Sapiosexual and proud

Many of these labels cover different domains and can be used in conjunction (like Aromantic Asexual) to be more specific. Sapiosexual, like demisexual and others, describes how you are attracted, and can be combined with other labels to cover gender variations or differences between romantic and sexual attractions. So you can be sapio and bi (or straight!) at the same time since these cover different aspects of sexuality and neither is complete on its own.

 

Please do not create these new labels. It's confusing enough as it is already.

I think this more so requires therapy than anything else.

 

i don't think most of our labels are intrinsically good or bad, but that their efficacy to convey, communicate, depends on how they are used.

For instance, for many years "queer" was used as a derogatory term, homogenous society often uses labels to disable. But the LBGTQ+ community co opted queer as part of our identity in an assertive rallying chant at Pride events: "we're here, we're queer, get used to it." i don't think Pride is so much about being proud as it is about rejecting shame and guilt for what is simply diverse reality.

Fortunately for society, the LBGTQ+ community declares (in that statement) that diversity is a social asset, not a deficit. i think, therein lies a rub with labels, they can be a means of helping someone else know who and how we are, or they can be used to imprison one in another's ideas of who and how they are.

And that doesn't just happen in obviously divergent cultures, it happens in our own. One fun example, use the label sub on any gay site and see how many Sadists you attract instead of Dom's. Not that anyone is purposely being defiant, just exposing a frailty of labels. The label is never the actual thing... or person. It's just the packaging to hopefully attract the 'right' person or response. Our packaging might generically read: "CHOCOLATE," and suddenly chocolate lovers converge, but then many leave once they learn you're milk chocolate and not 85% cocoa lol, or that you have raspberry filling, or nuts and they're allergic to nuts (an unfortunate allergy indeed if you're gay and 'bottom').

i don't think relying on labels to inform us of who and how a person even works well in homogenous, heteronormative culture because reliance on them as anything more than packaging, that must be opened and the contents appropriately consumed, thwarts the opportunity to truly 'know' them.
Egocentricity, and the collective and resultant ethnocentricity that derives from the gathering of like minded egos (hello church... lol, sorry), teaches and conditions it's young with labels of what and how they should be instead of teaching them to examine and discover what is. i think if we are going to truly see ourselves and each other, we need to grasp and practice that labels are the beginning, not the conclusion. They are the starting place for life long discovery, both of ourselves and others.

 

Let me put a contrary view.

If a label helps an individual express how they experience their sexuality, then it is useful for them, informative to others, and in no way constrains how others do or don't use labels to identify themselves.

Given the history of bi-erasure (especially for men), and gay conversion therapy ('it's a choice'), I wouldn't want to be the one to draw the line on what is acceptable and what needs therapy in the labels space. Men with my label (bisexual), common as they are now, were claimed to not exist just ten years ago, and some still hold that view. So, is 'bisexual' an unnecessary designer label? Perhaps some might think so.

Conversely, suggesting a label is invalid and suggesting therapy seems contrary to the purpose of this site, which is to help individuals to understand their sexuality and express this to others, rather than to stand in judgement. It takes very little negative push-back for someone to put their walls back up.

One thing I have discovered is that some experience sexuality in a way that I do not understand, and there are individuals who do not understand how I experience my own sexuality. Given that, I prefer having words that help others express their sexuality to me (and mine to others), rather than placing individuals into boxes that don't fit well. In that context, all of the labels used so far in this thread have been useful.

I would like to understand more where this is coming from. Do people feel that gay is losing its meaning or that gay-erasure is on the increase? I've actually felt that if anything, gay has developed clarity of definition that it did not have when we had only straight and gay from which to choose.

 

There is no gay or bi erasure. I think that's made up. People just have so many mental health issues and they won't deal with them and create made up things to fit in, but is that really a way to go or is there something therapy could make better?

It's not even a sexual orientation at all, if you look at the description. I'd wish people would stop spreading misinformation.

I will bring an extreme example. If someone would say they have attractions towards animals and would call themselves something like animasexual, would you still be saying all the same things?

Suggesting therapy is us showing our support.

 

Didn't Mark Ronson come up with the concept of 'sapiosexual' as a joke?

Beth

 

EC's purpose beside offering support is also to educate others and show that there are different options and resources available for you to get support. If that's not kind then I don't know what is.

