#sapio-spec

[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.

[missyandthemisfits]

Tokyo Rev - Sexual Orientation Headcannons

18+ Random Personal Headers

Mikey - Pansexual

Doesn't really go out of his way to find mates, truly they just find their way to him. Has a slight preference to women but that's just because boobs are awesome. 

Draken - Hetero with a capital HETERO

He knows what he likes and he's never questioned it, really. Has the idea of it crossed his mind? Yea. Nothing against it either, just not for him. 

Baji - Questioning 

He's pretty sure he's into women, but between the age of 14-17, really finds himself questioning these sudden specs of romantic feelings for certain dudes...no one is the wiser.

Chifuyu - Straight with Bi Tendencies 

Chifuyu is very into women - but also he'd be lying if he said he's never uh...experimented before. Decided the only pegging he enjoyed was with/by a beautiful woman.

Mitsuya - Bi

He has fairly recently discovered he is indeed attracted to men and women and he's fairly comfortable coming out to his people too. He's confident enough to wear it pretty proudly after a very short insecure period. 

Hakkai - It's giving Gay

At some point in life, Hakkai realizes that the real reason he's so awkward around women is because he's aware he's 'supposed' to want to date them and find them enticing but...doesn't. Men are more his speed and he's starting to be okay with that. Has yet to tell Taiju-

Smiley - Straight, but has dabbled

Smiley will try anything once - and has, but it's not his thing. Just thinking about a woman in a lewd position drives him insane, men just don't do it for him. 

Angry - Questioning (but may or may not have a preference for women)

The thought of romance in general kinda scares the crap outta him cause he's always wondering if he's doing enough or if perhaps he's doing too much - so given that, of course he hasn't settled on a person, or sex, of choice. Whoever it is, he just wants to make them happy - inside and outside of the bedroom

Kazutora - Believes he's Hetero, Turns out his Bi

Kazutora is well into his adulthood when he finally figures out he's attracted to the same sex as well as the opposite sex and while he doesn't necessarily like the idea of a relationship at first, he grows to understand he needs that sort of intimacy. Once he starts, he can't get enough of it.

Akkun - Straight, but has dabbled.

It was less about curiosity for him and more of a getting caught up in the moment as some dude, equally as drunk, came onto him. The kiss was fine...but he quickly decided it's not his cup of tea.

Takuya - Demisexual 

Takuya is into men and women but even more so, he's into emotional intimacy and connection. You can be the most attractive person he's ever seen but if there's no real connection, there's 0 chance of you guys being more than friends. Thems the breaks.

Taiju - Very Hetero

Taiju is strictly a taco eater, nothing to question and no reason for any complicated discussions with himself - he knows what he wants and needs and what he NEEDS is the bodacious body of a curvy woman-

Yuzuha - Bi with wavering preferences 

Yuzuha is bisexual but goes through phases where she's either only looking for men or only looking for women. She's got no idea why she's like this, her brain is just wired like that - can relate!

Kokonoi - Bisexual

Of course he's into men and women, he doesn't have a real preference either. Either is just fine - but he does like them very pretty, long eyelashes and all that jazz. He thinks he's not picky, he totally is. 

Inui - A Lazy Pansexual

Romance takes quite a bit of energy, energy that Inui could be using for other "more productive" things - but also he likes... I dunno, everyone? Like, he genuinely does not care what you identify as, if he's down he's down.

Ran - Straight and promiscuous 

He is, I kid you not, damn near insatiable sexually. Only gets it on with women and has only really had a few real relationships, but he's had more than his fair share of lovers.

Rindou - Demi, Sapio 

Eh, he's not much of a people person if we're being completely honest. Doesn't discriminate against sexes, just doesn't wanna waste his time with meaningless sex. Despite his complicated titles, he's very simple to please and is a fairly easygoing partner.

Senju - Lesbian with Straight Tendencies 

@me if ya want, but Senju is someone who adores female companionship above all when it comes to relationships. She can kiss dudes no problem and has had several crushes but she can't really see a future with them.

