No porn category exists in their honor. Yet.
July 10, 2016 9:32 AM Subscribe
Do you find bookish people sexy? You may be sapiosexual.
Many other things, mostly serious, are available on The School of Life Youtube channel.
Many other things, mostly serious, are available on The School of Life Youtube channel.
Oh bullshit, there's a ton of porn dedicated to hot librarians/teachers with glasses and books etc.
But if you want to masturbate to a TED talk, who's stopping you? It even makes sense from an evolutionary angle.
posted by fungible at 9:50 AM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
But if you want to masturbate to a TED talk, who's stopping you? It even makes sense from an evolutionary angle.
posted by fungible at 9:50 AM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
But if you want to masturbate to a TED talk, who's stopping you?
I know. Security at the Vancouver Convention Center came in to my life in this role, but who's your killjoy?
posted by lalochezia at 9:54 AM on July 10, 2016 [48 favorites]
Now I need a cold shower, kittens for breakfast.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:57 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:57 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
No porn category exists in their honor. Yet.
Hi there have you seen the internet, we have a thing called the internet.
posted by mhoye at 9:57 AM on July 10, 2016 [67 favorites]
Hi there have you seen the internet, we have a thing called the internet.
posted by mhoye at 9:57 AM on July 10, 2016 [67 favorites]
There's not just pr0n categories about bookish/nerdish/with glasses people, but there are subcategories branching off of them.
posted by signal at 10:08 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by signal at 10:08 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
But if you want to masturbate to a TED talk, who's stopping you? It even makes sense from an evolutionary angle.
Sounds like a potential TEDx talk to me!
posted by TedW at 10:15 AM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sounds like a potential TEDx talk to me!
posted by TedW at 10:15 AM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Masturbating to a TED talk?
File under: If you can't join 'em, beat off.
posted by chavenet at 10:15 AM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
File under: If you can't join 'em, beat off.
posted by chavenet at 10:15 AM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I just imagine your long, long fingers, and how the tongue slips from the corner of your mouth to slick the tips of your fingers right before you turn the page of what whatever book it is you're reading wow that's SO interesting anyway can you put it down
See, if you're really into it, you don't put it down, no matter what. (Although reading aloud becomes a bit... erratic.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:19 AM on July 10, 2016
See, if you're really into it, you don't put it down, no matter what. (Although reading aloud becomes a bit... erratic.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:19 AM on July 10, 2016
Do you find bookish people sexy? You may be sapiosexual pretentious
posted by clockzero at 10:27 AM on July 10, 2016 [41 favorites]
posted by clockzero at 10:27 AM on July 10, 2016 [41 favorites]
I bet this exists as a real thing on Reddit and actually turns out to be horrible.
posted by Artw at 10:30 AM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:30 AM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
A rolling, sticky mass of eyes and papillae oozing between the stacks, feelers fluttering from page to page, occasionally emitting a low gutteral moan when a beautiful passage is discovered anew.
posted by benzenedream at 10:32 AM on July 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 10:32 AM on July 10, 2016 [25 favorites]
> > No porn category exists in their honor. Yet.
> Hi there have you seen the internet, we have a thing called the internet.
No, they haven't. Because they're bookish.
posted by belarius at 10:33 AM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
> Hi there have you seen the internet, we have a thing called the internet.
No, they haven't. Because they're bookish.
posted by belarius at 10:33 AM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
This may be of interest to you. Certainly one of the hottest things I've ever watched that involved bookish people and zero nudity.
(Still probably not safe for work)
posted by Salient at 10:37 AM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Still probably not safe for work)
posted by Salient at 10:37 AM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I bet this exists as a real thing on
FTFY
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:38 AM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
I've always understood sapiosexuality as being attracted to someone who shares your same worldview and operates at like a similar style of inference or whatever
I've never understood sapiosexuality as being attracted to people who look like they dropped out of a Wes Anderson / Noah Baumbach movie though there's a lot to be said about Luke Wilson's perpetual neurotic misunderstandings about his place in the larger social dynamic
posted by runt at 10:39 AM on July 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've never understood sapiosexuality as being attracted to people who look like they dropped out of a Wes Anderson / Noah Baumbach movie though there's a lot to be said about Luke Wilson's perpetual neurotic misunderstandings about his place in the larger social dynamic
posted by runt at 10:39 AM on July 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, TEDx is already kind of, y'know, masturbatory
posted by DoctorFedora at 10:42 AM on July 10, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 10:42 AM on July 10, 2016 [26 favorites]
See also, possible early prototype:
Carrie Fisher in Mr. Mike's Mondo Video (1979)
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 11:04 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Carrie Fisher in Mr. Mike's Mondo Video (1979)
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 11:04 AM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is how Alan Rickman and Neil Gaiman always make me feel.
posted by stolyarova at 11:23 AM on July 10, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 11:23 AM on July 10, 2016
TedXXX
posted by mochapickle at 11:42 AM on July 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by mochapickle at 11:42 AM on July 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
The Japanese are ahead of us in this, as usual. TVTropes: Meganekko
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:43 AM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:43 AM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
A rolling, sticky mass of eyes and papillae oozing between the stacks, feelers fluttering from page to page, occasionally emitting a low gutteral moan when a beautiful passage is discovered anew.
I think you just described Hermaeus Mora from the Elder Scrolls games?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:46 AM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think you just described Hermaeus Mora from the Elder Scrolls games?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:46 AM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I met a fellow at a party two months back who offered a genuinely compelling definition of sapiosexuality: that it's a sexual attraction specifically to the kind of person who's perceptive enough that they can understand or process your turn-ons, and use them in ways or in situations that are otherwise not particularly sexytime. Which resonated with me a lot, but also is absolutely not how you see this being used whatsoever.
Self-described sapiosexuals, in my experience, are the kid in high school who hated everybody else and convinced themselves it was because all the other kids didn't live up to those arbitrary standards, only now they're grown up and have come up with a plausible justification for why they watch all that porn that lets them feel elite instead of pathetic. It's not a rejection of societal norms: it's an embrace of them that allows the embracer to position themselves as the elite, without shrugging off the deeper insidious bullshit that these norms re: sexual superiority entail.
