Are you a Sapiosexual?

[Liar]

Many people on Lit like intelligence (along with other good traits), that's clear. But how do feel about a partner who's quite a bit more intelligent than you? Does that work for you?

Is in your ballpark but somewhat less intelligent than you Ok?

Yes and yes.

I consider myself fairly non-dumb, and I move in social circles of fairly non-dumb people. Most have or are getting higher education (or just know a helluva lot of interresting stuff anyay and have somewhat sophisticated (but not too sophisticated, thank god ) cultural preferences, enjoy and participatge in creative thought processes, and constantly impress me with their knowledge in different fields of expertise. My friends and my family are both that way, as are most more casual aquaintances I have via my job. And the people I interact with here (and other sites like it) are all, evidently clever enough to keep my interrest up. So intellegence per se does not impress me nor intimidate me.

I guess I'm kind of used to it, and maybe take it for granted. So I look for other things instead in a partner.

Another thing I'm curious about: if you have a partner, who is the smarter? It's easy (and probably true) to say, "Oh, s/he's smarter in some areas and I am smarter in others." But let me put this way: you're both told that only one of you must face a challenge that, to surrmount, will require considerable intelligence. You aren't told anything more specific. If you or your partner do not surrmount this challenge, you will both be killed, slowly. You must choose between yourselves who faces the challenge, and you are highly motivated to send the best contender. Whom would you send?

Sngle at the moment, but if it was my last partner, I'd send her. We're probably equally able to solve complex problems, but she would get there a hell of a lot faster than I, which might be an important factor.

 

[Guest]

I yam.

Finally gots me modem working out at the cabin.

Won't be on much though, since the slow speed is driving me bonkers.

 

[poppy1963]

I'm also single so thank goodness I don't have to face the situation presented... I sure wouldn't want to go and I sure wouldn't want to send my partner off under those conditions either...I mean...what if he fucked up and then we had to be killed....slowly. I'd be really really mad!!! (sarcasm)

I enjoy a partner who I see as a bit more intelligent/craftier than myself. One who will challenge me by his very nature as well as by design. I'll compete like HELL at times and probably gloat when I "win" one now and then. Really...that will only be an occasional thing when a "mood" strikes. I was raised to be really competitive but have worked to minimize it...I do the best I can with that.

I love to be able to share the things I've learned and "teach" others, too. So I would like a partner who is interested in some of my varied interests and would be able to tolerate me "knowing" more in a few areas.

Give and take...but I'd prefer my partner to be more intelligent than me rather than vice versa in the big picture.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I sure as hell am.

from Urban Dictionary:

sapiosexual: One who finds intelligence the most sexually attractive feature.

"I want an incisive, inquisitive, insightful, irreverent mind. I want someone for whom philosophical discussion is foreplay. I want someone who sometimes makes me go ouch due to their wit and evil sense of humor. I want someone that I can reach out and touch randomly. I want someone I can cuddle with.

I decided all that means that I am sapiosexual."

Well, if thats what you are, and with the way I feel about you, I guess I'm a lesbosapiosexual (?).

As for those other posts where people was talking about send the most intelligent one or get kilt, while yes Cloudy you may have the cutest big brain (and the cutest ass) but I think I should go because I have the biggest gun.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b11/LisaDenton/untitled-245as.jpg

 

[cloudy]

Well, if thats what you are, and with the way I feel about you, I guess I'm a lesbosapiosexual (?).

As for those other posts where people was talking about send the most intelligent one or get kilt, while yes Cloudy you may have the cutest big brain (and the cutest ass) but I think I should go because I have the biggest gun.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b11/LisaDenton/untitled-245as.jpg

I love you, Lisa.

 

[christabelll]

Sapiosexual just about covers its...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Just what's so sexy about smart?

Why is being impressed by someone's ability to talk about quantum mechanics any different than being impressed by the size of a guy's biceps? They're both superficial and impersonal. The guy might still be a total asshole.

A high IQ is no more indicative of human quality than bust size. What's the deal?

 

[slyc_willie]

I would say I am attracted less by intelligence and more by sexiness. but 'sexiness' is pretty ambiguous. I find so many different people sexy that even I don't have the slightest clue as to why. Big, little, skinny, plump . . . whatever it is about someone that turns me on, the only thing I am certain of is that it is a vast number of factors that all seem to converge upon 'sexy.' But definately, intelligence does play a part.