You can’t convince me Takemichi isn’t not so secretly Bi

[gh0stbeeee]

Random Death Note headcanons

L has a bit of an overbite, he had braces as a teenager but he never wore his retainers so it came back a little.

Misa was a little ragamuffin as a kid, she loved going outside and being messy with her hair unbrushed, but she realized she couldn't put her hair in twin tails if it was knotty so she improved her hygiene as she grew up.

Light has always wanted to grow his hair to his shoulders and part it in the middle because he thought it looked really elegant, but he never did because he was worried people would think he wasn't respectable.

Also, Light was a bit chubby when he was young. He developed an eating disorder as he grew up because of how family and other adults would comment on his body. Keep in mind this was healthy baby fat, and he is now perpetually a little underweight.

L has a ridiculous metabolism, so despite his diet he is naturally skinny and light weight. In contrast to Light, he wishes he could gain a little weight.

Misa knows Light doesn't love her. She stays with him because he became a rock in her life despite his coldness and manipulative nature, and he keeps her grounded. She is scared of independence, due to ptsd. Light isn't aware of this exact reason, but neither does he seek to know her. His optimism and confidence eases her anxiety, just as Misa's blind worship encourages him. Toxic af for eachother.

Light is on the aroace spectrum, but he never sought to experiment to find out what exactly he is. He is completely neutral to both genders, with a preference for intelligence. (Sapio.) He never learned the proper terminology for sexuality beyond hetero and homo.

L is completely ambiguous in terms of sexuality. He has attractions, but they disappear quickly and he never acts on them. He suspects he is aroace spec, but he never confirms it.

Lawlight was violently timid. Their passion for eachother was insane, but neither knew what to do with it. One minute they were kissing chastely, the next they were beating the shit out of eachother. They had sex a couple times, but they were more focused on the intimacy and mind games than the pleasure.

Misa was comphet and her obsession with Light stopped her from exploring herself (and Rem her monster girlfriend that loved her more than her life.)

Near found the HQ security footage years after the Kira case ended and to say it made his opinions of L and Light more complicated is an understatement. (I want to write this fic.) He saw L's true morality, and the endeared relationship between L and Kira. He saw innocent Light, and thought that he wasn't so bad.

[smolbeanie1221]

Being aroace spec can be so confusing

My first relationship was with a girl, and I kinda just went along with what she wanted to do bc I figured, well she’s enjoying it so I must be enjoying this too… I didn’t mind anything we did, I just didn’t care or think about it.

Second relationship was with a guy, and at this point my mom had made me feel incredibly guilty for having been with a girl before, joys of being afab in a religious family and the first person you date is a girl. And he was… definitely pushy. Again tho, I just went along with it bc I figured, well he wants to do this and I just have to be bi so there’s a chance I’ll be a normal girl and end up with a guy someday so I have to be enjoying this too… Yeah I definitely was feeling a lot of pressure there.

At this point, I had not felt actual sexual attraction towards anyone, and I don’t think I was ever romantically in love with either of those people.

Third relationship was with a guy who was also one of my best friends. We were kinda dating for a summer and it was a better relationship than the previous, but in the end we went back to just being friends and it was better that way.

At this point, I’m very confused, but I discover this wonderful thing called ASEXUALITY. And everything suddenly made sense. Except for one small thing.

Fourth relationship that never actually became a relationship. I was in some type of love with a different best friend, I would say demi/sapio-romantic (romantically attracted because of both an emotional and mind connection basically). But he was definitely aromantic, but allosexual. I was romantically attracted to him, but asexual… right??? For years I was confused because I wanted an actual official relationship and I would’ve been more than okay with sleeping with him. But… that can’t be sexual attraction?? I’m ace?? Right?? Ahhhhhh. Yeah so I was very confused around him. Turns out, I’m actually demi-ace, but I didn’t realize that until years later after I lost contact with him, and I’ve been too scared to reach out to him lol. Anyways I have a gf now anyways. And that’s been the only time that the demi part of my ace-ness has come out, pun intended lol.

Actual fourth relationship. Definitely romantic and completely non-sexual. Really good relationship for over a year, and that partner helped me become more comfortable with my gender identity and we both were ace and it was really good for a while. It just wasn’t a relationship that was built to grow, so eventually we drifted apart.