What's frustrating about this is that, for the most part, these so-called intelligent sexual dynamos aren't doing a whole lot more than the intellectual equivalent of making small talk about the weather. You can quote Nietzsche for hours at a time without saying a whole lot—or rather, the things you're saying could be said equally well by a hippie stoner, a theater geek, or a football-playing business guy who's three beers deep. The "intellectual" component is just window-dressing. It's a kind of roleplay that's a smidge more unsettling to me than the typical asinine societal role-taking, because you can only undertake it once you have enough awareness of how social stucture works to get "meta" with it. Which is the point at which you probably ought to be, I dunno, growing up or whatever, and in the senses that involve actual effort and not just putting on a slightly more sophisticated costume.
My kinky friends all mostly sneer at the sapiosexuals in their community, excepting that one awesome dude whose definition was bizarre and delightful and wrong. They all do the roleplay thing too, but with a lot more of the delightful embracing of roleplay's sillier side, and with a lot more diversity than your smoking-cigarettes-at-cafes sapiosexual bunch. The secret the kink community learned ages ago, of course, is that when you strip away all the societal trappings, sex is as silly and weird and charming as every other facet of human interaction, and not particularly mysterious or alluring unless you're the kind of person to find mysterious allure in every other facet of life too (and that's a kink unto itself, really).
I think I get the appeal, though. Our fucked-up culture is basically one gigantic inclusive fetish, at this point, which is simultaneously nonconsensual for most of its participants but also pretty potent. Slapping your own interpretation onto it that lets you fulfill your own kinky palette within its confines is probably really appealing, way more so than rejecting its fetishisms altogether. I think I know more people who reject kinkiness because kinksters so infrequently adhere to social norms regarding sexuality than I know people who're actually intimidated or unnerved by kinks as a thing. Sapiosexuals get the roleplay and the culture-wide fetishization! It's just a shame that their kink revolves around defining intelligence in such a narrow-minded, exclusionary, and assholish way.
posted by rorgy at 11:46 AM on July 10, 2016 [47 favorites]
Self-described sapiosexuals, in my experience, are the kid in high school who hated everybody else and convinced themselves it was because all the other kids didn't live up to those arbitrary standards, only now they're grown up and have come up with a plausible justification for why they watch all that porn that lets them feel elite instead of pathetic. It's not a rejection of societal norms: it's an embrace of them that allows the embracer to position themselves as the elite, without shrugging off the deeper insidious bullshit that these norms re: sexual superiority entail.
What's frustrating about this is that, for the most part, these so-called intelligent sexual dynamos aren't doing a whole lot more than the intellectual equivalent of making small talk about the weather. You can quote Nietzsche for hours at a time without saying a whole lot—or rather, the things you're saying could be said equally well by a hippie stoner, a theater geek, or a football-playing business guy who's three beers deep. The "intellectual" component is just window-dressing. It's a kind of roleplay that's a smidge more unsettling to me than the typical asinine societal role-taking, because you can only undertake it once you have enough awareness of how social stucture works to get "meta" with it. Which is the point at which you probably ought to be, I dunno, growing up or whatever, and in the senses that involve actual effort and not just putting on a slightly more sophisticated costume.
My kinky friends all mostly sneer at the sapiosexuals in their community, excepting that one awesome dude whose definition was bizarre and delightful and wrong. They all do the roleplay thing too, but with a lot more of the delightful embracing of roleplay's sillier side, and with a lot more diversity than your smoking-cigarettes-at-cafes sapiosexual bunch. The secret the kink community learned ages ago, of course, is that when you strip away all the societal trappings, sex is as silly and weird and charming as every other facet of human interaction, and not particularly mysterious or alluring unless you're the kind of person to find mysterious allure in every other facet of life too (and that's a kink unto itself, really).
I think I get the appeal, though. Our fucked-up culture is basically one gigantic inclusive fetish, at this point, which is simultaneously nonconsensual for most of its participants but also pretty potent. Slapping your own interpretation onto it that lets you fulfill your own kinky palette within its confines is probably really appealing, way more so than rejecting its fetishisms altogether. I think I know more people who reject kinkiness because kinksters so infrequently adhere to social norms regarding sexuality than I know people who're actually intimidated or unnerved by kinks as a thing. Sapiosexuals get the roleplay and the culture-wide fetishization! It's just a shame that their kink revolves around defining intelligence in such a narrow-minded, exclusionary, and assholish way.
posted by rorgy at 11:46 AM on July 10, 2016 [47 favorites]
Oh good a thread where I can just talk about which celebrities i think are hot and it comes across as on-topic
posted by beerperson at 11:50 AM on July 10, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 11:50 AM on July 10, 2016 [20 favorites]
uh
my further two cents is 1) women claim to be sapiosexual online because they are inundated with a slew of dudes who are evaluating them based on physical attractiveness and 2) it's also kind of code for 'I'm a progressive minded individual and I'd like to hint at that without getting political'
but hey, maybe it is just a lot of ugly people like me who are just socially awkward pretentious shitbirds not worth the time of day for you and your far better rounded group of actual sexual elites
posted by runt at 11:52 AM on July 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
my further two cents is 1) women claim to be sapiosexual online because they are inundated with a slew of dudes who are evaluating them based on physical attractiveness and 2) it's also kind of code for 'I'm a progressive minded individual and I'd like to hint at that without getting political'
but hey, maybe it is just a lot of ugly people like me who are just socially awkward pretentious shitbirds not worth the time of day for you and your far better rounded group of actual sexual elites
posted by runt at 11:52 AM on July 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
No porn category exists in their honor. Yet.
False. There are several tumblrs exclusively dedicated to people reading in the nude. [SFW]
posted by srboisvert at 11:58 AM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
False. There are several tumblrs exclusively dedicated to people reading in the nude. [SFW]
posted by srboisvert at 11:58 AM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
i have see a lot of those tumblr blogs which are non-consensually re-purposing other people's (often women's) photos into wank material which doesn't make me think those doing it are all that awesome, really. you see the same thing in other fetish corners of tumblr or reddit - people post pictures for whatever reason but not explicitly as porn and then someone (often men) come along and are like 'well, it makes me hard, so now it's masturbation material and i'm going to spread it around as such' and it's just gross.
posted by nadawi at 12:12 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 12:12 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I see the term thrown around on Tinder a bit, and I take it less as a sexual identity than a way to express an interest in intellectual conversation. It really hadn't occurred to me to treat it as a full on sexual identity or even a kink.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:23 PM on July 10, 2016
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:23 PM on July 10, 2016
LOL I thought that first video was satire. It's insufferable.
