#Sapiosexual Jaskier

[thelostgirl21]

Why I firmly believe sapiosexuality, sapioromantism, demisexuality, demiromantism, and other forms of greyromantic and greysexual identities are not only valid, but deserve the same respect as any other queer identities.

[Above: Jaskier (from Netflix's "The Witcher"), whose actor, Joey Batey, described as sharing a sapioromantic and sapiosexual connection with Radovid in Season 3.]

Recently, I've seen texts and videos arguing that demiromantism, demisexuality, sapioromantism, sapiosexuality, etc. are not "real" queer identities, and do not deserve to be represented as such.

In the case of sapioromantism/sapiosexuality, some of those arguments go even further; by claiming that the idea that one could be romantically/sexually attracted towards intelligence would be highly problematic.

So, I thought I would take the time to compare the main arguments I found that are regularly given to invalidate sapiosexuality to the way we treat other sexualities, and address the aspects of those arguments that make absolutely no sense to me, and often sadly reflect clear bias within the queer community.

For example:

1. "It's just a preference."

So is preferring men, women, or any other gender identities when it comes to choosing a sexual partner.

Just because some human beings really are adverse to having sex with certain gender identities, or are specifically driven to "find themselves a man" (for example), doesn't mean that all human beings develop any instinctive preference when it comes to the gender of their sexual partners. Some really are rather apathetic to it.

And, while genitalia does play a role in sexual intercourse, the sight of genitalia, or the thought of interacting with that part of a partner's anatomy, does not automatically trigger a sense of sexual arousal in everyone.

If you personally find seeing, touching, or kissing penises and vaginas sexually arousing or stimulating, there's absolutely nothing shameful about that, and please continue to enjoy it to your heart's content! Lots of people sexually feel that way, it is very healthy (well, as long as you take preventive measures to avoid spreading sexually transmitted infections, obviously, and consent is asked and given all around), so go for it with pride, alright?

But please also do acknowledge that, for some of us, those are but weird-looking body parts (like some funny sea cucumber or oyster, IMHO) that serve a very specific sensory purpose. i.e. they are a means of receiving pleasurable tactile sensations and offering them to a partner, but otherwise are not particularly appealing to have to deal with.

Sexually, as far as some of us are concerned, that's pretty much all vaginas and penises have to offer.

Actually, when you have ADHD with extremely high levels of creativity and a tendency to give personalities to inanimate objects, sometimes dealing with genitalia can make you completely lose sexual arousal and inspire you to get really silly in bed, because those are really funny looking and personable body parts, and it's so tempting to start making them talk like puppets!

And it just so happens that I could care less about which "silly puppet" I'm "playing with" when I'm having sex! I've got no preference!

One's all gooey, floppy and pulsating; while the other gets real tense, expands and eventually shoots white stuff. So yeah, they obviously look and feel different. But otherwise? I don't even see why it should matter, or why I'd be supposed to want to pick one particular "puppet" over the other!

I don't personally find them sexually arousing to touch, taste, or look at! They are but a means to an end.

So yeah, we all have our personal preferences, and specific things that we instinctively feel sexually attracted to in another person when it comes to sex.

But preferring certain genders, or even one type of genitalia over another, is not how my own sexuality works.

Perhaps it makes sense to you, and this is a good thing! You can and should have preferences... of any kind, really!

But I just don't personally get it.

To me, hearing someone say "I'm only attracted to men, not women" is exactly the same as someone telling me "I'm only attracted to blondes, not brunettes".

Both are 100% valid preferences, and I respect you for having them. It's cool! You can be exclusively into blondes and/or be exclusively into men if you'd like!

I'm exclusively into geeks, I get it! Some preferences matter so much that you can't perceive another human being as sexually desirable without them.

But don't try to imply everyone should feel anything about the gender of their sexual partner(s), and/or that we should give it more importance than any other trait a person has when it comes to defining our sexuality.

Sexuality is an extremely instinctive and preferential phenomenon, where what "turns one on" can wildly vary from person to person.

Some are exclusionary preferences that are apparently deeply rooted in one's biology (gender preferences seem to often fall in that category for most people), while others are likely to be acquired through socialization, and perhaps even conditioning.

And look, I'm fully willing to consider that the lack of sexual response towards another human being's genitalia, and/or the gender of a partner, might be tied to my having a neurodivergent mind, and/or having skipped some early neurodevelopmental stages.

Recognizing that one's gender preferences is likely rooted deep within their biology - that it's a preference they were likely born with - and that they don't have the option of being sexually attracted to certain genders, does not negate the fact that some of us simply aren't wired the same way.

Who is to say that my utter lack of sexual response towards gender is not simply rooted deep into my own biology, too?

Perhaps some of us are born with the ability to experience homosexual desires, others with the ability to experience heterosexual desires, others with the ability to experience both heterosexual and homosexual desires, others with the ability to find another human sexually desirable despite the absence any heterosexual or homosexual desires, and some people are simply unable to find another human sexually desirable.

Still, the point is that, regardless of whether a sexual preference we have is innate or acquired (the good ol' "nature v.s. nurture" debate); the level of personal control one has over those instinctive preferences - i.e. that inner sexual drive that orients us towards those we perceive as sexually desirable - is likely to be fairly limited.

We can find ourselves being sexually turned on by what we perceive as expressions of gender, intellect, emotional sensitivity, strength, vulnerability, dancing skills, musicality, certain specific physical features, and so forth in another person.

Sometimes, it seems that sexual attraction actually requires very specific combinations involving many different preferences to stronger and lesser degrees.

So, as long as it doesn't make that person feel miserable to be "wired" a certain way, I don't see why it should matter that one would be very queer in their own preferences, and wish to proudly express it.

Being apathetic towards the perceived gender, and/or the gender expression of a sexual partner, has only ever made me feel miserable when people start insisting that it's a preference that everyone has.

Or whenever they are trying to confound the issue, by perversely attempting to imply that my instinctive lack of sexual response towards the gender identity of a partner means that I don't value nor respect their gender identity socially.

Respecting that one identifies as a man, seeing them as a man, acknowledging that they are a man, and insisting that society recognises them as such (for example, by allowing them to use bathrooms that align with their gender), is one thing.

But I don't see why my inability to find anything sexually appealing in the way they express their gender, and/or in the way I perceive people's masculinity in general, would say anything about my acceptance of who they are as a person.

If you want to use those labels to objectively categorize human sexual behavior, then I consider it to be another subject entirely!

If you want to ask me "Do you have the capacity to engage in sexual intercourse with members of your own gender and of genders that are different than your own?"

Well sure! Absolutely!

I can have sex with people that identify as men, women, and non-binary. I can display bisexual behavior.

This is what can be objectively observed from the outside, without the observer having any insight, whatsoever, into what motivates my behavior, or causes it to occur.

But if it's about our sexual identity - i.e. what orients that sexual behavior (i.e. what causes it to happen) - and who we are attracted to, for some of us, gender genuinely plays no role in that sense of sexual attraction.

But the way we emotionally, intellectually, physically, spiritually, etc. connect with another human being, regardless of gender perception or identity, might sexually arouse us.

And I feel like this is what some sexual orientations - like demisexuality and sapiosexuality, for example - are essentially really trying to tell us, and allow us to put the emphasis on.

They simply show a need for us to clearly express who we are as individuals, what "pleases us", drives us to seek sexual contact with another person, and what causes - or prevents - that sexual behavior from happening.

So, we can find other people that experience their sexuality in a way that feels similar to ours, we can feel understood by them, and we can share a sense of community with them.

At least, that's how I understand it, and that's what I personally mean when I use labels to describe my own sexual identity.

If we described sexual orientation clinically, in a way that had nothing to do with how we experience our sexuality, and was all about what could be observed from the outside, i.e. :

- Heterosexuality: subject is known to only sexually engage with people of a gender identity different than their own.

- Homosexuality: subject is known to only sexually engage with people of the same gender identity as themselves.

- Bisexuality: subject is know to sexually engage with people of the same gender identity and of a gender identity different than their own.