Fifth relationship. A non-romantic and non-sexual relationship. Lasted less than a year, but made me realize that I was also aro spec bc being in a relationship that did not have romantic or sexual expectations felt so comfortable and right.

Sixth relationship. The one that broke my heart. My other best friend in that time frame, we were incredibly close and bonded over everything, from our mental health struggles to books to sheetz runs to everything. Eventually we officially were boyfriends in a qpr. They were my number one person for so long, my life partner. There was never anything romantic or sexual, but we loved each other deeply. Until life happened and they changed and I had to break up with them and got my heart broken.

All of these took place from late middle school to early college by the way. I went from, oh I’m a girl and I like girls! To, shit I can’t like girls so I have to like boys too bc I have to be bisexual at least. To, ohhhh so I can actually not want to sleep with people and that’s normal too?? So I’m nonbinary and asexual? That makes sense. To, why why if I’m ace would I be more than okay sleeping with him??? To, huh i think I’m aro spec too. To, okay I’m definitely aro spec, probably demi-aro technically and… probably demi-ace too? Yeah that’s probably right.

At the same time, I didn’t feel as tho romantic was necessarily the right word for me. I mean I’ve experienced romantic attraction I think, but it usually felt kinda forced by either my partner’s expectations or by society’s expectations. I think that’s why my non-romantic non-sexual relationships felt so comfortable to me, bc there wasn’t any of that expectation. I have no freaking idea what romantic attraction really feels like to me. I’ve experienced it I think (??), but for several reasons including outside expectations and general-emotional-processing-issues at those times, I have a hard time knowing any emotions I was feeling at that time in my life. The “butterflies” and “spacey eyed” and “gooey lovey” feelings I felt could’ve been romantic, sure. But they could’ve also been someone who was heavily emotionally repressed all their life just being happy to have someone that they loved who loved them back and getting excited over how cute they were and enjoying their rambles and just generally being happy with someone and also liking some physical contact like hugs and cuddles bc physical touch is their love language with everyone and they like hugs with everyone they care about, and it wasn’t necessarily romantic…..

I get a similar feeling to “butterflies” when I’m nervous about something or excited to see someone in my family I haven’t seen for a while bc I love them and am excited and happy. Not necessarily a “romantic indicator”. I get “spacey eyed” all the time, and usually it’s bc I’m obsessing over my latest fanfic idea. Again, not a “romantic indicator”. I get “gooey lovey” feelings when I see an adorable animal, when someone in my family or close friend group does something really sweet for me or I’m really happy to see them or I get a hug from anyone I love. Once again, not a “romantic indicator”.

Because of all this, I have settled on alterous as my general term for the type of attraction I have with people I have or wanted to date. Alterous to me means this: “I want to be with you and talk with you and do everything with you, I just don’t care how it looks for us or how we categorize ourselves.” I would also attach romance-inclined or sex-inclined as a prefix type thing when applicable. Fourth relationship that never actually happened? Sex and romance-inclined alterous. Fourth actual relationship? Romance-inclined alterous. This doesn’t actually mean that I will feel romantic or sexual attraction or interest or desire with someone, but I may be inclined to want aspects of that type of relationship and I might have those actual feelings from time to time.

The partner that I have now, seventh relationship for those counting lol. This relationship feels stronger and better than any that I’ve had in the past. There’s no pressure or expectation about sex, and she knows that I’m on the aro spectrum, so there’s no romantic pressure either. At the same time, I love the romantic type aspects we have, but I can’t with any certainty say that my feelings are romantic, or at least not romantic all the time. But I feel about her differently than I have about anyone else. There’s several possible reasons, but one main thing I think is that I’m now in a healthier place emotionally so I can better feel and process all my emotions, including my feelings towards her.

Anyways, at this point I would say I’m aroace spec. Demi-altrose (alterous, romantic, sexual).

[inevitably-johnlocked]

Not Johnlock but a general question: Does Sapiosexuality fall under the m-spec umbrella? Do you know anything about this subject? I was thinking about it but couldn't find a relevant article anywhere. I know what Sapiosexuality is, but I wanted to know about the details.