I'd take the pimple-faced maladroit science student over the dumb-as-rocks centerfold any day.

 

[tickledkitty]

I would say I am attracted less by intelligence and more by sexiness. but 'sexiness' is pretty ambiguous. I find so many different people sexy that even I don't have the slightest clue as to why. Big, little, skinny, plump . . . whatever it is about someone that turns me on, the only thing I am certain of is that it is a vast number of factors that all seem to converge upon 'sexy.' But definately, intelligence does play a part.

I'd take the pimple-faced maladroit science student over the dumb-as-rocks centerfold any day.

Chemistry, my dear.

 

[slyc_willie]

Chemistry, my dear.

Often, yes . . . but that doesn't explain why I find certain celebrities sexy. 'Chemistry,' as I understand it, at least requires proximity. But when I see Nicole Kidman, or movies with Marlene Dietrich, older interviews with Sonya Braga . . . I am conscious of the fact that I find these women sexy.

It's not just chemistry. It's presence, charisma.

 

[Guest]

Often, yes . . . but that doesn't explain why I find certain celebrities sexy. 'Chemistry,' as I understand it, at least requires proximity. But when I see Nicole Kidman, or movies with Marlene Dietrich, older interviews with Sonya Braga . . . I am conscious of the fact that I find these women sexy.

It's not just chemistry. It's presence, charisma.

Or a strategically placed hotel towel . . .

 

[slyc_willie]

Or a strategically placed hotel towel . . .

*snickerflubb*

There you are . . .

 

[Guest]

*snickerflubb*

There you are . . .

 

[BlackShanglan]

Just what's so sexy about smart?

Why is being impressed by someone's ability to talk about quantum mechanics any different than being impressed by the size of a guy's biceps? They're both superficial and impersonal. The guy might still be a total asshole.

A high IQ is no more indicative of human quality than bust size. What's the deal?

Well, I think that Imp was right to join IQ to things like kindness and honesty and character. It needs those things to really shine. However, I think that IQ does have more to offer than bust size or bicep girth, because it affects so many more areas of life. I personally enjoy a good and interesting conversation, and to me that means not necessarily any particular knowledge base, but an agile and playful mind that enjoys exploring different alternatives. I also greatly prefer spending my daily hours with someone with the intelligence to have a good array of problem-solving mechanisms available, not just "scream louder." I enjoy having someone who, when we hit a crisis, has strong intellectual resources to deal with it, and a willingness to apply them sensibly. I like the foresight that intelligence can grant, and bless it when one or the other of us spots a flaw in our plans before it's close enough to bite us. And I like the playfullness of it as well - the delight in a little verbal fencing or humor, the keen challenge in a good game, the love of pleasures into which a little intellectual work must go to take anything out of them.

I spent our lunchtime today learning why a printed circuit board might need grounding layers built into its design. The SO spent an afternoon last year learning the mechanics of English poetry. The SO crows when, now and then, a fierce game of Boggle ends with me the loser; I would be equally delighted should I ever manage to win a game of chess. These are some of the happiest parts of my life, and I am grateful for them.

And, of course, the sex is ... inventive.

 

[reignophelia]

Just what's so sexy about smart?

Why is being impressed by someone's ability to talk about quantum mechanics any different than being impressed by the size of a guy's biceps? They're both superficial and impersonal. The guy might still be a total asshole.

A high IQ is no more indicative of human quality than bust size. What's the deal?

Hey baby, nice brains you got there...


Well, I think it all comes down to something quite basic, although not simple.
I think it's fairly safe to say (although I may be opening up another can of proverbial worms here) that our basic sexual desires are in place in order to encourage the propogation of the species.
Where once the physically large and nimble (thus healthy and posessing "good" genes) partner was once important in the wild, the intelligent partner now makes a better mate. Not to say that problem solving and overall intelligence wasn't important for survival, but I think there may have been a shift in view points.
Now we base our physical survival on how much money we make. An intelligent, educated partner has a better chance of making enough money to support or help support a family.
A partner with resources in hand can support a family or a lifestyle. A mate with intelligence (if you so choose to have offspring) has a better chance of passing on those genes to your own offspring, thus ensuring the survival of your genes.