- Asexuality: subject isn't known to sexually engage with people of any gender identity.

Then I'd be 100% fine with people saying that I behave bisexually.

Because it is true. I do have the ability to sexually engage with people of any gender regardless of my reasons for being comfortable with having sex with them.

But otherwise, I'm a human being, not a human doing.

What I do is not who I am.

And my personal opinion is that using our sexual behavior to define our sexual orientation would only benefit other people, not ourselves.

It would be a way of letting people know if their gender is sexually compatible with ours, nothing else.

Those definitions absolutely don't help me better understand who I am, what I desire, how I desire it, what my sexual needs and interpersonal boundaries are with others, and seek out experiences that allow me to get in touch with my own sexuality.

They miss all the nuances, richness, and uniqueness of the human sexual experience.

And, in truth? If a woman tells you that she is straight, it only means: "that woman won't be sexually turned off by you being a man".

That's all. In light of all those other personal instinctive preferences that woman might have, it really isn't all such a useful information for you to have about her.

It doesn't tell you if she might be sexually turned on by you being smaller than she is, by you having brown eyes, by you having a baritone voice, by you having certain personality traits, etc.

And, quite frankly, I see this whole "it's perfectly acceptable to say you're not sexually interested in someone because they aren't of the right gender, but wrong to say you're not sexually interested in someone because of them displaying heavy ADHD traits (before you're ask, I have intense ADHD traits that keep showing all the time! Think Jake Peralta!)" as utter and complete nonsense!

It's like we keep sending out the message:

"Only gender preferences are real, universal, and worthy of being considered a sexual orientation!

All other preferences are but minor forms of fetishism that can be easily overcome. They are not valid reasons to fail to find another human being sexually desirable!"

Am I the only one that sees that fixed, rigid, gender-oriented system as a means of policing people's (women's, especially) sexual desires?

"What?! But you say you like men, and I'm a man!

Thus, are you implying that I'm not good looking enough for you? That I'm not smart enough? That I'm not tall enough? That I am not man enough?

If you aren't sexually attracted to me, despite me being a man, that means you're just being shallow, racist, ableist, elitist, and so forth!

You should be ashamed for being so superficial / unreasonable!

I am therefore 100% entitled to refuse to take "no" for an answer, and continue insisting on trying to seduce you. Or I can at the very least throw all my sexual frustration on you - insulting you over your rejection - as you have failed to provide me with any justifiable reason for us being sexually incompatible!

Because there is but one type of sexual orientation. Short of being a lesbian, everything else is a blatant excuse!"

Essentially: "I'm a man, you're a woman, and you are straight.

Therefore, I am owed to be found sexually attractive by you, unless you have a good enough reason not to! And, since sexual orientation is limited to gender preferences, I have the right to mock, belittle, and criticise any other preference that orients your sexuality, invalidate them, and insult you for having them.

I also have the right to take your lack of sexual interest in me as a personal insult and attack, as it is clearly meant to send me the message that I'm not 'man enough' to be a sexually desirable mate. I am justified in seeking to make you pay for it!"

Dude, maybe that woman is someone that usually feels sexually turned on by people over 5'8", and you're 5'3"...

And maybe her sexual instincts could ignore you being 5'3" if you had red hair, but they are blonde.

And maybe being 5'3" with blonde hair could be instinctively ignored, if you had a deeper voice.

Basically, even non-exclusionary preferences might play a huge role in sexual attraction.

When taken all together, they may be allowing your sexual instincts to overlook whatever usually instinctively "turns you off" , if there are more characteristics in a person that actively "turns you on"!

I had a gay man once tell me: "Okay, this is confusing as hell to me, because you really are exactly my type of person, and I feel kinda strongly sexually attracted to you... except you're a woman!? And I've never felt attracted to women before!? How's that possible!? "

Look, maybe I simply scored high on so many of his other non gender-related personal sexual preferences, that it ended up overriding the way he usually feels about the gender of a sexual partner, somehow.

Him being sexually oriented towards men - first and foremost - remains absolutely true. But that instinctive preference might not be 100% exclusionary if someone displays a constellation of traits that are so sexually arousing to him, that they wind up triggering that sexual attraction, regardless of his usual preferred gender.

Do I find men sexually attractive? No. But the geek I'm sexually attracted to so happens to be a man, so I'm not sexually adverse to him being a man.

Human sexuality is very multi-factorial and complex.

And yes, I do feel like we would all benefit from openly recognizing any important preferences one has as valid sexual orientations.

Perhaps, then, we wouldn't take "rejection" so personally, and let it affect the way we perceive or value our own femininity or masculinity (or any variation on that theme falling outside the binary) so hard.

No one has to agree with me and define themselves in the same way, but this is how I make sense of sexual identities and the labels we use.

2. "You're just saying that you're 'sapiosexual' to say everyone else is more 'shallow' than you are, because they are attracted to physical appearance, while you only care about what's inside their heads!"

Whoa! Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! Back up!

In society, we keep talking about the masculine brain, the feminine brain; women sports, men sports; feminine interests and masculine interests; feminine personality traits and masculine personality traits, and so forth...

I've heard men say that women that often get angry, and they perceive as being "too aggressive" (often implied as being "too masculine") lose their sexual appeal, etc.

We keep explaining to people that gender is a social construct, and gender identity is about how we identify (or don't identify) with gender within ourselves, as well as our need (or lack thereof) to express it.

We are told that gender is tied to certain personalities, physical, and intellectual traits, expectations, roles, behaviors, etc. in society, that are deemed masculine and feminine, and how you personally identify with either of them, both, fall outside of them, somewhere in between, etc. will tend to define your gender...

So, why are we expecting heterosexuals, homosexuals - and every other sexuality that gives a damn about the gender of their partners - to care more about the physical appearance and the genitalia of their partner(s), than about the way they perceive their partner(s) as having a sexually appealing masculine/feminine/non-binary personality or mind?

A gay man could be sexually turned on by the way they are personally able to connect with what they perceive as masculine personalities and behaviors, with very little care for how their partner physically looks, and still be gay!

They could care very little about penises, be into "masculine hearts, not masculine parts", and still 100% be gay!

Why is gender something that we socially recognize as being expressed through the entirety of a person - the psychological, the emotional, the physical, the behavioral, the intellectual...

And yet, when it comes to discussing sexuality and sexual orientations, suddenly "gender" only boils down to "do you like boobies or male tits, and do you want the V or the D?"

What the ever loving fuck is going on?

And being sapiosexual doesn't mean that only intellectually connecting with a person matters.

Just like being demisexual doesn't mean that only emotionally connecting with a person matters.

It means that we experience secondary sexual attraction only once we've established that primary intellectual or emotional connection.

Basically, no matter how aesthetically or sensually physically attractive we can find another person to be at first sight, we are genuinely unable to experience any sense of sexual arousal (i.e. sexual attraction) towards that person until that other specific condition is met.

We need to either experience a deep sense of emotional connection (demisexuality) or a significant intellectual connection (sapiosexuality) in order for us to be sexually turned on by a partner.

I've heard men say "if my partner is taller than I am, I can't get it up! It's a complete turn off! "

Well, in my case, "if we're not at the very least close friends, and there's nothing I perceive as being geeky about you, the floodgates won't open!"

It's as simple as that.

BUT it needs to be combined with other preferences, too!

Ex: I'm rarely ever sexually aroused by anyone that is much taller and heavier than I am (because I instinctively prefer being the big spoon in bed).

I tend to be more easily aroused by people that have a bubble butt (regardless of said bubble butt being perceived as feminine, masculine, both, gender neutral, etc.).

I have a "thing" for dimples.

I tend to be very sensitive to certain voice types.

Etc.

Most preferences aren't exclusionary (my partner of nearly two decades doesn't have dimples, and it's perfectly fine), some (i.e. those that I will say orient my sexuality) are.

A sapiosexual gay man, for example, that needs to first intellectually connect with a person to experience sexual attraction, could be exclusively into bodies that they perceive as masculine, and even have a non-exclusionary preference for penises as well!