You know that trope in teen comedies about how there's this bookish nerd who needs to be made-over into a hottie? But she was already conventionally attractive before, so the entire thing makes no sense? That's 'sapiosexual' in a nutshell.
Just be honest and say "I like conventionally attractive people of a certain education and possibly race, at or above my class" and call it a day, IMO.
posted by naju at 12:30 PM on July 10, 2016 [35 favorites]
You know that trope in teen comedies about how there's this bookish nerd who needs to be made-over into a hottie? But she was already conventionally attractive before, so the entire thing makes no sense? That's 'sapiosexual' in a nutshell.
Just be honest and say "I like conventionally attractive people of a certain education and possibly race, at or above my class" and call it a day, IMO.
posted by naju at 12:30 PM on July 10, 2016 [35 favorites]
Most of the photos on the reddit links are hardcovers with no visible titles. They couldn't spring for a box of Dover books?
Good to see the Gideon Bibles get some use, though.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:34 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Good to see the Gideon Bibles get some use, though.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:34 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh no no no no there's aspects to the theory the aren't terrible but in practice the people are horrifying
posted by ominous_paws at 12:39 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 12:39 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
But if you want to masturbate to a TED talk, who's stopping you?
Sorry, that's just not my thing. I'm attracted to intelligence.
posted by erniepan at 12:40 PM on July 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
Sorry, that's just not my thing. I'm attracted to intelligence.
posted by erniepan at 12:40 PM on July 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
The big clue for the terribleness is that we're hearing about this from the school of life and I suspect Alain de Boton, who together produced the worst book ever to be written about sex
posted by ominous_paws at 12:40 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 12:40 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know that trope in teen comedies about how there's this bookish nerd who needs to be made-over into a hottie? But she was already conventionally attractive before, so the entire thing makes no sense? That's 'sapiosexual' in a nutshell.
Yes. Where's all the erotic fanfiction about Marie Curie, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Isaac Asimov (one by one or all in a bunch)? These were some damn smart people! Stoya seems pretty smart, too, but Stoya reading a book isn't a video about how hot it is she can read.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:41 PM on July 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes. Where's all the erotic fanfiction about Marie Curie, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Isaac Asimov (one by one or all in a bunch)? These were some damn smart people! Stoya seems pretty smart, too, but Stoya reading a book isn't a video about how hot it is she can read.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:41 PM on July 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
They have to hide the titles or else the thread quickly devolves into an argument over whether that book is in fact terrible and stupid, or actually great and you don't understand it at the level that I do, and arguing about things on the internet is pretty much the opposite of sexy.
posted by RobotHero at 12:43 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by RobotHero at 12:43 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Writing Prompt: Cyrano de Bergerac, but Cyrano is actually an AI using advanced algorithms to write love notes to Roxanne. Can Cyran.io pass the Turing Test, and will Christian pull off his ruse?
Also I guess Roxanne is a cyborg in this world (Cyrano is her cousin, recall) or maybe this is Chinese Room rules so it's a person with no knowledge of love or French following a series of instructions.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:51 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also I guess Roxanne is a cyborg in this world (Cyrano is her cousin, recall) or maybe this is Chinese Room rules so it's a person with no knowledge of love or French following a series of instructions.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:51 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
They have to hide the titles or else the thread quickly devolves into an argument over whether that book is in fact terrible and stupid, or actually great and you don't understand it at the level that I do, and arguing about things on the internet is pretty much the opposite of sexy.
Oh god now I really want to post some erotic photos which also contain the spines of House of Leaves, The Fountainhead, and The Corrections
posted by beerperson at 12:54 PM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
Oh god now I really want to post some erotic photos which also contain the spines of House of Leaves, The Fountainhead, and The Corrections
posted by beerperson at 12:54 PM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
There's something about this discussion I'm not quite understanding. I've long felt like our culture was pathological about sexual attraction in that it attempts to divorce (conventional) physical attractiveness from everything else about the whole person and therefore you get this weird thing where some people claim to only care about personality while other people cynically respond that ultimately it's still all about physical characteristics. And that just seems nuts to me -- I care a lot about a number of physical characteristics, most of which (but not all, and not equally) correspond to our cultural ideal, but they're still inseparably tethered to what I instinctively respond to about the whole person and that will make a huge difference in one direction or the other.
It's extremely rare that I ever find anyone very sexy who I can't immediately imagine spending a great deal of time with -- in conversation, shared interests, and so on. On first meeting someone, that stuff is less apparent than physical characteristics, but they're still quite available, at least in broad strokes.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:57 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's extremely rare that I ever find anyone very sexy who I can't immediately imagine spending a great deal of time with -- in conversation, shared interests, and so on. On first meeting someone, that stuff is less apparent than physical characteristics, but they're still quite available, at least in broad strokes.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:57 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes. Where's all the erotic fanfiction about Marie Curie, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Isaac Asimov
You could not stop Isaac Asimov from writing erotic fan fiction about himself. There's reams of it.
posted by davros42 at 12:59 PM on July 10, 2016 [24 favorites]
You could not stop Isaac Asimov from writing erotic fan fiction about himself. There's reams of it.
posted by davros42 at 12:59 PM on July 10, 2016 [24 favorites]
while other people cynically respond that ultimately it's still all about physical characteristics
This is really not accurate. We're not countering that physical attraction is all that matters. We're just calling BS on "I only get turned on by intelligence" (and pointing out how 'intelligence' is a proxy for other things the person doesn't want to honestly admit to.)
posted by naju at 1:11 PM on July 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
This is really not accurate. We're not countering that physical attraction is all that matters. We're just calling BS on "I only get turned on by intelligence" (and pointing out how 'intelligence' is a proxy for other things the person doesn't want to honestly admit to.)
posted by naju at 1:11 PM on July 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
It's a weird snob kink innit.