Hey Lovely!

LOL first off, I had NO idea what M-spec was, so I had to look it up and it makes TOTAL sense why sapiosexuality is confusing in that respect.

Secondly, my knowledge on sapiosexuality is very limited, but I imagine it CAN fall under the m-spec umbrella? Just logically speaking from my brain of course, but I also took 36 years to figure out I was panro-ace, so I'm probably not the best person to ask, hahaha.

I dunno, to ME it makes sense that it's under that umbrella, but I am not the authority on it, LOL.

Any Sapios able to clarify for Gregor what they think?

[beyond-mogai-pride-flags]

Sapioflexible Pride Flag

Sapioflexibility (alternate adjectives: cogniflexible, sciflexible, noetiflexible): being predominantly sapio-/noeti-/cogni-/sci- but flexible in its identity; mostly attracted to individuals they experience mental attraction to, intellectually bond with, or are inspired by, or admire for their unique cognitive beauty, but flexible in this attraction; usually experiencing attraction to intelligence (conceptum, sapium), or preference towards people one considers intelligent, while exceptionally leaning lack of intelligence.

Note that sapio- is polysemous concept.

[bookshelfdreams]

Hey 2nd anon again, I think you missed the point? First sorry about sapio, I've just seen it included in aspec. Second, I don't want to delegitimize asexuality, I just find some things regarding gray and Demi problematic. How much attraction is 'normal'? What is attraction anyway? I've never seen aces/non-aces agree. And if gray/Demi people only experience it sometimes, then I count since I'm a bi woman and not always sexually attracted to people. The spectrum makes me feel icky, (1/2)

(2/2) since it implies that there are people who are always on sexually, when in reality, everyone has shifting moods and desires. In fact, people can even have conflicting desires! I know I do. I just don't know if calling that a sexuality is really appropriate? 

First off, I am neither grey nor demi, so I am not the best person to speak on this subject.

How regularly someone has to experience sexual attraction to make them allo is a question everyone has to answer for themselves. If someone is so rarely attracted to other people that it sets them apart from allo people, then that’s good enough for me; why shouldn’t it be appropriate for people to have words to describe their identity? Everything in the world (including all sexualities) exists on a spectrum, so why is it the ace/aro spectrum specifically that offends you so much? I mean, I can’t fully understand (for example) demi people either but that doesn’t give me the right to call their orientation problematic or insist that they shouldn’t be able to describe themselves? The existence of a-spec people has no impact on how other people experience their sexual orientation, and it doesn’t imply that everyone else is constantly attracted to everyone they see. Of course desires fluctuate! But if someone tells me that their experience is fundamentally different from mine, who am I to tell them they’re wrong?

About what attraction is, let me ask you right back: What is sexual attraction? I take it you do experience it, so you are far more qualified to answer that than me. And if you feel that you experience it rarely in comparison to others (or only if you are already very close to someone), then yeah, maybe you can call yourself grey-a or demi? If you want. If you don’t, then don’t. I guess I just have a hard time understanding your exact problem here.

[kindabraveandlittlestupid]

While I am not a big fan of putting labels on anyone because of the ‘one-dimensional’ qualities to labels. I do, however, believe with a plethora of labels you might be about start to establishing some of the representation of the human condition. Below you will find labels that give you some insight into me.

Sapioromantic/Sapiosexual - The love or attraction towards intelligence has always been a thing for me. I am sure there are people on the web who might argue I am not true sapiosexual because I still have various physical attractions that draw me to a partner but I am inclined to disagree. The desire for an intelligent partner is the primary driving force of all my long-term desires as most physical draws are either temporary or circumstantial of being effective, so long as they can display their sapio qualities they will hold my interest. In other words, you can be a stunning 11 out of 10 supermodel but without a brain to backup beauty, any interest will be short-lived.

Pogonotrophy - Cultivation of facial hair into a glorious beard. I have more than most men and less than some. I tend to have a beard about 10 months out of the year ranging from scruffy to hipster bartender. The oils, the combs, the conditioners and waxes can be found in my bathroom. When I decide to grow one out, it's always a serious endeavor. 

