To what extent are you sapiosexual?

[Fundamental Law 2,882]

We have remarked elsewhere that we are more engaged with the organ that lies between the ears than the one between the thighs, even in the LS. The neologism for this preference is "sapiosexual", denoting sexual attraction to (and arousal in response to) intelligence. The topic has been discussed in websites aimed at men , magazines aimed at women and even in that staid publication, The New York Times.

 

Characteristics of sapiosexuals are said to include:

• Attraction increases the more you learn about someone and get to know them.
• Given a choice, you would prefer a great conversation over mediocre sex.
• What s/he knows is a bigger turn on than what s/he possesses.
• Disregard for language (including bad grammar) is a turn-off.
• Sapiosexuals are more likely to seek--and are more likely to find--a diamond in the rough.
• Curiosity and a love of knowledge for its own sake is a turn-on.

 

With that in mind, here is yet another poll....

[PeeTWheatstraw 122]

I also identify as a sapiosexual. Have had problems in the past maintaining an erection when I am with a partner that I cannot connect with mentally.

[Judy39 145]

Hmm,.. mixed feelings, really. Intelligence is very attractive in general but I'm not in the lifestyle for long conversations and deep thoughts. Definitely not interested in any conversations longer than 10 minutes BEFORE sex, and even after sex - please, nothing too heavy!

 

Then again, when there is a mental connection, it's very special.

 

You've got to remember though that in this part of the world, in Europe, it's pretty standard to mix with people whose first language is not English. Mine isn't (although I live in the UK) and if I play in the Netherlands or Germany then their first language isn't English either, you've got to cut us some slack with spelling and grammar, Prof FundamentalLaw!

 

And of course I hope that the guy who invented autocorrect burns in hello!

[Wornsilver 219]

Definitely, the mind is important, and attitude toward sex (through use of brain power) will determine if the person is an interesting sexual person. There are lots of people who I find interesting, but there is no sexual connection. But in order for there to be a sexual connection, there has to be something going on in the intellectual sphere. To Judy39, there is quite a difference between sloppy use of the language by a native speaker and the errors that are made by people that are not native speakers. I don't think we are so narrow minded that we don't allow for those slips which are often quite endearing. I, for one, have enough trouble communicating in only one language; I have the highest regard for those who can do so in more than one language.

[Fundamental Law 2,882]

you've got to cut us some slack with spelling and grammar, Prof FundamentalLaw!

 

 

Dear Judy39,

 

Effort matters. Earnest attempts to communicate across languages suggest that someone is curious and wants to learn. Borrowing your idiom, we will cut you lots of slack!

 

For someone whose first language is not English, you write with clarity, economy, and precision.

 

As for autocorrect, we concur with the proposed penalty--but are you sure autocorrect was invented by a guy?

[Fundamental Law 2,882]

While only 14 have responded to the poll so far, the distribution of responses is somewhat unexpected.

 

One possibility is that only those who consider themselves sapiosexual are opening the thread, reading the post, and voting in the poll.

 

Another is that the reading, voting, and results are skewed by opening the poll over a holiday weekend.

 

There are other, more interesting possibilities.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,023]

The result thus far matches what I would expect. I wonder if the word ‘immaterial’ has steered anybody away from marking answer three? I do not believe that my wife would find any attraction in a brainiac who looked like Herman Munster.

[AngelandTiger 364]

Holiday Greetings,

 

Yesssss....We identify strongly with the sapiosexual construct. Intellectual attraction is extremely powerful, and has often been the genesis of a new, extremely enjoyable swinging relationship. Additionally, this same leaning has engendered the "Really?? What is it about her?" questions I/we sometimes get. Now, don't misunderstand. Some physical attraction IS important in the mix, but it has never been the end all and be all. Isn't it amazing that when your intellect is stimulated, the "cuteness factor" of your potential playmate (M or F) increases in a fairly direct proportion???

 

T

[luv2was 117]

I voted #2: "Some physical attraction required, but what really turns us on is their minds." ... but a better choice may have been something like: "Physical attraction lends a lot, but adding a good mental connection is more likely to take it to the top." (Yep. Creating comprehensive polls is tough.)

 

So... It can be an either-or-both kind of thing, and it can depend on my mood.

 

The range can be pure, raw, animal sex, to sweet & sensual. Sometimes the entire range is experienced in a single session, sometimes just one segment of the range.

 

The raw animal sex side can be just a physical attraction. Mother Nature's plan (procreation) is executed well here. On the more sensual side, I'd have to say that a good mental / intellectual connection is pretty much required.