It's just that they'd first need to establish an intellectual bond with their partner before finding said partner's masculine physical appearance and/or "the D" sexually attractive!

Sexual orientations are prerequisites, not the only thing that matters.

Ex: to a lesbian, their partner being a woman is a prerequisite for them to develop a sense of sexual arousal towards said partner, but it's not the only thing that matters.

So again, why is it that most sapiosexual critical arguments I've found put such pressure on sapiosexuals to be sexually aroused exclusively by people's brains, with an utter disregard for the way that person physically looks, behaves, whatever personality they have, etc.?

When heterosexual and homosexual people, for example, can gladly experience sexual arousal in a multi-factorial manner, with plenty of other exclusionary and non-exclusionary personal preferences, as long as the person they are sexually attracted to is of the "right gender preference".

We recognize that "the person having the right gender" is a prerequisite for them to be sexually turned on.

So why is it so hard to simply recognize that the right type of intellectual (sapio) or emotional (demi) connection is but a prerequisite for sapiosexuals and demisexuals to be sexually turned on?

Everything else, that would usually matter if we weren't sapiosexual and/or demisexual, can and often will still matter to us.

Demisexuals and sapiosexuals can also identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, polysexual, omnisexual, pansexual, etc. depending on how they relate (or fail to relate) to a partner's gender.

A demisexual and a sapiosexual can be as "shallow" as anyone experiencing "sexual arousal at first sight" (primary sexual attraction) towards a partner, too!

It simply creates a delay for us to get there, and for other sexual preferences that we may or may not have to play their own roles.

First we need to emotionally and/or intellectually connect; and THEN we may experience attraction like most allosexuals probably would. i.e. Taking into consideration a partner's gender identity, or not, any preference in genitalia we may or may not have, any preference in heights, body types, personalities, aesthetic appearance, voice types, and so forth...

Because there are plenty of people that I do develop a strong emotional bond with and that are geeks (my two main exclusionary preferences), that I do feel absolutely no sexual attraction for regardless of my being demisexual and exclusively sexually into geeks!

That emotional (or intellectual, in the case of sapiosexuality) bond is 100% needed to be sexually aroused by a partner, but it does not guarantee that we'll find them sexually attractive, either.

It's a requirement - the spark that will light the fire - but a spark alone can't light that fire all by itself if there's nothing to feed that fire, and/or keep it sustained.

3. "Sapiosexuality, i.e. implying you're sexually attracted towards intelligence, is ableist!"

Okay, there are so many layers to address here, and this feels so impossibly wrong on so many levels!

First, I believe that this interpretation comes from the way some sapiosexuals will describe their sexuality as them "being sexually attracted to highly intelligent people".

And by saying "highly intelligent people", this comes across as exclusively meaning "people with a high I.Q. score".

But, when you dig a bit deeper to understand what's actually meant by that, it's often explained as feeling a sense of sexual arousal from engaging in deeply intellectually stimulating conversations with a partner. Ex:

Those who admit to being sapiosexual will say that they are turned on by the brain, and tend to be teased or excited by the insights of another person. This means the person whom you are attracted to might have a tendency to have an incisive, inquisitive, and irreverent mind. As foreplay, the sapiosexual person may crave philosophical, political, or psychological discussions, because this turns them on. (x)

To me, this doesn't so much sound as a question of being sexually turned on by quantitative intelligence or having "a high I.Q.", but more about an interest in figuring out, and being fascinated by, the other person's intellectual thought processes and, sometimes, in sharing your own thoughts with them.

It's about finding the way the other person displays their own intellect sexually arousing, the same way an heterosexual woman might be sexually aroused by the expression of masculinity - or any gender not her own - in another person.

Ever since I can remember, I've been exclusively romantically and sexually attracted towards fellow "geeks". Towards people that tend to fall in love with a specific field of interest, gather as much knowledge as they can on that subject, and have a tendency to get very passionate and animated while sharing that knowledge with others.

But I have a hard time clearly figuring out if what romantically and sexually attracts me towards that "geek energy" (let's call it that) that some people openly seem to openly display are personality traits (an inquisitive mind, sense of curiosity, desire to dig deep, explore ideas and concepts thoroughly, etc.) or the way that they use their intellect to explore all those ideas and concepts.

But yes, I do genuinely get sexually turned on by my partner passionately explaining in great details how lithium car batteries work (for example). It's ridiculous! Don't ask me how it makes sense, rationally, it probably doesn't! But there's something about the energy he puts in the way he's speaking and emoting when he gets really into a subject he knows and enjoys that acts like some kind of sexual desires trigger!

It's insanely inconvenient, too! Like most of the moments where I'd really want to have sex with him happen in completely inappropriate places and times! But, that's just how my body and sexual instincts work and respond to him, and therefore I've had to learn to deal with it!

So, to go back to the whole "ableist accusation", the problem seems to come from the idea that saying that "you are only sexually attracted to people displaying a certain type (or level of) intelligence" would be perceived as being the same as discriminating against people that are not considered "highly intelligent enough".

And that statement is problematic to me on so many levels!

First, because it confuses the instinctive drive to have sex with another human being with what people appear to establish as the right of another person to be considered as a sexually desirable being within society.

And the problem is that you are not supposed to offer the whole planet population equal opportunity to your bed and to your own body, for frak's sake!

Last I heard, that wasn't how sexual desires were supposed to work!

Sexual needs are extremely preferential and I do not believe, for one second, that they are meant to reflect our profound beliefs and values about society, and the need for it to be as safe and inclusive as possible.

Do we accuse every gay man of being deeply sexist at their core, because the fact that they lack the ability to be sexually attracted towards women could be interpreted as them wishing to imply that women are not worthy of being sexually desired?

No. We recognize that being homosexual is but a manifestation of that person's sexual preferences.

We recognize that you can't force sexual attraction, and that one's own sexual preferences aren't meant to reflect their social values, nor their desire for inclusiveness and equity within society.

When that preference is gender, it seems that most people will readily agree that sexual attraction is about experiencing an instinctive need to have sex with certain people, while lacking any desire to have sex with other people.

It's not "sexist", we're simply wired that way. It's what our sexual instincts dictate, nothing more to it.

Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and any other sexual orientation where gender plays a role in how one experiences sexual desires, thus allows one to sexually discriminate against whichever gender(s) they want.

And it's considered valid and normal to do so.

So, how is it that, when the same phenomenon occurs in relation to other types of preferences (height, intelligence, body types, personality types, etc.), like say someone who's only able to instinctively desire to have sex with a person whose intelligence they find sexually attractive (sapiosexual), they would be seen as discriminating against other types of intellect, and being perceived as being "ableist"?

I don't get it! How does that argument remotely work for you?

You are either sexually "turned on" by a characteristic that a person displays, or you're not. It's not a question of personal choices or values, but of instinctive sexual attraction and drive to have sex with certain people over others.

Thus, arguments such as: "How dare you say that you only want to fuck people that [insert sexual preference here]? Are you saying people that don't display that specific trait or preference don't deserve to be fucked? Are you being racists/ableist/elitist/etc.?" should not even exist!

Because if you think it's fine to discriminate against a sexual partner based on their gender without calling that gender preference "sexism", I believe you need to accept that it's fine to lack any desire to get sexually involved with a person based on any other preference that person has!

Because it's all preferences, and everybody has their own. And not everyone you meet owes you sex!

If people displaying strong and obvious ADHD traits sexually turns you off, my ADHD arse will give you a huge high five and say "rock on!"

I'm used to most gay men not finding me sexually attractive, because I present as being mostly feminine to them (there has been exceptions, as previously stated).

So, why in the world would I ever be remotely upset over someone finding my ADHD behavior/personality traits to be a sexual turn off?

It's perfectly fine that we are not sexually compatible, regardless of whatever reasons we have not to be sexually compatible.

If being with a sexual partner that keeps getting easily distracted, losing momentum, and being really silly/playful in bed kills the mood and the whole pleasure of the sexual experience for you, I'd be making you miserable!

I don't need you to want to fuck me to feel validated as a human being and a worthwhile member of society.