Pictophilia - A collector of sexual images is nothing new to the male condition, when our fathers did it they had boxes of playboys tucked under their beds. We live in a marvelous time where community spaces like Tumblr and Pinterest allow us to house these collections and cultivate them. Naturally, I plan to share some on this account with you but I also want them to be tasteful. Porn that shows passion and mutual pleasure. Those sort of short looped black and white gifs that are tastefully done which is more intoxicating then what you might see on Brazzers and the like.

Cynophilist - Simply put a lover of dogs of all shapes and sizes (that is not true I fucking hate dislike Chihuahuas). I had a few canines over my life and I always treated them with unconditional love. My pouches always rode chewie (shotgun) in my car, slept on the bed, jumped on the couch and got unsalted burger paddies from In and Out Burger. Point is I am dog person and while cats are alright they never showed the affection that canines do. Sorry feline lovers.

Bibliophile - Perhaps enhanced (or undermined) by my technophile tendencies, I consume a fair amount of books as part of my broad media diet. I am picky about which books I read so not everything makes its way into my hands and with limited room space, I have opted to have most books in digital format instead of paper. Am I betraying my fellow bibliophiles or am I taking it to the next level by carrying thousands of books on my EReader and listening to audiobooks at the gym? You tell me.

Technophile - Technology holds an ambiguous nature (as most of these definitions do) of being either very good or very bad for me. I am NOT the sort of guy to wait in line for the new iPhone but I do read on the new tech and where it can take us getting excited about the prospects of 3D printing and abilities of AI. Gadgets are meant to enhance our lives not become a crutch. 

Nyctophile - I prefer the dark, nothing against the daytime but the night time is when I thrive most. I watch the things I want, go to the gym, take a late night run, do my writing and so on. This relationship with the dark or specifically night time has been a long lasting one despite many jobs forcing me to wake up at the crack of dawn (those mother fucking employers).

Pluviophile/Ceraunophile - Perhaps a little off definition but I take comfort, not in the rain and lightning specifically but the sound of rain and the thunder that comes with it. If there is a more appropriate term, by all means, let me know but I love the ambient sounds that come with these things. Much the same I love the hum of servers, trains on a track, the creek of a boat, and waves of the ocean.

Sophophilia - Perhaps connected with my bibliophile condition, the desire to learn something new is also laced into my character. I don't get ‘turned on’ when reading a science book but when someone embraces this part of their personality it taps into my stronger sapiosexual tendencies. 

Fictophile - I suspect many of us are fictophiles if we know it or not. A strong draw to a fictional character as if they were almost real is pretty common. My favorites have almost always been comic book girls like Barbara Gordon and  Soranik Natu. If only they were real.

Spectaphile - Hardly a physical trait of the normal nature but I do believe I am in love with girls in glasses. Far from mandatory but some bookish specs, hipster frames or rounded lenses all appeal to the geeky part of me. Doesn't hurt that I wear glasses which is perhaps a bias.

Egalitarian - I never been comfortable with “Down with the Patriarchy” it's inherently negative. “Rise of the Matriarchy” is a positive message for young girls. That being said I am Egalitarian in nature believing men and women should both have their say in power. This is equality in politics and a concept supported by Feminism. 

Socialist - Hard not to believe in a concept that encourages everyone to pitch into the betterment of society and sharing wealth and success with one another. I do not believe in absolute socialism and the complete removal of capitalism but having socialist principals and beliefs motivate society would lead to better wellbeing for all people involved.

Progressive - Pushing forward and trying to live up to humanities full potential. No doubt in my mind being a progressive is far superior to the ideology of conservativism which wants to roll the world back... you know before unions, women's rights, civil rights or even back to slavery. 

Feminist - I heard of Humanist and Equalist as alternative ideologies to feminism and so long as the end goal is equality I am ok with other people using them (so long as they aren't looking to berate the label of a feminist like many trolls). Feminism is about pushing down on the scale to make things equal and equitable. I am all for that.

I may add words to this list over time so don't be afraid to come back and visit.

Regards Michael California