The people who would be technically most attractive to sapiosexuals would be able to see the problems with the term and the kink, and be sort of grossed out by people who claim to be sapiosexuals.
So it's really a kink for the more aspirational smarties, like middle class Americans who want to dress up as English aristocracy and be haughty and spank each other. You know what I mean: steampunk.
posted by nom de poop at 1:12 PM on July 10, 2016 [33 favorites]
The people who would be technically most attractive to sapiosexuals would be able to see the problems with the term and the kink, and be sort of grossed out by people who claim to be sapiosexuals.
So it's really a kink for the more aspirational smarties, like middle class Americans who want to dress up as English aristocracy and be haughty and spank each other. You know what I mean: steampunk.
posted by nom de poop at 1:12 PM on July 10, 2016 [33 favorites]
You could not stop Isaac Asimov from writing erotic fan fiction about himself. There's reams of it.
Not as horrifying as Piers Anthony's oeuvre, nor as smug as Dan Brown's.
(Yes, this is damning with faint praise.)
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:16 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not as horrifying as Piers Anthony's oeuvre, nor as smug as Dan Brown's.
(Yes, this is damning with faint praise.)
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:16 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's a lot of discussion about the term "sapiosexual" in this previous thread.
posted by asperity at 1:21 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by asperity at 1:21 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I'm too sexy for my brain"
See, I can only copy metafilters links and not other sites, what's up with that.
posted by clavdivs at 1:21 PM on July 10, 2016
See, I can only copy metafilters links and not other sites, what's up with that.
posted by clavdivs at 1:21 PM on July 10, 2016
So it's really a kink for the more aspirational smarties, like middle class Americans who want to dress up as English aristocracy and be haughty and spank each other. You know what I mean: steampunk.
I bet the Hellfire Club are all sapiosexual.
posted by Artw at 1:26 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I bet the Hellfire Club are all sapiosexual.
posted by Artw at 1:26 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Stoya seems pretty smart, too, but Stoya reading a book isn't a video about how hot it is she can read.
I can't tell if you were unintentionally or deliberately referencing Stoya in Hysterical Literature. (no nudity or anything but probably NSFW, unless you work somewhere really awesome and should hire me.)
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't tell if you were unintentionally or deliberately referencing Stoya in Hysterical Literature. (no nudity or anything but probably NSFW, unless you work somewhere really awesome and should hire me.)
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
some people claim to only care about personality while other people cynically respond that ultimately it's still all about physical characteristics
Maybe people are different from one another.
posted by Miko at 1:38 PM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
Maybe people are different from one another.
posted by Miko at 1:38 PM on July 10, 2016 [10 favorites]
I've seen the word sapiosexual used in multiple OkCupid profiles.
posted by clawsoon at 1:44 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:44 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can't tell if you were unintentionally or deliberately referencing Stoya in Hysterical Literature . (no nudity or anything but probably NSFW, unless you work somewhere really awesome and should hire me.)
Someone linked that up above, too. Of course, Stoya could read the phonebook and people would still create masturbatory fantasies out of it, so...
i have see a lot of those tumblr blogs which are non-consensually re-purposing other people's (often women's) photos into wank material which doesn't make me think those doing it are all that awesome, really. you see the same thing in other fetish corners of tumblr or reddit - people post pictures for whatever reason but not explicitly as porn and then someone (often men) come along and are like 'well, it makes me hard, so now it's masturbation material and i'm going to spread it around as such' and it's just gross.
That came up briefly in Emily Ratajowski's interview with Naomi Wolf in Harpers Bazaar (NSFW photos) the other day:
Someone linked that up above, too. Of course, Stoya could read the phonebook and people would still create masturbatory fantasies out of it, so...
i have see a lot of those tumblr blogs which are non-consensually re-purposing other people's (often women's) photos into wank material which doesn't make me think those doing it are all that awesome, really. you see the same thing in other fetish corners of tumblr or reddit - people post pictures for whatever reason but not explicitly as porn and then someone (often men) come along and are like 'well, it makes me hard, so now it's masturbation material and i'm going to spread it around as such' and it's just gross.
That came up briefly in Emily Ratajowski's interview with Naomi Wolf in Harpers Bazaar (NSFW photos) the other day:
ER: It's also not my problem. It's irrelevant. When I post a selfie and someone comments, "Oh, sure, go ahead and reclaim your sexuality, I got my rocks off," that's not my problem.posted by Dip Flash at 1:50 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
NW: Do people really write that?
ER: Absolutely. On anything.
You could not stop Isaac Asimov from writing erotic fan fiction about himself. There's reams of it.
All of it a first draft.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 1:54 PM on July 10, 2016
All of it a first draft.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 1:54 PM on July 10, 2016
I'm confused, I don't get the closeted shame thing. Is it "Hi I'm a smart person who likes school stuff and I'm sexually attracted to other smart people who like school stuff" or is it "Hi I'm a smart person who likes school stuff and I don't want to debase myself doing the things other humans do to get it on because I don't conform to some standard that people I'm not sexually attracted to have set?" Because all the people in the videos seem to be attractive and college educated and I'm not feeling the sexual oppression. You need to go to some place where people like you go and like talk to them.
a joke, you say?
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:07 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
a joke, you say?
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:07 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, I think basically it's bullshit. You aren't an intellectual because you want to have sex with Samantha Bee, who is certainly smart and funny but also conventionally pretty attractive, and finding out a porn star is in Mensa or whatever doesn't mean aha! the reason you've watched 600 of her videos since 2009 is that you somehow sensed how brilliant she is. Where are all the sapiosexuals who want to fuck geniuses who are fugly as hell?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:19 PM on July 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:19 PM on July 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
MetaFilter: a joke, you say?
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:31 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:31 PM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
“Hello, ladies. Which way to the card catalog?”
posted by ob1quixote at 2:36 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 2:36 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm a polymath. I'm also a straight woman. Finding a partner who is into my big brain is not easy. Luckily, I have big boobs, so I can always find someone who will like me for at least a half hour.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 2:48 PM on July 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 2:48 PM on July 10, 2016 [21 favorites]
Where are all the sapiosexuals who want to fuck geniuses who are fugly as hell?