I'll just find myself someone more sexually compatible with me, that's all. And so should you.

And when it comes to the idea of experiencing sexual attraction based on perceived intellect, I can tell you that one of the most beautiful and fascinating minds I know belongs to a man with a developmental disability that is not considered especially "smart" based on classic I.Q. tests, but has this deep artistic and empathetic sensitivity towards TV and movie characters, especially.

He's my partner's cousin, and in his family people tend to find holding conversations with him "tiring", because he keeps talking about the same movies over and over again, and quoting the same quotes, while analysing every aspect of each character he finds fascinating, etc.

But so do I. I saw "Pacific Rim" in 2013, and every single day ever since I've seen it I do at least one thing that is related to that movie. I never get tired of re-watching and analyzing those scenes, listening to its soundtrack, quoting different passages.

And each time I hear those quotes, listen to the music, watch those scenes, read fanfiction, etc., I relive the excitement of the very first time I watched the movie in theaters. It fills me with joy, with excitement, or sometimes even with calm and peace.

And I'm neurodivergent, but extremely good at masking and appearing "normal" in social settings. I'm also what people call "gifted", so I do very well in academic or certain types of work settings despite my disabilities.

I'm an expert at looking 100% normal and blending in, if people don't spend more than a few hours with me and if they perceive the ADHD traits as personality quirks (I can also manage them, and prevent them from showing in some circumstances, but it's extremely draining for me).

So, every time there's a big family dinner, I always look forward to that cousin being there because, simply put: we intellectually connect.

My brain and his get in sync, and we get lost into our own world of TV, movies, stories, music, and fantasy!

It's simple, it's honest, it's easy, it's sincere, it's nurturing, and it's intellectually filling!

And it took a while for the other people in his family to understand that I wasn't spending so much time talking to him out of some misplaced sense of compassion, but because I genuinely crave those conversations and sense of kinship as much as he does.

He's absolutely brilliant in his very own unique way, and what he has to intellectually offer is amazing if you are willing to enter his own world and go on a journey with him.

According to society, he isn't "smart". To me, he's the smartest and most insightful person in the room.

The way we perceive and respond to someone else's intellect is diverse, complex, and extremely subjective.

Do not assume that "high intelligence" means one specific thing, or one specific model of intelligence to sapiosexuals.

Do not assume sapiosexuality excludes the intelligence models that can be found in neurodiverse and or intellectually disabled individuals.

It's about the way brains connect, and/or the way one displays and expresses their own intellectual faculties that will trigger that sense of fascination leading towards sexual arousal.

I don't see what's ableist about needing to be intellectually stimulated by a partner in order to experience that sense of sexual arousal.

No more than it is sexist to need to perceive our partner as being feminine in order to experience a sense of sexual arousal.

4. Studies have shown that human beings are more likely to form couples and be sexually attracted to people with intelligences that are close to their own. Therefore, we're all sapiosexual.

a) "Amory", "partnering", "coupling", etc. Basically any word saying "the desire to form any type of relationship partnership", is not the same as "being attracted to".

You can experience romantic, aesthetic, platonic, sensual, etc. attraction for someone, yet have no desire to make any form of commitment, and/or enter a relationship with them.

Just think about people that romantically fall in love with someone they realise is abusive, and decide to reject that relationship for their own good despite still having strong romantic desires for them.

They're still romantically and possibly sexually attracted, but no longer wish to be amorous with them.

And again, we are talking romantic/sexual behaviors (the decision to act upon those romantic/sexual desires) over romantic/sexual identity (what inspires us those romantic/sexual desires in another person).

b) The definition given in that statement technically also includes scenarios where someone is sexually interested in a person (experiences primary sexual attraction), decides to approach them, starts talking with them, realises they are complete morons, becomes sexually turned off, and therefore are no longer sexually attracted to them.

That has nothing to do with sapiosexuality!

Sapiosexuality is when you don't find people sexually attractive in general.

But, at some point, while conversing with someone and/or listening to them talk, the way their mind works generates a sense of sexual arousal / desire (secondary sexual attraction).

ONLY THEN, does their physical appearance, personality, perhaps gender expression, the tone of their voice, and any other secondary preferences you have might come into play in your ability to remain sexually attracted to them, and/or in your eventual decision to act upon your sapiosexual desires.

If having no primary fascination with someone's mind does not prevent you from finding them sexually attractive before you start getting intrigued by the way their brain works, and/or connecting with it, it's not sapiosexuality.

You are simply sexually turned off by certain forms of intelligences that are incompatible with yours.

The way you perceive a person's intellect can negate the initial sexual attraction, but it is not what causes that sexual attraction.

In sapiosexuals, the intellect is a primary (or co-primary) trigger when it comes to sexual desires. Other preferences tend to be secondary.

Note: while I've put the focus of this post on sapiosexuality rather than sapioromantism, the same principles also apply to those that identify as sapioromantic.

It's just that romantic desires tend to be harder for people to clearly define and conceptualize; when sexual desires are often perceived as being rather straightforward (given the physical response typically associated with it).

Therefore, I found it easier to focus more on a single form of attraction (sexual) to get those points across and hopefully help people understand the nuances between someone who is allosexual (capable of primary sexual attraction) and greysexual (capable of secondary sexual attraction, once a specific condition has been met), rather than muddy things up too much.

But yes, being sapioromantic (or even, sapioplatonic sapioalterous, sapioaesthetic or sapiosensual...), would simply mean that what initially triggers your romantic (platonic, alterous, aesthetic, or sensual...) attraction towards another person is the way you connect with their perceived intellect as well.

When it comes to demiromantism and demisexuality, instead of accusations of "ableism", the main offender often tends to be the idea that demisexuals are just people that are morally against the idea of having sex with others in the absence of deeper emotions.

Again, there's a difference between the way we experience sexual desires, and the way we sexually behave.

A demisexual individual could easily choose to engage in casual sexual activity with someone they are not at all sexually attracted to, simply because they enjoy having sex for the physical gratification that the sexual activity provides them.

"How could you be interested in having sex with someone you're not sexually attracted to?", I hear some of you ask.

Take a look at your hand.

Do you find said hand sexually attractive (if the answer is yes, I won't judge! We'll find you another example, no worries... A neon vibrating dildo that's shaped like a tiny dolphin? A shower head, perhaps?)?

Using the wonderful power of imagination and sexual fantasies, can that very non-sexually attractive hand provide you with plenty of delicious sexual physical sensations to enjoy?

Could it be (let's just put that idea out there) that what inspires you those sexual needs and desires is not the hand itself...

...and yet, the hand gets the job done?

Shockingly, another human being also has hands (and a mouth, a tongue, a penis, a vagina, etc.), and they can very much manage to still "get the job" done, despite not being what inspires you the desire to have sex with them, too.

Unless sexual activity is repulsive to you, or the person themselves inspires you sexual revulsion, you can genuinely choose to have sex with someone that you're not sexually into at all, simply because you enjoy being touched by someone else while you fantasize about the things that do turn you on, for example.

You could also find genuine joy and satisfaction in doing things that an allosexual partner would enjoy mostly for their own benefit (the sexual equivalent of offering them a massage, or cooking for them, in a sense).

You could also choose to use sex as a means of expressing emotional affection and/or sharing physical intimacy when, personally, you'd have been just as happy and satisfied with sensual rather than sexual contact.

So, "asexuality" and "sexual abstinence" are two very, very different concepts.

You do have asexuals that genuinely do not enjoy nor feel comfortable having sex for a variety of personal reasons (including the very valid "I'm just not into it").

But sex-negative or sex-repulsed asexuals, that tend to find sexual activity very unpleasant, are only the tip of the iceberg of the a-spec community (a.k.a. as the people on the aromantic and asexual spectrum).

I would actually say that one of the most groundbreaking a-spec representation (sapioromantic and sapiosexual, according to Batey) I've ever seen on TV is probably the character of Jaskier on "The Witcher".

Because he is portrayed as a very much romance and sex-positive (some might even say romance and sex-craving) a-spec person on the show, that's known to get into trouble for regularly having sex with other people.

