Is the term "sapiosexual" ableist?

No, no it is not.

 

I think it generally excludes anyone who's not intelligent, which is kind of the point?

Well, I think sapio is crossing the line into general preference, rather than sexual preference anyway. But I'm sure if they liked someone's personality enough even someone who considers themself sapio could make an exception.

 

Why does having a preference in something make you <whatever>ist?

Preferences are preferences, and there is nothing wrong with having a preference. The only time it becomes <whatever>ist, is if you actually discriminate against someone.

Therefore my answer is no. It is not ableist to prefer someone intelligent.

 

I could ask the same thing about "sapiosexuality."

 

Ok...first, what Chip said. But now let's be kind, and take the term in the spirit in which it is meant. It does not suggest that you are somehow physically predisposed toward finding intelligent people sexually attractive. It is *meant* to mean what others interpret it as: having a preference for intelligence in relationships. Hey, intelligence can be very sexy. I mean...I can relate to the idea that you may knock my socks off at first glance, but all of your sex appeal vanishes the instant you open your mouth, or type, or whatever.

Yosia, I love your first statement here. Finding white people attractive does not mean that I hate black people (and vice versa) any more than a gay man finding men attractive makes them automatic women-hating sexists.

But let's be realistic about discrimination, too. Discrimination is not a bad thing...it's what enables our species to tell food from poison, right? I would *hope* that any gay males on this site, for instance, would discriminate against women in choosing a partner. So there's nothing wrong with discrimination either.

The common thread here that is bad is hatred and degradation. You are racist if you hate or degrade someone based on their race; you are sexist if you hate or degrade women or men; you are classist if you hate or degrade people based on their social class. So if someone finds intelligence sexy and lack thereof unsexy, that doesn't imply that they find less intelligent people worth less overall...just that they don't find them as sexually appealing.

 

On the topic of ableism.

If somebody is excluding you from something that you have a clear right to be participating in, then that is discrimination.

But if it's something that nobody owes you—like a sexual relationship—it's not ableist. It's not up to you to dictate the preferences of others. People won't just bend to your sad, sad, crybaby whims.

 

By that logic I would be a misogynist because I'm a gay male

 

No because sexual preference doesn't mean you hate everyone else. Charmed said it about as concisely as it can be said.

But at the risk of erasure, I don't think "sapiosexuality" is quite as much of a thing as other words with that suffix. Intelligence is nice because it means that person stimulates you in a way that less mentally athletic people can't. It's almost like saying you're "aesthetosexual" or something else to say you like visually attractive people. It's a given.

And in my own opinion, someone who identifies as such is a little bit full of themselves. It implies that they like "other" intelligent people, as if they have a quite high opinion of their own smarts. It's not a crime to be smart and recognize it in yourself and others, but if you use your intelligence to systematically reject people before you really know them, you're being a butt. People who are not as smart may still have scores of redeeming qualities and may even attract "sapiosexuals" despite not being academically inclined.

TL;DR: The term itself isn't bad, but I wouldn't use it.

 

Ugh there's so many types of sexualities these days I just can't keep up.

 

And that’s exactly why it's so unhelpful and discouraging to see all of these niche labels. It really does more harm than good to keep churning out terms like sapiosexual.

 

I honestly feel that some/many who claim to be "sapiosexual" suffer from "Special Snowflake Syndrome." Further, I also believe that those who claim to be "sapiosexual" have a poor understanding of the depth and breadth of human intelligence and really want someone to "nerd out" and talk about how "Dr. Who is so awesome and I also watch Sherlock," and "I'm so smart, but the world doesn't understand me."

The problem is confounded because being attracted to intelligence is natural (perhaps evolutionary) and probably universal, hence not really a sexuality, per se, but a characteristic of humanity.

I'd even wager that many who claim to be "sapiosexual" probably wouldn't crack one standard deviation above the mean (in "standard" intelligence tests).

 

Yes and No.

No, for the clear and previously explained reason that sapiosexual is not a real sexual disposition.

However,

Those who classify themselves under this term are absolutely using biased, elitist thinking. Everyone is attracted to those that they find intellectually stimulating. Why? Because intellectual stimulation is entirely different from intelligence. Intelligence is neurological. Intellectual connections are psychological. Intellectual stimulation is really only psychological stimulation that we have when we are mutually engaging in higher level thinking. Intelligence, at least when comparing human beings, has very little to do with our ability to form complex thoughts.

People of above average intelligence are more likely to be thoughtful, educated, analytical people because cognitive processes come more easily to them, but that is no different than people who are predisposed to singing. It does not mean that they will ever become singers. If fact, most of those who were given angelic voices will never sing a word. The fact of whether someone is educated, thoughtful, or complex has less to do with their intelligence and more to do with their character.

Our sexuality is predisposed. Preferences are not. While preferences are not a form of discrimination and certainly not something that we should feel shameful of, we should absolutely take the time to question and analyze the possible origins behind things such as this.

We are not all hateful people, but we are all affected by social biases. Questioning our preferences and the reasoning behind them is less about whether everyone has a fair opportunity to be with us and more about attempting to get in the habit of giving thought to the things that we have absorbed from our environments questioning the validity behind them. Can I really only be attracted to this type of person? Is this specific physical quality necessary? Or have I been condition in some way to have this mindset? Is that just what I have always expected, seen, imagined, or convinced myself was necessary?

 

it's literally impossible to keep up with all these new and ridiculous sexual/romantic orientations and genders people come up with every day, lol.

ah, mogai tumblr...

 

The exact same line of reasoning is used to deny instances of genocide.
"Well not everyone was killed/they didn't succeed, so it wasn't really genocide."
Note, I'm not saying genocide = erasing people's sexuality, just that the reasoning to dismiss both out of hand is the same and fallacious.

 

I think the phrase "love is love" works here too. If you love someone, that is love. There is no need to ascribe it to a certain characteristic of them, like their intelligence, or look, or whatever. Can't a person love another person wholly these days?

 

All these new sexualities do is confuse us and people trying to understand the LGBT+ community. I keep seeing all these new terms for things based on preference. They just don't belong as official terminology, as others have said more concisely. I like people with intelligence too. I would prefer intelligence in a relationship, but that doesn't count as a sexuality in any way shape or form. It would be like saying I only want to date people who like the same music as me and call myself musicsexual. See? It doesn't make sense.

 

Folks may notice the 'sapio' prefix for my Sexual Orientation, but I assure you, it's mostly as a joke.

And when I say mostly, there is a slight hint of truth to it. For example, in some of my daydreams or fantasies, I don't need a tangible form of a person. It may be spectral, an accumulation of the feelings I get when around somebody clever or witty. Also, being sensitive to particular sounds and tones, it is possible for me to have a hands-free orgasm, and I have when listening to certain documentaries.

Too much information, I know. But it's an interesting tidbit about me, and it's easier to say than, "So-and-so's voice arouses me and can potentially get me off, by itself". So, I kind of run with it.

That said, I'm not going to fight to the death about it. Unless fighting to the death is what gets me Patrick Stewart narrating a documentary on the Battle of Kursk, then hell fuckin' yeah I will!