse cup, like espresso is served in.

Personally, I feel like we have way too many special labels, this being among them.

 

A term that much like demisexual only refers to one's preferences and is not reflective of one's actual sexuality might be prone to or even a result of one's inherent biases and might therefore be ableist?
Why I am shocked, shocked I say.

 

I'm ok with labels as long as they make it easier to understand what you are... if it actually makes it more difficult then thats kind of defeating the purpose but then again, its not like its hurting anyone

 

Agreed! In which case, I think Demi is about as confusing as it gets, as the prefix means 'half'. Half sexual. I just get confused. Especially when people say it means emotionally, but not physically, and given that the emotions are a physical phenomenon, a complex interplay between the brain, body and nervous system, and which can also greatly impact how the body feels and reacts. Emotions lead to physical reactions, so I find the whole idea of a 'sexual' attraction just being 'emotional' and somehow not at all 'physical' (as if the brain resided outside the body) very confusing, and I've not seen anything that might show how it's even possible.

It would seem easier to say just asexual, or platonic; I can't see the need for a new term that translates as 'half-sexual'.

Plus, couldn't it be taken to mean physically, but not emotionally, just as easily? It never says which half.

 

I have a learning disorder...(central auditory processing disorder) I'm way more bothered by the fact that people take something like sapiosexuality seriously. I mean, I always thought that was a joke. And it should be. Just like how I can't call myself a flaxensexual for liking blonds...because that would be really, really stupid. And learning disorders don't mean someone can't be an intellectual or enjoy learning.

 

Unfortunately, that's exactly what does happen and I'm afraid it does hurt some people - a lot. All of these labels cause deep feelings of confusion, panic and anxiety and (for some people) it can stop them from living their lives as they begin to question and examine who/what they are. It may be convenient for a small group of people to create a special label for themselves, but when they use the internet to give those labels added traction it ceases to be harmless.

 

Not at all. There are people with learning disabilities/mental illnesses who are very intelligent, I know from experience. It's merely being sexually attracted to intelligence, which I can understand. Intelligence isn't necessarily academic, it's not grades-based, it's just being a good thinker, a perceptive or creative person, etc.

 

1. The fundamental problem here is that intelligence is an incredibly subjective term heavily influenced by one's own culture. Which is shown by how you describe it, as it's what the dominant culture of the Anglosphere values as intelligence.
2. You can't be sexually attracted to intelligence. You may find it attractive or sexy, but it's an abstract concept used to describe traits, not a person or thing in and of itself.

 

I agree with your first point, however, in response to your second, I'd have to disagree. While I may not believe certain sexualities, I don't believe it's my place to tell others that the label they identify with is not real.

 

My response did not come from a place of judgment. As you have said, the older that we become the more we tend to realize that many of the concepts that we have of our perfect mates aren't so strict in reality. We more we live, growth, and experience, the more we broaden our concepts of what we find attractive.

However, the vast majority of this community are extremely young. I will admit that my concept of who I could be with when I was thirteen was very different than what it is now and it was important that I learned to question myself and the ways that I would rule out others. So, that response was written with that acknowledgement in mind rather than serving as a counterargument.

 

I didn't read judgment in what you said. But neither was I clear on why I was quoted right before your statement. So I figured I'd take advantage of the opportunity to clarify my views on the subject...particularly as they were in alignment with and so could reinforce what you were saying there.

 

Beyond a particular distance from "people" a sexuality should probably be considered a fetish or paraphilia. Not everything is as basic as attraction to one or more genders.

 

Too many labels in the LGBT world in my opinion.

As for intelligence, there are many different kinds of intelligence.
I have numerous degrees, but ask me to sew or bake or decorate
something, and I'm an imbecile. I may know more sports trivia that
90% of people, but ask me anything about popular culture celebrities,
and I draw a blank.

That being said, very close relationships work best when each respects the other.
If you feel superior to your mate intellectually, that's not a great match in my opinion.