But, when you think about it, it does make an awful lot of sense!

Because when you enjoy sex for whatever the sexual activity itself has to offer you (and whatever meaning you wish to give it), without really caring about finding your partner(s) sexually attractive (given you know how to experience sexual arousal and maintain it regardless of sexual attraction), the number of compatible sexual partners you may have can - potentially - become pretty impressive.

You can do whatever you want, with whoever you want, without experiencing any particular need for them to turn you on.

As long as they don't actively turn you off and repulse you, they could absolutely "get the job done" and offer you an amazing time!

If sex is already tons of fun for you, and masturbating alone brings you pleasure... why not masturbate with a friend? Or many, many different strangers, even?

When you're not limited by sexual attraction in the ways you can enjoy sex, imagine the possibilities!

As Jaskier himself says:

Then, this spoon shows up with his sexy, witty brain, and ruins everything...

So, sapiosexuality and/or demisexuality being about some heightened sense of morality, and thinking that having sex with a partner is wrong in the absence of a deeper physical or intellectual connection, rather than being a genuine instinctive sexual orientation? Not really.

It simply is about the way we have (or lack) the capacity to experience sexual arousal in response to other people, based on a variety of features they have.

How we choose to handle and express our desires (or lack thereof) is another story.

Basically, to me, my sexual identity really is about better knowing myself, what orients my desires, and

And the more you understand how your body, heart, mind, and own instinctive desires work, the more I believe it increases your level of agency when it comes to making relationship and and sexual decisions that truly align with your own personal needs and wants in life, in the respect and awareness of the needs and wants of others.

So, a-spec identities, even very queer and unusual ones? I believe that they do matter, and that they do deserve respect and recognition.

They may not be the most pressing matter when it comes to advocacy and keeping queer communities safe, but they do deserve to be given room to exist and be represented, too.

I know I'd likely have personally avoided a lot of bad sexual decisions, situations, disappointments, and even abuses if I'd understood the way my own sexuality worked better, and especially earlier in life.

[phcking-detective]

Nines: It’s so difficult to be the only one here with an IQ above room temperature.

Gavin: well it depends on the temperature of the room, doesn’t it?

Nines: Detective, you are so stupid. Take off your pants.

[abeautifulblog]

Ngl my first reaction to Jaskier being canonically bi was “oh I CANNOT WAIT to see how poorly they handle this”

I swear, ever since the Hemsworthening, I feel like every time I learn something new about this show I'm checking the date, all, is it April Fools again already? Look at the URL, because surely this is a satire site? Is there a camera, am I being punk'd? Am I having a stroke?? Those sure are some words they said in some order!

I made my peace with the Radovid thing -- I went and breathed into a paper bag for a bit, and remembered that everything feels catastrophic when you're running on three hours of sleep, and also that (1) game-Radovid != book-Radovid and (2) LOL, IT'S NOT LIKE TWN IS FAITHFUL TO BOOK-CANON EITHER!

Reading what they've said about it so far, it really sounds like they just made up an OC to ship Jaskier with (probably hoping The Gays would SHUT UP ABOUT GERASKIER, SHUT UP ABOUT GERASKIER) and named him Radovid, and he's going to bear no resemblance whatsoever to any previous Radovids who may have appeared in this franchise.

Which again begs the question of whyyyyyyy did they not just invent a new guy?? Why THIS GUY, of ALL GUYS, to arbitrarily assign as Jaskier's love interest, since it's a pairing with no basis in any canon, a pairing that book-fans met with polite confusion and game-fans met with visceral repulsion.

Even if TWN Radovid winds up being a completely new character, as I expect he will, it's still baffling. The showrunners know that a good portion of their viewer base is coming from the game -- they have been actively courting the Witcher III crowd in their marketing since the get-go -- so even if the only thing the Radovids have in common is their name, why choose to evoke a character with such utterly rancid associations? And then repurpose him as a love interest for Jaskier, of all people? o_O

idek, man.

The curse of knowledge, I suppose -- because if I weren't familiar with game-Radovid, I could be out there partying with all the people who are just like, BI JASKIER CONFIRMED, WOO HOO!! 🎉🎉

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[piratingconstellations]

my partner has started watching the witcher and is dragging me reluctantly back into it. imagine my surprise when i enter the witcher tag on tumblr only to see joey batey describe s3 jaskier as having his “hot girl summer”

[whatspastisprologue-blr]

Love seeing other people being excited for whatever exactly is going on here with Lestat! I've seen people bring up the "melisande" (spelling?) comparison he did, him being a drag queen, and whatever we're going to get in S3 for Rockstar!Lestat. Maybe as he works on his rage issues/toxic masculinity, he'll get more femme? Idk. Can they address whatever is going on with Gabrielle without exploring Lestat's gender? Idk. I'm inclined to say no, personally, because of how interwoven they are, but maybe they could find a way if they want to.

But the thing is, is that Lestat, in the books, is pretty misogynistic. Even Gabrielle, his favorite woman in the world, doesn't escape it. All while there's something ~gender~ going on with both of them (and everyone else)! So the idea that they're taking Lestat, who in the books doesn't really think much about women, and engaging in a bit of gender fuckery (to what end, we don't know) is just... I love it.

It reminds me of how Dandelion (one of my favorite characters from the book) got adapted into Jaskier for The Witcher. (Thank goodness for casting Joey "my dress is on fire"/"don't you think I look pretty" Batey to play him because he was not going to let Jaskier be a womanizer and almost singlehandedly championed Jaskier being queer until it finally happened!)

I'm starting to think that this should become A Thing.

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE "I Could Not Prevent It" "And That's The End of It. There's Nothing Else"

[endiness]

joey on jaskier and radovid's relationship:

"I was very insistent that it was done in a way that was sensitive, that was not in any way kind of representative of bisexual erasure, and done in as romantically as any of the other romantic stories in the canon."

"It’s been really rewarding to see [his love life] told in a very visual way. [We] ensured that these romances are told truthfully — and sensitively and carefully, without resorting to stereotypes… Hopefully we’ve created something that is special, a sapioromantic and sapiosexual [connection] that is as flawed as any other relationship in this show."

[sargassostories]

Ok but the thing we haven’t discussed is Joey calling Jaskier sapiosexual which yeah ok he’s bi or pan but

Jaskier himself would ABSOLUTELY call himself sapiosexual are you kidding me? This is incredible

Jaskier, to Yen: We have a deeper, intellectual connection. You wouldn’t understand.

Yen: So you don’t fuck.

Jaskier: We do nothing so base. When our bodies are in communion together our souls and minds rise above it and connect on a deeper and purer level. It’s unimaginably exhilarating, to enter an intellect of that magniture, however temporarily, to feel held within that mind, that soul, to feel pressed and pressured and to find a cosmic release deeper than anything I’ve known, and to inspire the same in him? Words cannot do it justice. Dare I say, poetry cannot do it justice.

Yen: Wait, you top?

[toss-a-coin-to-your-stan-account]

what the fuck is a sapiosexual what do you mean we may actually get jaskier taking care of ciri like in the speculative s1 fics why is he having a hot girl summer WHAT DO YOU MEAN VALDO MARX IS GONNA BE REAL

[thelostgirl21]

Well, I am a disabled, queer, and autistic with ADHD and MCAS (mast cell activation syndrome) 42 years old with lots of time on her hands (since I sadly can't pursue a career), and a fascination (one might call it a special interest) for queer studies.

So yeah, there are obviously a few things that are "abnormal" about me.

I highly doubt, however, that stupidity is one of them (not that it should matter, but I was put in classes for people who are intellectually gifted my whole life, so apparently, I have been identified as someone who is somewhat intelligent according to certain societal standards, at the very least).

I have also been emotionally and psychologically abused for the first 30 years of my life by a mother with narcissistic personality disorder whom. Whenever she realized that my arguments were too articulated, solid, and well thought out for her to simply stand by her own point of view and calmly state why she disagreed with me rationally, she would resort to personal attacks and name-calling instead.