Being intelligent or smart is not a gender.

Sexual orientation is a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted to.

Saying it's an sexual orientation is spreading misinformation.

 

Hmm, I try my very best not to judge anyone on anything. Aren't the staff and moderators here all voluntary? They try and help people on this site but are we complaining that a label to identify someone who is attracted to only intelligent people is not on the list? It feels a bit bizarre to me. I am attracted to people with a good sense of humour but I wouldn’t be upset if this site didn’t have that listed as a sexuality/gender and that it wasn’t an option to select. Someone can label themselves however they want to of course but I don’t understand why they would be upset if is was not… an official validation. We are all here to support eachother and to discuss openly right? It doesn’t mean anyones label is invalid. I don’t think anyone is trying to place other individuals into boxes.

 

How does being sapiosexual work? Does that mean someone like Stephen Hawking (when he was alive) would have been the sexiest person in the world?

I agree with the other posters - smart IS sexy, but I don't feel like it is a type of sexuality. I don't think you should take this as a dig though, everyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice it, even when others disagree. People who disagree with each other but can talk amicably is one of the best parts of this site.

 

i think this discussion got a little confused? i think @BernieUSA made it clear in the OP that he doesn't consider sapiosexual "an orientation in the true sense of the word..." but instead he uses the identifier to "attract others" of similar disposition.

To which i say: "here, here." i may not relate to it as a strong or central part of my own sexuality, but if he does, i'm all for him or anyone else using the term to try and attract those who do relate and want the same in another person. To me, the most successfully intimate relationships include, are even built on, communication.

But i still hold to my original response, i think we often fail when we stop short of further inquiry as a response to peoples identifiers. i recently watched a video on straights who have gay sex. Hello, sexual spectrum. "Straight" and "gay sex," are not two things i'd generally assume in the same person, but i think people are diversely individual and that there is no one size fits all label. When it comes to intimate relationship, i think custom fit is always the better way to go, and that involves the tailoring of communication, openness.

 

It's okay to be attracted to someone who is intelligent, just don't claim it to be a sexual orientation. If you want to label yourself like that go ahead, just don't spread misinformation and say it's an sexual orientation and be dissapointed that there are others who disagree.

Don't you think it's very contradictory? Seems to me like original posters intention is to cause arguments.

 

i didn't see his post that way. To me it came off more as an expression of hurt feelings ("disappointed"). That he had read on EC, or gotten the impression on EC, that an important identifier for him, "sapiosexuality," was questioned as being "real," not as a sexual orientation.

 

Honestly no one's intention is to make someone feel bad here.

It's just that the lgbt+ community has been accused of creating all these new labels and often time it adds to even more confusion and with so many mental health issues one should take everything into consideration and just not label themselves blindly.

I myself have experience with mental health issues and how it all have confused me. You guys have seen my posts. And I've dealt with people who have mental health conditions that are related to their sexuality. Many young people can get very confused too.

I think therapy is something that is beneficial for everybody.

Maybe I didn't as well word it all as emphatetically as I could have, but it's how I am.

As much as there are people in the world there are different opinions out there and one must be aware that not everyone agrees. If you are comfortable with your sexuality, then you do not need others validation that it's a real thing, so I think that is something that is possibly needed to discuss in therapy.

 

i think two other things we need to remember and extend each other the benefit of the doubt on is language and culture differences. i'm working on learning Spanish and discovering not only word difference, but tone differences? Who knew? i didn't lol. i cannot imagine trying to be on a discussion forum with such delicate topics as are on EC, let alone having been a moderator as well. You may want to add "masochist" to your identity (kidding).
i watched a sub titled French movie the other night and found myself cringing as two strangers spoke with one another and developed a close friendship. One would speak, and both tone and choice of words had me offended for the other guy... but the other guy showed no apparent offense, and spoke similarly. Something lost in translation? Maybe, but i there was also an obvious cultural difference in how they expressed, and neither considered the other offensive... while i was taking hits for each of them every time they spoke lol.

 

Problably true.

A lot of the experiences I have got from here have shaped my understanding of different things and why I say what I say.

And big part of it can be also language and cultural differences. That is true. I do have experience of misunderstanding someone, because of the language differences.