Found one!
(ok he was less "fugly as hell" than just "really old").
posted by Justinian at 3:13 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Found one!
(ok he was less "fugly as hell" than just "really old").
posted by Justinian at 3:13 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
In my experience, all the men, no, really all of them, who've used 'sapiosexual' in their dating profiles have been using it as the worst kind of culture signalling exercise -- "I'm intelligent" (re which, frankly, ~~~) rather than "I'm attracted to intelligence or a wide base of knowledge." Which leads to the modern day paradox: if you say 'classic Dunning-Kruger' to a self-identified sapiosexual, is that a put-down or an unbelievably horny pick up line?
posted by Collaterly Sisters at 3:58 PM on July 10, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by Collaterly Sisters at 3:58 PM on July 10, 2016 [24 favorites]
But what if they also said they were a MENSA member?
posted by Artw at 4:05 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:05 PM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
it reminds me of my tech support days "i have my mcse..." ok, but i still need you to verify that the computer is plugged in.
posted by nadawi at 4:12 PM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 4:12 PM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Can't have this conversation without Pete Shelley.
posted by klangklangston at 4:13 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 4:13 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
See also, possible early prototype
I do believe this example predates yours by a few years.
(Although self-described sapiosexuals are more like the antiquarian bookstore across the street that's just a front for selling ordinary smut.)
i have see a lot of those tumblr blogs which are non-consensually re-purposing other people's (often women's) photos into wank material which doesn't make me think those doing it are all that awesome, really
I had to take down a vacation photo I had posted on Flickr of a female friend eating a corn dog (it was literally the first corn dog she ever had, which is why it was worth taking a picture of) because it got tagged with some kind of gross, overly-specific reference to oral sex. This is literally why we can't have nice things.
posted by tobascodagama at 4:14 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do believe this example predates yours by a few years.
(Although self-described sapiosexuals are more like the antiquarian bookstore across the street that's just a front for selling ordinary smut.)
i have see a lot of those tumblr blogs which are non-consensually re-purposing other people's (often women's) photos into wank material which doesn't make me think those doing it are all that awesome, really
I had to take down a vacation photo I had posted on Flickr of a female friend eating a corn dog (it was literally the first corn dog she ever had, which is why it was worth taking a picture of) because it got tagged with some kind of gross, overly-specific reference to oral sex. This is literally why we can't have nice things.
posted by tobascodagama at 4:14 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
A woman I follow on twitter -- who is, yes, pretty, but who is also hilarious, which is why I follow her -- recently started an AMA linked to her account, and I am astonished by how many of these questions are just flat out rudely sexual. This is not someone whose sexuality is at the crux of her social media presence. This is someone who makes a lot of jokes, talks about her dog and funny things that happen to her at work, and occasionally posts selfies of her face. And dudes are like, How can I pay you to take pictures of your feet? Will you humiliate me? It's fucked up. Dudes can turn anything into porn, and the less time they spend around IRL women, the more everything starts to look like porn for them.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:31 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:31 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
but hey, maybe it is just a lot of ugly people like me who are just socially awkward pretentious shitbirds not worth the time of day for you and your far better rounded group of actual sexual elites
Surely there's some middle ground between this and acting like finding intelligence attractive is taxonomically akin to being hetero- or homosexual?
posted by clockzero at 4:49 PM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Surely there's some middle ground between this and acting like finding intelligence attractive is taxonomically akin to being hetero- or homosexual?
posted by clockzero at 4:49 PM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
now let's joke about our IQ scores while talking about how it's a bullshit measurement
posted by beerperson at 5:22 PM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 5:22 PM on July 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
What the hell is that part about glasses? Sure, a good pair of glasses can be like an elegant frame around a beautiful picture, but they're not magic brain steroids. They can help you read and avoid dog shit equally. They can help you read Twilight and Proust. They're also a clever disguise if you're superman, which makes no fucking sense.
That last episode of Game of Thrones where Sam gets to Book Heaven and the gatekeeper has big goofy medieval glasses to read his ledger made me cringe. I see perfectly well and I've read thousands of books.
posted by adept256 at 5:51 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
That last episode of Game of Thrones where Sam gets to Book Heaven and the gatekeeper has big goofy medieval glasses to read his ledger made me cringe. I see perfectly well and I've read thousands of books.
posted by adept256 at 5:51 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
i have glasses and yet still can't avoid the dog shit
posted by bologna on wry at 6:43 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bologna on wry at 6:43 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most of the photos on the reddit links are hardcovers with no visible titles. They couldn't spring for a box of Dover books?
They have to hide the titles or else the thread quickly devolves into an argument over whether that book is in fact terrible and stupid, or actually great and you don't understand it at the level that I do, and arguing about things on the internet is pretty much the opposite of sexy.
Could that be the reason that a recently linked video of Blair Braverman has all the shots of her in mirror image? To make it harder to read the titles of the myriad books which are her backdrop?
I didn't seriously consider that because when I learned to read later than anyone else in my grade by at least a full year, I could also read upside down, backward, and mirror image from the beginning, but only at about half my normal speed.
posted by jamjam at 7:03 PM on July 10, 2016
They have to hide the titles or else the thread quickly devolves into an argument over whether that book is in fact terrible and stupid, or actually great and you don't understand it at the level that I do, and arguing about things on the internet is pretty much the opposite of sexy.
Could that be the reason that a recently linked video of Blair Braverman has all the shots of her in mirror image? To make it harder to read the titles of the myriad books which are her backdrop?
I didn't seriously consider that because when I learned to read later than anyone else in my grade by at least a full year, I could also read upside down, backward, and mirror image from the beginning, but only at about half my normal speed.
posted by jamjam at 7:03 PM on July 10, 2016
Could that be the reason that a recently linked video of Blair Braverman has all the shots of her in mirror image?