 

So from an evolutionary viewpoint, what you end up with is a lot of good bodies, some good minds ("animal" usually wins), or some combination. I think humanity is pretty fickle in general. So the "mixed bag" is prevalent.

 

Personally, I believe diversity is essential.

 

This is probably the biggest attraction to the Swing Lifestyle for me. One person cannot bring it all, but one person can bring a lot. Find that one person, who also allows you some occasional diversions, and you've really got something. This condition is exceptionally rare, however. Partly because of personal differences, partly due to social structure (status quo).

 

Bottom line is: Animal sex is great, but adding the intellectual element brings the best experience, and is always worth the wait (IMHO).

 

;-)

 

BTW - Most of the time... The intellectual element tends to be more a part of foreplay... followed by great animal sex.

 

:">

[Fundamental Law 2,882]

The result thus far matches what I would expect. I wonder if the word ‘immaterial’ has steered anybody away from marking answer three? I do not believe that my wife would find any attraction in a brainiac who looked like Herman Munster.

 

I share your confidence that J would find no attraction to Herman Munster.

 

Regarding the results so far...options #1 and #4 (paraphrasing those options: "don't care much about whether and what people are thinking so long as they are physically attractive"; and "thinking and fucking are mutually exclusive; the LS is about the latter") frame up what many people NOT in the LS believe to be the thoughts of those who ARE in the LS.

[Fundamental Law 2,882]

The poll is closed.

 

While the respondents might well have self-selected (would only a sapiosexual open a thread asking 'to what extent are you sapiosexual'?), there is an alternate interpretation: the lifestyle is about (much) more than physical attraction and NSA sex.

 

That invites a provocative pair of questions: what distinguishes vanilla life from the LS? What distinguishes "vanillas" from "lifestylers"?

 

Those questions are not quite the same.

[Judy39 145]

I agree that the wording of the question encourages bias a little. If you asked what matters to people the most - looks, intelligence, etc - without the focus on one of these things in the question itself, then the responses might have been different. I also think the poll is representative of the active participants on this forum. You might get different responses on other forums, and in the lifestyle in general.

[Njf1976 18]

I must be sapiosexual, that post really turned me on!

[Fundamental Law 2,882]

We have recently had conversation with others who have decided to sample the lifestyle.

 

One of the questions we pose is, "What do you two find attractive in each other?" This is quickly followed by, "What do you find attractive in others?"

 

The responses typically expose some interesting internal dynamics. First, "attractive" is usually interpreted on a long time scale in the sense of a relationship. The initial responses have to with "love" more than sexual turn-ons. It is not merely that they are being asked the question by "strangers"--it is that many couples cannot describe for themselves what leads to great sex.

 

This is problematic two ways. First, if a couple has little appreciation of what actually turns the other on, pleasure becomes hit or miss, fantasy is solely internal, and role play more or less never happens. Sex becomes almost parallel play. This is not bad, but maybe a little sad. Second, it makes for especially awkward dynamics when it comes to couples dating. Put simply, it makes finding "four-way chemistry" elusive. Indeed, this is why "house parties" often finds couples "splitting up for the evening" so each can pursue his/her private fantasy. It also leads to post-party comments of the "I can't believe you fucked THAT!" variety. What is really being said is "I was not aware of/do not understand/can't believe that person in any way fulfills your fantasy."

 

It isn't necessary for both people in a couple to find the same things attractive in others. By this I mean one member of a couple might have "Bad boy/bad girl" desires, the other might crave the "debonair and classy" option. But if a couple is unaware of each other's fantasy, it makes finding a (couples) match more difficult.

 

All of this brings us back to the theme of this thread. We like people who are committed, smart, and fun to be around. Words with Friends over Candy Crush. Sushi more than tequilla shots. Karaoke over technomusic.

 

When there are smiles all around, don't be surprised if you hear one of us say: "This might be even more fun if we were naked."

[Jane1902 476]

I think by the definition I am more sapiosexual, although I find it a bit pretentious when people use the word to describe themselves. Perhaps that is because I had to look it up. I had a LTR with a man that I would have definitely passed by but had some of the best sex and conversation even with his smaller than average penis. Now I am really seeking both. I have been approached by many a pretty face but what they have written lets me know I am not interested. There was the very overweight man in his recliner I just couldn't get past. I have worked hard to take care of myself. I do better when I approach potential playmates that I am attracted to and have well written profiles (akin to a male unicorn but I have met a few.) It comes down to what each person is seeking. There is also a different dynamic with singles than couples. Also I do believe the responses here are more reflective of the board members here. It could be interesting to see if it were a survey completed at different venues to see how the replies at each may vary.