So, like I've said before, I've endured way worst attempts at invalidation, intimidation, and bullying.

What you are attempting to use against me here is actually a very well-known manipulation technique where an attempt is made to direct the attention of the public (i.e. whoever could stumble across our exchange, and have an interest in reading it) away from the content of my own arguments, i.e. the message, by attacking the sanity / intelligence / intent of the messenger instead.

Basically warning any potential readers "be careful, this person is clearly unhinged, unreasonable, looking to troll, and should not be listened to. Especially if, by contrast, you are a rationally thinking and reasonable type. I'm obviously right, and she's obviously wrong! Do not pay attention to her! "

It can actually be a very effective technique.

What I do not understand, either, is the way you keep jumping back and forth between acknowledging that sapioromantic/sapiosexual is a real and valid queer label (although you do impose the "under certain circumstances" condition), and then mocking people using those labels, all the way down to aggressively ridiculing their pride flag!

Thankfully, I know there can be no agression without fear.

But I simply cannot fathom what you are afraid of, or why you are acting so scared.

I'm about the least threatening person I know.

And the whole infantilizing attitude of "I've tried being nice to you, only pretending to give your ideas any value, because I'm the only one that knows what I am taking about and you're clearly stupid, obviously" is quite frankly insulting and totally unwarranted.

I don't need you to be nice, coddle me, pretend to be my friend, or to remotely like me. Just ideally to treat me like an autonomous adult that can respectfully co-exist in a world of diverging ideas and opinions (wild concept, I know!) with others.

So, I would kindly ask you stop trying to constantly attempt to discredit me and make me feel irrelevant and small, and instead address the content of what I'm saying.

i.e. Show me the same respect and maturity I've been showing you.

Otherwise, agreeing to disagree and leaving the conversation is a perfectly acceptable approach.

Yes, I have seen plenty of sapiophobic arguments and definitions, often coming from within the LGBTQ+ community, sadly, arguing that sapioromantism and sapiosexuality is "just a preference", "a fetish", "ableist" (WTF?! Do we accuse gay men of being sexist?! Sexual attractions are instinctive and discriminatory, not based on social values. They aren't a matter of choice. Some aren't sexually attracted to men, others aren't sexually attracted to people that are below 5'4", others not sexually attracted to people with ADHD. Etc. It's healthy and natural to be unable to have sex and/or romantically engage with certain people that you otherwise would love, respect, and wish to regularly socially engage with! The whole planet is not meant to have access to one's bed!), that since heterosexual people can claim to be sapiosexual, too, they shouldn't be allowed to be called "queer", etc., that I've already taken the time to deconstruct here.

Yes, those opinions are out there, and even many very good articles about what sapioromantism/sapiosexuality is do acknowledge that sapioromantism/sapiosexuality has a harder time being recognized and fully accepted as being part of the LGBTQ+ community than demiromantism/demisexuality does, despite both essentially sharing very similar essential characteristics.

There's a lack of consensus, but that shouldn't refrain me from continuing to advocate for their inclusion and recognition as part of the community, and already treating those sexualities as being part of the LGBTQ+ because I fully agree that being sapioromantic and sapiosexual does fit those criteria.

After all, some LGBTQ+ people keep rejecting transgenderism from the community, with some very passionate posts out there making a case of why trans people and even queer people don't qualify, only the LGB should be valid. And I also vehemently disagree with them.

So I'm not going to pretend that sapioromantism and sapiosexuality should be excluded from the LGBTQ+ based of controversy, misuse, rumors that "only pretentious cisgender women wishing to ride the LGBTQ+ train are claiming to be sapiosexual", and/or people attempting to keep them out of the community, if I have the personal conviction that they very much belong there and the ability to articulate it.

Especially since rejecting sapioromantism and sapiosexuality as valid queer identities often gives strong weight to arguments saying that demiromantism and demisexuality should not be included in the LGBTQ+ community's as well.

Because, according to that position, a straight demisexual person won't suffer from discrimination over only having sex with people they have developed a strong emotional bond with.

And, while I do understand what people are saying, I strongly disagree that the validity of one's queer sexual orientation should be measured in terms of how likely they are to be socially discriminated against.

Queer identities, to me, should be looked at in the scope of how common they are in society, and how likely the individual is to recognize their own sexuality reflected in the world around them, rather than through the scope of pure advocacy.

A demisexual or sapiosexual still grows up in a world where they are unable to relate to the way allosexuals experience and describe their own sexual attraction.

As a result, they often feel emotionally and psychologically isolated / different / confused about their sexuality, etc.

When you get sexually turned on listening to your best friend geeking out about the different types of cloud formations there are, while your romantic non-geek partner is utterly sexually unattractive to you, you know there's something different about you, alright?

That's fucking queer as hell!

You may not get beaten up in the streets over wanting to fuck your geeky platonic best friend over your non-geek romantic partner, but you feel very different, and it falls outside of the models of sexuality you were regularly exposed to while growing up!

Finding out that sexualities such as demisexuality and sapiosexuality are a thing, and talking with people that share the same experience as you do and "get it", will do wonders for your own mental and emotional well-being.

So, to me, these are queer identities that greatly matter and deserve respect and representation as well.

So yeah, if you are looking at definitions, posts, and arguments claiming that only the "almighty gender preferences" should be considered sexual orientations, that asexuality should only be reserved to those who are sex-repulsed and do not enjoy sex, and that human sexuality is just about behaviors related towards other people's genders - with everything else being relegated to "mere preferences" that one could overcome if they made a little effort to - then you'll often see sapioromantic and sapiosexual people being made fun of, and openly ridiculed for desiring recognition.

If you look at definitions and discussions shared by actual sapioromantics and sapiosexuals, and allow them to speak for themselves and accurately define themselves, instead of constantly telling them "your sexuality is a joke, you should be excluded from the community, and your flag is ugly", then you realise that there are, indeed, people that are unable to be romantically / sexually attracted to other people unless they experience a primary fascination / attraction towards the intellect of another human being!

And the saddest thing, is that there are a lot of sapioromantics and sapiosexuals that will exclude themselves from the LGBTQ+ community after being told arguments such as those I've mentioned before - i.e. that they do not face discrimination for being sapioromantic/sexual, and/or that only gender preferences should be called orientations - because they fear causing other queer people any harm by claiming they are LGBTQ+ based on the (very queer) way they experience attraction.

Oddly enough, there seems to be a bit of an overrepresentation of sapio orientations among autistic people, too, and I feel like this blog entry is very representative of why so many or us (myself included, since I keep obsessing over figuring out if I'm sexually attracted to the personality traits, vs how one's brain works when it comes to geekiness) hesitate to openly identify as sapioromantic and/or sapiosexual.

People with autism are so often told that the way they perceive and experience the world (be it emotionally, intellectually, romantically, sexually, etc.) is wrong, that they will often doubt themselves and be excessively concilient to avoid accidentally bringing harm to others or being socially rejected.

We are a lot more likely to doubt ourselves and the validity of our positions, and we are so used to existing on the fringe of society that having so many people put sapio orientations somewhere on the fringe of the LGBTQ+ community, rather than being fully included, becomes "business as usual".

I actually do have rejection sensitive dysphoria (RSD), but only when I feel like there's some emotional bond between me and the rest of a group I wish to me a part of.

So, one of the reasons why I'm so grateful to Joey Batey for having named Jaskier as being sapioromantically and sapiosexually attracted to Radovid, is because of how controversial that queer identity is, how hard people are often trying to keep sapioromantics and sapiosexuals away from LGBTQ+ spaces, and how much focus people keep putting on gender when it is comes to sexuality, as opposed to other preferences that might play the exact same role as gender in how people experience sexual attraction.

And Joey also said that he believes that Jaskier doesn't really see gender.

(Note: the article itself gives a definition of sapioromantism that makes it sound like sapioromantism always occurs regardless of gender.

While some definitions consider sapioromantism to be a subset of panromantism rather than aromantism, I personally disagree with that perspective.