I don't know anything about her recording process, but that's how Apple's Photo Booth app records by default. Which, in turn, I think is at least in part so that the app can literally be used as mirror when you're not recording.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:26 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know anything about her recording process, but that's how Apple's Photo Booth app records by default. Which, in turn, I think is at least in part so that the app can literally be used as mirror when you're not recording.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:26 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's weird. I write with my right hand, however I can also write beautiful flowing cursive with my left hand which you can only read in a mirror. Like Leonardo!
I expect scientists will want to cut up my brain when I'm finished with it.
posted by adept256 at 7:29 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I expect scientists will want to cut up my brain when I'm finished with it.
posted by adept256 at 7:29 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh! One more thing. They're not on their phone much? They're not that smart then. I can store an entire library on my phone.
posted by adept256 at 8:59 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by adept256 at 8:59 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, wait. This isn't a joke? I was about to share it with several friends and then started reading the comments here. Oh, dear. Surely...it must be a joke?
posted by kestralwing at 9:17 PM on July 10, 2016
posted by kestralwing at 9:17 PM on July 10, 2016
You know that trope in teen comedies about how there's this bookish nerd who needs to be made-over into a hottie? But she was already conventionally attractive before, so the entire thing makes no sense?... posted by naju at 3:30 PM on July 10
"Why, Miss Smith! ...when you let your hair down - and take your glasses off - why, you're BEAUTIFUL!"
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 9:41 PM on July 10, 2016
"Why, Miss Smith! ...when you let your hair down - and take your glasses off - why, you're BEAUTIFUL!"
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 9:41 PM on July 10, 2016
yeah i think the guys who write THE BELL CURVE probably called themselves sapiosexuals
posted by listen, lady at 10:23 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by listen, lady at 10:23 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Despite never having heard this term before, I have to admit I have only ever been attracted to sapient beings.
(Looks smug; after a few seconds, frowns, makes "maybe, maybe not" hand gesture; stares into drink, shudders.)
posted by maxwelton at 11:18 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
(Looks smug; after a few seconds, frowns, makes "maybe, maybe not" hand gesture; stares into drink, shudders.)
posted by maxwelton at 11:18 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ugh, I've hated this term since the minute I heard it. The insinuations behind it are so ugly - I'm attracted to intelligence unlike some rabble you may have met whose reasons for lowering themselves to sex aren't as admirable or impressive as mine own. It's like a fedora atheist version of seeking a mate full of chaste virtue: a layer of self congratulatory ornamentation to keep ones' sexuality at a distance, of indulging it without admitting to it.
posted by EatTheWeek at 12:56 AM on July 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by EatTheWeek at 12:56 AM on July 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Intelligence is a social construct.
Like all social constructs, it doesn't exist free of biases or dominant influences.
Most western concepts of intelligence are often racist. Or classist, or ableist or misogynistic, sometimes all at the same time!
Most people that say they are "attracted to intelligence” use that to mean that they are attracted to people with similar interests. I've seen thi sused in deciding to classify interest in subjects like philosophy or sciences as :intelligent" while decrying interests in stuff like sports or popular culture or fashion as unintelligent and it is messed up.
Straight up pretending that factors like someone's gender (assigned or otherwise), race and ability don't affect one's ability to get an education, or the education's overall quality OR the ability to express it in such a way that someone can appear intelligent is messed up.
Setting up some kinda weirdo intelligent/unintelligent binary where"unintelligent" means less deserving? Gross.
You're allowed to have preferences. Like all preferences, though, youshould thin about them critically.
Also? Your preferences are not a sexual orientation.
posted by ShawnStruck at 2:02 AM on July 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Like all social constructs, it doesn't exist free of biases or dominant influences.
Most western concepts of intelligence are often racist. Or classist, or ableist or misogynistic, sometimes all at the same time!
Most people that say they are "attracted to intelligence” use that to mean that they are attracted to people with similar interests. I've seen thi sused in deciding to classify interest in subjects like philosophy or sciences as :intelligent" while decrying interests in stuff like sports or popular culture or fashion as unintelligent and it is messed up.
Straight up pretending that factors like someone's gender (assigned or otherwise), race and ability don't affect one's ability to get an education, or the education's overall quality OR the ability to express it in such a way that someone can appear intelligent is messed up.
Setting up some kinda weirdo intelligent/unintelligent binary where"unintelligent" means less deserving? Gross.
You're allowed to have preferences. Like all preferences, though, youshould thin about them critically.
Also? Your preferences are not a sexual orientation.
posted by ShawnStruck at 2:02 AM on July 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm a polymath. I'm also a straight woman. Finding a partner who is into my big brain is not easy. Luckily, I have big boobs, so I can always find someone who will like me for at least a half hour.
This is me without the big boobs. Also I am taller than 85% of men (statistically speaking around the world; it hits 90% in France, where I live, ahahaha). Single going on 12 years now. Let's play guess-the-cisgender-stereotype game: y'know how you hear people go swoony over dreamy others who speak several languages, have an accent, are cultivated, have lived around the world and have worked their way to recognition in their line of work with loads of grit and independent thinking?
You guessed correctly! That happens for men.
Sapiosexual they say? Mmmmhmmm. As long as you, a woman, can still be imagined to be submissive/compliant. Admirable? Worth complying to for the quality of their ideas? (As in occasionally – not talking about control, but respect.) Women are rarely described as admirable leaders based on their actual achievements – as opposed to short-term appearances – with long-term consistency. And as sexually desirable traits, yeah. *wind blows over the arid steppes* We're supposed to look smart, not be smart. I mean seriously, whose society-installed hackles went up on realizing I was saying "worth complying to" about women as opposed to a woman being compliant with a man. (No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question meant to spark reflection on our ingrained stereotypes.)
posted by fraula at 2:05 AM on July 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is me without the big boobs. Also I am taller than 85% of men (statistically speaking around the world; it hits 90% in France, where I live, ahahaha). Single going on 12 years now. Let's play guess-the-cisgender-stereotype game: y'know how you hear people go swoony over dreamy others who speak several languages, have an accent, are cultivated, have lived around the world and have worked their way to recognition in their line of work with loads of grit and independent thinking?
You guessed correctly! That happens for men.