I may be full of shit here. I am totally talking out of my ass. It's 2am, and there was just a bad car accident outside of my house 2 hours ago. I was the first on scene. Bloody mess. I don't even know if the boy will make it.

 

[matriarch]

Naw. Honesty, integrity, and altruism all rank higher for me. I don't find brains sexy if I can't trust a word they say.

Hear, Hear !!

 

[Lisa Denton]

Hear, Hear !!

Yes, good ears are sexy too.

And a tight lil nose.

I think I am turning into an ear and nasalsexual.

 

[matriarch]

....... Being "trustworthy" as in how most people would define it...is something I don't see as part of "human nature". People have to work and work hard to be "trustworthy" and most of us fail at it now and then...at least by others' definitions.

I find that a very sad point of view. And feel completely the opposite.

If I couldn't believe in an innate sense of 'goodness' in every one (I always prefer to think the best of someone until such time as they prove me wrong), I would find it very hard to connect to a single person. I, and most of the people I know of my generation, brought my children up the way I was - to be honest, respectful and compassionate. So far they haven't let me down.

I personally am not acquainted in my 57 years with very few people who I could not trust completely. There have been a very small number who have...disappointed.... me, but not enough to worry me.

 

[poppy1963]

I find that a very sad point of view. And feel completely the opposite.

If I couldn't believe in an innate sense of 'goodness' in every one (I always prefer to think the best of someone until such time as they prove me wrong), I would find it very hard to connect to a single person. I, and most of the people I know of my generation, brought my children up the way I was - to be honest, respectful and compassionate. So far they haven't let me down.

I personally am not acquainted in my 57 years with very few people who I could not trust completely. There have been a very small number who have...disappointed.... me, but not enough to worry me.

Hello, Matriarch. Nice to meet you. Don't believe I've had the pleasure of interacting with you prior.

I did not say that I don't believe in the innate "goodness" of human beings! I do but perhaps you and I define "goodness" in different ways. And I am sure we define "trustworthy" differently based on your response. What stood out for you, outside the context of my statement below was, "is something I don't see as part of human nature", when the really significant part of that sentence for me was "as in how most people would define it"

Originally Posted by poppy1963
....... Being "trustworthy" as in how most people would define it...is something I don't see as part of "human nature". People have to work and work hard to be "trustworthy" and most of us fail at it now and then...at least by others' definitions.

I believe people do the best they can with what they've got to give in a specified point in space and time. I believe all, if not most, people do their best to do "right" as THEY see it in a given situation. Even some of the most dastardly deeds on the surface, have some kind of twisted logic to them when looked at closely - why people chose to do those things is usually based in some perceived sense of "rightness" or "justice".

This does not mean their actions will always be in my best interests however...and THAT is what I think most people define as "trustworthy" - behavior/attitudes that will protect MY best interests. I don't think it is human nature to put others as the priority unless, in rare occasions, another is in extreme jeopardy regarding safety and so on. Even then there are caveats as to why a person might put themselves "at risk" for another.

Having worked in health and human services (mental health/violence prevention) and animal services for most of my adult life (I am middle-aged), I have witnessed many things that have caused me to alter my perception on "trust" as I watched the kinds of brutality done to other human beings and innocent, helpless animals. Most middle-class citizens don't see AND don't WANT to see what most of the rest of the world experiences in daily living...we are a very fortunate group...but our good fortune cuts us off from really understanding things at times. So we create our little worlds and stay inside them...to protect our own best self-interests.

Originally posted by Matriarch
I personally am not acquainted in my 57 years with very few people who I could not trust completely. There have been a very small number who have...disappointed.... me, but not enough to worry me.

I think your statement illustrates my point well. Make a visit to your local womens' shelters (they are hidden because the women are not safe otherwise) or your local public animal shelter and talk to the people there about the plights of such others. See the crack houses and barred or boarded shops in the poor neighborhoods around your own larger city. Read what is occuring in the middle east, africa, and many other "third world" countries on this globe...it's not like what is happening in your small, protected world.