You can absolutely be sapioromantic and exclusively attracted towards men, for example. Again, there's a lot of debate re: the idea that sapioromantism/sexuality should only be valid if that's the only thing that drives your attraction, when we allow gay people to have other preferences than gender, while recognizing that the attraction is first conditional to the person having the right type of gender!

In sapiosexuality, the attraction is first conditional to the person having a specific intellect, but then, tons of secondary preferences and/or equally important primary preferences can come into play, including gender.)

He's breaking boundaries and dispelling harmful stereotypes with his portrayal of Jaskier, and bringing attention towards how sexual orientation can be tied into other human features as well.

Jaskier doesn't really see gender when in comes to romantic/sexual attraction, but he's romantically crushing on Radovid's intellect regardless.

Sincerely, with the amount of efforts the actor has made to make it clear that Jaskier's attraction is not gender driven, including saying that Jaskier doesn't really see gender...

... well, do you really want to take that bet that Joey Batey has no idea that sapioromantics and sapiosexuals are people that are romantically and sexually attracted towards other people based on their intellect, and are being used as queer sexual orientations and labels?

If you want definitions, well:

*Note: one misconception people have about sapiosexuality (that this above article sadly leans into a bit) is that sapiosexuals are attracted to "high I.Q.", or people that are labeled as smart by society. While it may be true of some sapiosexuals, many sapiosexuals will have a more qualitive approach to intelligence and fascination towards the way the person's brain works, than a quantitative one.

I personally tend to be more attracted towards neurodivergent brains than neurotypical ones. This, however, is a personal preference of mine, not something I consider as part as my orientation, as I can also be attracted towards neurotypical people. I guess my preference towards neurodivergence is based on the fact that being neurodivergent myself, I have an easier time relating to a neurodivergent partner.

But, if neurotypical, I need to perceive them as being very much geeks, at the very least, to experience any sexual desire.

Like, listening to my partner animatedly talk about lithium car batteries, or watching him play D&D while diving deep into the game, is a huge "turn on" for me (and a very inconvenient one, since it's rarely the right time to act upon it).

And the first time in my life I ever found him sexually attractive was after I'd developed a strong sense of emotional attachment towards him and trust (demisexual), and he started "geeking out" in depth about a subject (sapio / "geeksexual")... I think it might have been "Star Wars"...

Since Radovid displays very specific high levels of emotional intelligence / empathy and insightfulness, it's entirely possible that this would be what Jaskier is more likely to feel romantically and sexually attracted to (this, is my own interpretation as the type of intelligence that turns Jaskier on hasn't been specifically stated).

I've also noticed a tendency in other articles where authors tend to put the emphasis on "high I.Q." rather than simply seeking that intellectual connection and fascination, so this comment also applies to future links and definitions.

Again, many times, those definitions are offered from an outside perspective looking in, and presented in a bit of a scholarly way.

And/or they appear to come from neurotypical sapiosexuals that might, perhaps, perceive intelligence in an academic context, where "high I.Q." is their turn on, as opposed to a fascination with one's intellect that may fall outside society's own perception of intelligence, and/or forget to take into consideration other more specific forms of intelligences such as "musical intelligence".

A sapiosexual could be unable to find anyone sexually attractive unless they heard them skillfully play a musical instrument, for example. And it would still be considered a form of sapiosexuality, because the attraction is triggered by their intellectual ability to understand and produce music.

In the section "demisexuality vs sapiosexuality":

https://eggshelltherapy.com/sapiosexual-demisexual/

They also address the overlaps between demisexuality and sapiosexuality:

So yeah, I don't know why I've given you the impression of being stupid or trolling in my arguments or the way I'm debating those subjects, but I assure you I'm being 100% serious and genuine about it.

i meant to mention this back when season three first came out but uh. i forgor. but. I think the third season of The Witcher really demonstrates how the presence of queerness does not negate the presence of queerbaiting, and that it can in fact be used as a method of sidestepping allegations of queerbaiting.

Like I know I'm not the only one who noticed how aggressively they "no homo" backpedaled the dynamic between Jaskier and Geralt. They did it in a way that was really aggressive and jarring too, like even if you saw zero queercoding you could tell the relationship dynamic was altered in a weird way. There was just such an absolute lack of subtlety with their no-homo'ing? like iirc there's straight up a scene where Jaskier pretty much explicitly is like "i could never see you romantically <3 we r suuuuch bros <3 best buds !" which was such a weirdly transparent attempt at shutting down the previous dynamic established between them.

What's especially wild to me is that in that season they changed the dynamic between Geralt and Jaskier so much that there really wasn't much going on ship-wise between them anyway, regardless of that weirdly explicit declaration of platonic-ness. They didn't even need to do all that !!!!

This weirdly aggressive and sudden change in dynamic at the same time as making Jaskier canonically bi was such a transparent attempt at escaping the queerbaiting allegations lol. Like it was like "yeah we wanna shut this down hard but people will get mad so. here's a canon queer character" lmao

idk. i feel like this may be something that's getting phased out as a tactic to a degree -- or rather, shifting its exact methodology -- but "escaping queerbaiting allegations by introducing a canon queer character" is definitely an established thing i see pretty often. I also think the shift in tactic (from introducing a new side character for that purpose, to canonizing a main character's queerness) isn't actually better when the intent remains the same. Idk ! I'd just be a lot less critical of Jaskier being canonically queer if it weren't so clearly linked to an attempt to sidestep queerbaiting allegations.

[thelostgirl21]

Ever since realising that Joey referring to Jaskier as sapiosexually connecting with Radovid was likely 100% intentional, I've literally been losing my shit over the potential implications...

Like... new headcanon!

What if Jaskier has always approached the act of having sex with someone else as a form of performance art, driven by his desire to please his "audience", and making other people passionately respond to what he's doing for them?

Like... what if what normally sexually interests him isn't so much inspired by the other person, but more by the general idea of being wanted, needed, and the anticipation of the positive feedback he might get from sexually interacting with them.

He readily experiences primary aesthetic attraction towards other people, finds them interesting, becomes curious about them, and feels instantly affectionate towards them; but he's not sexually aroused by / attracted to them, per say.

He really wants to make them feel good, and bask in that sense of intimacy, togetherness and praises he receives from being sexually involved with them (yeah, because he's that good at figuring out what pleases them, and offering it to them).

And somehow, audience response/participation tends to really inform how good or "smooth" he is when it comes to his ability to seduce someone, and convince them to become sexually intimate with him in the first place?

For example...

So... what if Jaskier is a bard and an artist through and through? Not just on stage, but in the sheets as well?

Turning sex into poetry and something very deliberate, where it's all about a sense of artistic expression, and a pure melody of various physical sensations and emotions!

Sexually? Jaskier is an artist, a creative, a free thinker... All is fair!

But it's not something that he usually feels any urge or need to engage in based on the way someone else inspires him any sudden desire to have sex with them specifically.

He loves his sexual partners, he's intrigued by them, he wants to connect with them - even if that connection lasts but a night - and sex allows him to do that.

But maybe he has no idea that sex might be experienced differently by others.

Maybe he just thinks they're like really really REALLY expressive and appreciative of the sex itself, or something, whenever he notices how hungrily some of them appear to throw themselves at him, or at each other.

Also, I've somehow always found it a bit weird how Jaskier seems to fully remain clear minded during Yennefer's magical orgy.

Yennefer comments on how Geralt seems to be immune to her spell, as if it's some kind of big deal!

But then, there's Jaskier...

He just waves at them as if he's totally unaffected by everyone else fucking each other around him, and being surrounded by a bunch of naked bodies having sex...

And/or looks like he's not quite comfortable with the way someone's hand is moving closer to his crotch at some point...

Grant it, he's slowly being suffocated to death by a Djinn's magic, and likely has other priorities than sex in mind!

But that's just the thing...

Isn't Yennefer's spell supposed to override people's ability to think rationally or fully understand what's happening? Everyone snaps out of it looking confused, and poor Jaskier just basically passes out, but he's never once looked like he stopped looking at what was happening around him from an outsider's P.O.V.

