• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Despite having “sexual” as its root, sapiosexuality is an attraction-defining term, not to be confused with a definition of sexuality. Like other attraction-defining terms, it’s not exclusive.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I just hate labels. I like what I like. Not just smart people. Not just pretty people. Not even people with specific genitals.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Why does this comment start with “despite”? Aren’t all [something]sexualities “attraction-defining terms”?

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Traditionally speaking, the terms heterosexual and homosexual tend to be exclusive by omitting attraction to the opposite sex. I was clarifying that a sapiosexual is not exclusively attracted to intellectuals.

            *Now that sexuality is defined as a non-binary spectrum, some may disagree with my use of “opposite sex.” I admit I don’t know the correct way to convey the idea. I don’t mean to offend.