Sapiosexual they say? Mmmmhmmm. As long as you, a woman, can still be imagined to be submissive/compliant. Admirable? Worth complying to for the quality of their ideas? (As in occasionally – not talking about control, but respect.) Women are rarely described as admirable leaders based on their actual achievements – as opposed to short-term appearances – with long-term consistency. And as sexually desirable traits, yeah. *wind blows over the arid steppes* We're supposed to look smart, not be smart. I mean seriously, whose society-installed hackles went up on realizing I was saying "worth complying to" about women as opposed to a woman being compliant with a man. (No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question meant to spark reflection on our ingrained stereotypes.)
posted by fraula at 2:05 AM on July 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I've also noticed that people who claim to be attracted to intelligence are using that word as a proxy for other things - it can translate to
- *Fetish does not apply for men if potential partner is not skinny, is over 25/showing age i.e. fine lines, is visibly disabled, is unfeminine in presentation, etc.
- I'm looking for an inexperienced girl/young woman to be awed by how intelligent I am. Girl/young woman shouldn't actually engage with my opinions by ever arguing with them, though.
- I will use my partner's status boost my own. Our relationship will be a public endorsement that my own intellect is equal to theirs, an easy way for me to take credit for their hard work and achievements
- I want a partner who is culturally middle class and will earn the same amount as me (can also be dogwhistle for WHITES ONLY)
- I like to pretend I am more sensitive/cultured than other people, my sexual feelings are beautiful/meaningful/artistic, more sophisticated than other people's sexual feelings [insert classical music here]
posted by everydayanewday at 2:13 AM on July 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
- *Fetish does not apply for men if potential partner is not skinny, is over 25/showing age i.e. fine lines, is visibly disabled, is unfeminine in presentation, etc.
- I'm looking for an inexperienced girl/young woman to be awed by how intelligent I am. Girl/young woman shouldn't actually engage with my opinions by ever arguing with them, though.
- I will use my partner's status boost my own. Our relationship will be a public endorsement that my own intellect is equal to theirs, an easy way for me to take credit for their hard work and achievements
- I want a partner who is culturally middle class and will earn the same amount as me (can also be dogwhistle for WHITES ONLY)
- I like to pretend I am more sensitive/cultured than other people, my sexual feelings are beautiful/meaningful/artistic, more sophisticated than other people's sexual feelings [insert classical music here]
posted by everydayanewday at 2:13 AM on July 11, 2016 [17 favorites]
You know that trope in teen comedies about how there's this bookish nerd who needs to be made-over into a hottie? But she was already conventionally attractive before, so the entire thing makes no sense? That's 'sapiosexual' in a nutshell.
You say that like it's a bad thing ...
posted by oheso at 5:51 AM on July 11, 2016
You say that like it's a bad thing ...
posted by oheso at 5:51 AM on July 11, 2016
I expect scientists will want to cut up my brain when I'm finished with it.
I'm not sure we can be that patient.
Sorry, call it an occupational hazard ..
posted by oheso at 5:52 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure we can be that patient.
Sorry, call it an occupational hazard ..
posted by oheso at 5:52 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sapiosexual, as opposed to what? Cro-Magnosexual?
It's also been my observation that a lot of the people who talk about being intellectual don't actually come across that way (sort of like those people who talk about being weird). There are a lot of things like that, where if you have to insist that hard, there might be something a bit fishy. So I could see this term being something of a red flag in a dating situation.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:57 AM on July 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's also been my observation that a lot of the people who talk about being intellectual don't actually come across that way (sort of like those people who talk about being weird). There are a lot of things like that, where if you have to insist that hard, there might be something a bit fishy. So I could see this term being something of a red flag in a dating situation.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:57 AM on July 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wow. Not being immersed in the online dating scene (anymore) my only exposure to this term is a friend who didn't want to identify as any of hetero/bi/pan-sexual for reasons I can guess at but cannot know and chose sapiosexual specifically because she likes brains and personalities and doesn't ultimately care what package they come in.
It's hard for me to believe she's a fedora-toting fetishist dog whistling smug condescending repressed... any of that. I choose instead to respect and believe her lived experience.
Some deep reflexive and uncharitable disdain in this thread. I'm sure it can be used in all these terrible ways too, I guess I want to provide one data point where the term seems both reasonable and apt.
posted by abulafa at 7:07 AM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's hard for me to believe she's a fedora-toting fetishist dog whistling smug condescending repressed... any of that. I choose instead to respect and believe her lived experience.
Some deep reflexive and uncharitable disdain in this thread. I'm sure it can be used in all these terrible ways too, I guess I want to provide one data point where the term seems both reasonable and apt.
posted by abulafa at 7:07 AM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
if your only exposure to it is through one person, it might be that your friend is using the term in an idiosyncratic way that doesn't match how pretty much everyone else is using it. no one is insulting your friend here, but rather the way that most people (men) relate to this term.
posted by nadawi at 7:18 AM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:18 AM on July 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
MetaFilter: some kinda weirdo intelligent/unintelligent binary
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:08 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:08 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wasn't aware when I Posted The Thing™ that this was an Actual Thing®, and the discourse here has been…enlightening.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:12 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:12 AM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm a polymath. I'm also a straight woman. Finding a partner who is into my big brain is not easy. Luckily, I have big boobs, so I can always find someone who will like me for at least a half hour.
Sorry about that silly/dumb response before.
posted by clockzero at 9:06 AM on July 11, 2016
Sorry about that silly/dumb response before.
posted by clockzero at 9:06 AM on July 11, 2016
No worries- the discourse on this has been fascinating! It's another facet to it- you spend a lot of time as a woman hiding how smart you are by keeping your mouth shut. But more than once I have been head over heels for some silly boy and they have said one way or the other "you are too smart for me" .
And my experience has been men that say they are into sapiosexuals really do like to talk about something besides my boobs, so there is that.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 9:24 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
And my experience has been men that say they are into sapiosexuals really do like to talk about something besides my boobs, so there is that.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 9:24 AM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"if your only exposure to it is through one person, it might be that your friend is using the term in an idiosyncratic way that doesn't match how pretty much everyone else is using it. no one is insulting your friend here, but rather the way that most people (men) relate to this term."