Whenever the camera cuts to him, he seems to be sharing the same reality as Geralt and Yennefer, not the kind of sexual haze everyone else appears to be happily trapped in.

Would being affected by the Djinn just make him immune to the whole "sex weed magic thingy" as well?

Or would the usual lack of primary sexual attraction towards other people make it a bit harder for Yennefer's spell to take a hold on him?

(Another headcanon theory I came up with - should Jaskier be revealed as being the direct descendant of Fjall and the Lark - would be that, perhaps, the small touch of magic in his blood would be enough to make him more resistant to certain types of spell... On top of being able to eat whatever he comes across without freaking poisoning himself, I swear!)

But yeah, let's just imagine, for a moment, that sapiosexual Jaskier would have no clue (or very little clue) of what it actually feels like to specifically be sexually attracted to someone (rather than the sex itself, and all it may represent to him) in a way where you are viscerally craving that sexual contact with that specific someone, and you feel like you might go crazy if they don't finally have sex with you.

Then, along comes Radovid, that he develops a sapioromantic and sapiosexual attraction for...

And, for a while, Jaskier thinks he's just losing his freaking mind, because there are moments where Radovid is just there, simply being all sensitive and insightful while discussing dwarven politics with Yarpen, for example...

... and poor Jaskier's never been so sexually aroused in his life!!!

But Radovid is not even technically doing anything that's supposed to be "sexually charged"!

He's fully clothed, being all smart and sensitive, talking about a topic of interest to him while having lunch by the side of the road...

...and Jaskier is just there, casually eating next to him while listening to him talk with their friends.

It's 100% casual and totally trivial, day to day stuff... No plan for Jaskier to try and seduce him and have sex there!

So, how come does he suddenly feel the urge to pounce on him and beg Radovid to just take him right here and there, in front of all their friends at camp, and it's taking all the self-control he can humanly muster not to act upon that impulse?!

Instead, Jaskier stands up, awkwardly excuses himself, and decides the best way to manage the situation is to go take a random dip fully clothed in the nearest river.

"Why?", they ask. Because he was getting hot, that's why!

And no, he couldn't just remove his clothes instead! He liked them really baggy an concealing that day, thank you very much!

As a matter of fact, he might decide to just start wearing his shirt over his pants from now on, because he's starting a new fashion trend! No other reason!

Oh...

Oh, no...

NO.

Don't you dare look at me all concerned while trying to read into my behavior, you stupid prince... Wait. Is that a smirk?

You're smirking aren't you?

How do you look like you've figured it out, when I've no fucking clue what's even going on with me?!

Great! And now the river's cool water is not even working anymore!

That's it! I'm never walking out of here again, and I hope you know it's all your fault!

No. No, don't take off your shirt and get into the water with me, that's not...

Oh? Oh! Everyone else is going and leaving us alone? Okay, nevermind! Fuck! Why's it so hard to walk while standing waist deep in water? Surely there must be a way to get to you faster...

And I'm just imagining poor Jaskier trying to ask Yennefer if Radovid might be some kind of sorcerer with latent magical abilities or something... Because, whenever he's around, there are moments where he randomly feels this overwhelming urge to make love to him, even if the context is not appropriate for delivering a sexual performance of any kind!

Like yes, it has happened to him before to have "the muses" whisper in his ear that sex with a certain someone might be good, and he's typically very open to sudden bursts of inspiration and unplanned sexual improvisation!

But that's not the same thing!

It only happens specifically with Radovid - especially when he's saying or doing something really witty, sensitive or insightful - and it's like his whole body suddenly catches fire, gets all tense and trembling with need; and being touched by him and having sex with him feels like finally being able to breathe after someone's forcefully been holding your head under water for a while...

Radovid must be bewitching him, somehow, for sure!

And Yenn is like "You know that what you've just been describing is simply what regular sexual desire feels like for most people, right?"

And Jaskier's just going:

[androidboy]

if we weren’t already in the bad timeline for witcher netflix adaptation we certainly are now with “sapiosexual” / “panromantic or pansexual” jaskier in a relationship with prince radovid where they look like this

[abeautifulblog]

HEY @coffee-mage-sans-caffeine​ YOU DROPPED SOMETHING.

[myidlehand]

That's not the point I was making and you're being a bit condescending with this reblog.

Please re read what you just rebloged. It's about the constant way this fandom likes to spread misinformation about what's going on behind the camera. Not how Joey played it or how the fandom perceived the character previously.

I've once again seen a post on my dash about how Joey had to "fight" for Jaskier being queer this season.

I didn't reblog it cause I don't want to target one post in particular but people who make those posts need to understand this is factually wrong and just keep the hate towards Lauren growing for no reason.

It was Lauren who approached him. Joey said so himself. He praised her in many interviews for going that road. He worked with her on making sure it was done right, his words again (he seems quite aware of LGBTQA+ culture and maybe his sensibilities are a bit more "up to date" than the average straight person. If Lauren and most of the writers are straight, it seems logical for them to struggle to make it not cliché and for Joey to help make it something the community would like more, but that is just my theory).

But he never said he had to fight for it as much as people say he did, on the contrary. He said in at least one interview that it was very collaborative. From what I understand in some of his interviews he possibly wanted more control over Jaskier's journey this season but he certainly didn't have to fight for it. People seem to have gotten that idea from Joey's "essay" but at no point did he say it was to fix what they did. He obviously had an idea of what he wanted to do and asked for re writes and cuts in the dialogue to add more music. Every interview where he mentions this he pretty much says he was helping and collaborating with the writers. This sounds pretty normal to me as every actor on this show (Henry in particular) seems to be allowed to participate with the writing of their own character.

I know most of the fandom loves to believe all the good parts come from the actors and all the bad ideas come from Lauren (she obviously hasn't always made good choices and I'm not excusing her for the mess season 2 was) but this is just deforming what Joey actually said and taking some of the credit away from other people.

I love that Jaskier is pan. It's one of my favourite parts of the season. But it was not just Joey's idea it was Lauren's as well. Credit where credit's due. She's not as bad as the fandom makes her to be and she's a big reason why season 3 is so good. I don't love the way she try to sell the show as something never seen before because it still is mostly adapted from the books but nobody can argue when it comes to Jaskier that she made him a lot better than Dandelion (who I love to death but he's a little shit and I think Jaskier is a much more interesting character).

[thenightling]

For those who missed it. Yes, the villain Radovid and Jaskier (the heroic bard turned freedom fighter) in The Witcher Netflx series will be portrayed as lovers in season 3 of The Witcher.

And in case you missed the negative reaction from trolls... I mean "book purists" Yes, the Netflix version of Jaskier has been confirmed as bisexual or as Joey Batey calls it, Sapiosexual (which means attracted to emotional connection AND especially intellect before gender).

Joey Batey (Jaskier's actor) has given some hints about what causes the romance.

First, Radovid of the Netflix series is NOT the character from the novels or video games. He's been changed a great deal. He's no longer a child-Tyrant like Joffrey in Game of Thrones. Instead he's a grown man, played by thirty-eight-year-old actor, Hugh Skinner, and seems to be a drunken playboy prince. He'll probably still end up a villain but Jaskier won't realize it right away.

According to Joey Batey, Jaskier will be intrigued by Radovid because he can't figure him out immediately, the way he can understand most people. He'll realize that like himself and his Sandpiper (similar to the Scarlet Pimpernel) persona, Radovid is wearing a mask and he wants to know what's under that mask.

I'm taking this as code for poor Jaskier will end up hurt and broken hearted because he thought he found someone like himself and will instead find a dark mirror.

[kenobihater]

anyways twn's sapiosexual jaskier announcement is cowardly and biphobic. it's not progressive in the least even if they try and backpedal and use the correct terminology sometime in the future and show fans can die mad about it. they can't walk this one back and we shouldn't let them. my faggoty ass has ZERO time for idiocy and if you're actually out here saying lgbt people are the biphobic ones for wanting proper representation? kindly suck my gay balls 😌

[vesemirsexual]

sapiosexual jaskier…yennefer in that shein crime…homophobia wins 😔