Trustworthy takes different meanings for persons in such situations and whether you want to believe it or not, most people in the world probably have a very different perception of things than you do. That is why people often say of politicians and so forth that they are "out of touch" with the people. They ARE...because they don't live like MOST people do...and if circumstances change for them so does their kind of "trustworthiness". They will do what they gotta, even if it means to betray YOU, to meet their own (and those of their immediate family) needs as is right and just and the cornerstone of human nature - plain and simple. Survival.

Knowing this, as I do, makes it easier for me to TRUST human beings to be what they ARE and not what I want them to be...so in that I can also protect my own basic self-interests in the world as a whole (in which I travel in my own ways) not just middle-town America (or elsewhere). I trust people to do what they have to in order to "survive" in most any given situation...and most have not let me down in that defining...LOL!

But you are you and I am I and our lives have their own purposes. Just don't expect to define mine (or any other's) by your terms...THAT is very arrogant and uninformed behavior.

 

[stirbird]

I think people can be trusted to be themselves, whatever that self habitually is. Cynical, yes--but it's a view that's served me in good stead. While change is possible, it can be very hard and take a long time.

 

[christabelll]

Intelligence is important... mainly becuase I need to be able to TALK with the individual

Unless of course its purely sexual lust thing... then no need for talking at all LOL....

but attaction starts with the looks and the mind and the rest follows LOL

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Hey baby, nice brains you got there...


Well, I think it all comes down to something quite basic, although not simple.
I think it's fairly safe to say (although I may be opening up another can of proverbial worms here) that our basic sexual desires are in place in order to encourage the propogation of the species.
Where once the physically large and nimble (thus healthy and posessing "good" genes) partner was once important in the wild, the intelligent partner now makes a better mate. Not to say that problem solving and overall intelligence wasn't important for survival, but I think there may have been a shift in view points.
Now we base our physical survival on how much money we make. An intelligent, educated partner has a better chance of making enough money to support or help support a family.
A partner with resources in hand can support a family or a lifestyle. A mate with intelligence (if you so choose to have offspring) has a better chance of passing on those genes to your own offspring, thus ensuring the survival of your genes.

I may be full of shit here. I am totally talking out of my ass. It's 2am, and there was just a bad car accident outside of my house 2 hours ago. I was the first on scene. Bloody mess. I don't even know if the boy will make it.

Yeah, I think you're right. Just playing a little devil's Advocate there, and wondering whether all kinds of smart are equally sexy, whether evil smart is still sexy (it can be. Hannibal Lecter) and really - just what is it about smart that's sexy...

I think it has to be the excitement that intelligence brings to life and the world too. (Is that begging the question? Saying that intelligence is exciting?) Intelligence gives you choices, different ways of looking at things. It's expansive, experimental (i.e. naturally playful), daring, speculative, and has a big dick and can hit you doggie style all night long, right?

 

[cloudy]

I think it has to be the excitement that intelligence brings to life and the world too. (Is that begging the question? Saying that intelligence is exciting?) Intelligence gives you choices, different ways of looking at things. It's expansive, experimental (i.e. naturally playful), daring, speculative, and has a big dick and can hit you doggie style all night long, right?

That's it, exactly. Especially the doggie style part.

 

[Guest]

That's it, exactly. Especially the doggie style part.

Indeed.

Woof.

 

[poppy1963]

Yeah, I think you're right. Just playing a little devil's Advocate there, and wondering whether all kinds of smart are equally sexy, whether evil smart is still sexy (it can be. Hannibal Lecter) and really - just what is it about smart that's sexy...

I think it has to be the excitement that intelligence brings to life and the world too. (Is that begging the question? Saying that intelligence is exciting?) Intelligence gives you choices, different ways of looking at things. It's expansive, experimental (i.e. naturally playful), daring, speculative, and has a big dick and can hit you doggie style all night long, right?

YES!!!! For many of us it is the "mind fuck" that makes the difference between good sex and great sex! I don't mean in a malicious hurtful way (unless that's how a person wants it)...but there is an element of "evil" involved...hee hee hee.

It's true...Hannibal is a "sexy" character in his own way...the visuals of him show him as in a state of sexual stimulation (expressions, tone of voice, seductive manner)....but it's not the cock I want from him....it's to crawl into that mind and peer around! The best fuck I could get from one like Hannibal Lecter is an evening chat round the fire place with him completely "secured"...lol...and then later....I'd probably release the tension with another or on my own...

You get what I'm saying?