• 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.