Yeah, there's clearly an Actual Thing® going on that I was totally unaware of. I guess I've seen the term sapiosexual very occasionally and I've assumed it was somewhat whimsical, but I had no idea that (men) affect this social identity in a disingenuous way. I totally believe it, though, because we live in a world where men send dick pics as flirting.
But I'm put off by how this discussion conflates this self-identification with any and all claims to find intelligence sexually attractive. I keep feeling like the explicit or implicit claim in some of these comments is that anyone and everyone who ever says they find intelligence sexy is lying. Which is really weird to me -- I mean, I'm having that feeling I get sometimes where I worry that I'm unknowingly an alien, or everyone else is an alien. If whatever the cluster of personality traits/interests that correspond to "intelligence" is an important part of someone's life, then many of those people will naturally be attracted to people with a similar set of traits and interests, right?
I've noticed that people vary a great deal in how sexual attraction works for them. My impression is that a considerable number of people, probably more so men than women, find everything that's important to them in a photo. I see that as valid preference for coupling, like any other, but it's very much not the way that I'm wired. Fundamentally, I'm not attracted to someone unless I can imagine being good friends with them -- I mean, right away, based upon first impressions. Physical attributes matter, but then so do so many other things and those other things can change the whole equation.
In the other thread where sapiosexual was discussed, linked earlier, there was a difficult conversation about interrogating our sexual attractions. I found that conversation thought-provoking and I'm still unsure what conclusions I'm prepared to draw from it. I think it's surely true that our sexual attractions have a political and ethical component and it's a good thing to interrogate them from that perspective. Even so, I've also come to believe, from a lot of life experience, that there's some weird mystery in sexual attraction, that it's pretty resistant to rationalization and regularization. I'm not exclusively attracted to "intelligence" and I would never self-identify as "sapiosexual", but intelligence is attractive and important to me and part of a cluster of things that have been almost entirely unvarying through the thirty years of my adult life -- I've tried to occasionally negotiate (with myself) some of these preferences away, because I thought that I had good rational reasons to choose otherwise, and it's never worked out.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:58 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, there's clearly an Actual Thing® going on that I was totally unaware of. I guess I've seen the term sapiosexual very occasionally and I've assumed it was somewhat whimsical, but I had no idea that (men) affect this social identity in a disingenuous way. I totally believe it, though, because we live in a world where men send dick pics as flirting.
But I'm put off by how this discussion conflates this self-identification with any and all claims to find intelligence sexually attractive. I keep feeling like the explicit or implicit claim in some of these comments is that anyone and everyone who ever says they find intelligence sexy is lying. Which is really weird to me -- I mean, I'm having that feeling I get sometimes where I worry that I'm unknowingly an alien, or everyone else is an alien. If whatever the cluster of personality traits/interests that correspond to "intelligence" is an important part of someone's life, then many of those people will naturally be attracted to people with a similar set of traits and interests, right?
I've noticed that people vary a great deal in how sexual attraction works for them. My impression is that a considerable number of people, probably more so men than women, find everything that's important to them in a photo. I see that as valid preference for coupling, like any other, but it's very much not the way that I'm wired. Fundamentally, I'm not attracted to someone unless I can imagine being good friends with them -- I mean, right away, based upon first impressions. Physical attributes matter, but then so do so many other things and those other things can change the whole equation.
In the other thread where sapiosexual was discussed, linked earlier, there was a difficult conversation about interrogating our sexual attractions. I found that conversation thought-provoking and I'm still unsure what conclusions I'm prepared to draw from it. I think it's surely true that our sexual attractions have a political and ethical component and it's a good thing to interrogate them from that perspective. Even so, I've also come to believe, from a lot of life experience, that there's some weird mystery in sexual attraction, that it's pretty resistant to rationalization and regularization. I'm not exclusively attracted to "intelligence" and I would never self-identify as "sapiosexual", but intelligence is attractive and important to me and part of a cluster of things that have been almost entirely unvarying through the thirty years of my adult life -- I've tried to occasionally negotiate (with myself) some of these preferences away, because I thought that I had good rational reasons to choose otherwise, and it's never worked out.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:58 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I want to be a librarian; not porn, just a bit sexy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cBVu6D1gVM
my apologies, don't know a bit of html....will learn.
posted by Castellija123 at 3:10 PM on July 11, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cBVu6D1gVM
my apologies, don't know a bit of html....will learn.
posted by Castellija123 at 3:10 PM on July 11, 2016
Ivan Fyodorovich: ...but I had no idea that (men) affect this social identity in a disingenuous way.
Men use the term to describe themselves? Huh. I've only ever seen it used by women.
Is it also disingenuous when it's used by women? This has nothing at all to do with my own dating life, I swear. I'm asking for a sockpuppet.
posted by clawsoon at 3:13 PM on July 11, 2016
Men use the term to describe themselves? Huh. I've only ever seen it used by women.
Is it also disingenuous when it's used by women? This has nothing at all to do with my own dating life, I swear. I'm asking for a sockpuppet.
posted by clawsoon at 3:13 PM on July 11, 2016
Is it also disingenuous when it's used by women? This has nothing at all to do with my own dating life, I swear. I'm asking for a sockpuppet.
I have a few friends-of-friends who I think have used sapiosexual in their profiles. Leaving aside the thing where I think most men have no idea what makes them stand out in a sea of 300 responses per women per day, and therefore message any woman who looks halfway cool, some of them have had to deal with men whose response to any amount of articulate intelligence is long monologues, exceptional pomposity, and the implicit assumption that the sexiest thing in the world is a blatherer daring you to blather right back. It's also impressive how many of them seem to think sex is the most interesting thing on the planet to start a conversation with.
Dating profiles are hard. Unless I'm missing something, I think the trick is to just scattershot a bunch of earnest, genuine things out there and see what happens. "Sapiosexual" plus a nice, funny, interesting profile will probably get somebody to go, "Smart person! I like smart people. Let me say hello."
But I think that that's where earnestness and knowing what you're looking for overrides most other dealbreakers. I once mentioned Tucker Max's novel in an opening conversation and wasn't immediately booed off the Internet, so sapiosexual is probably harmless by comparison.
(Men: ignore what I just said. Don't call yourself sapiosexual under any circumstances ever. There's just no way to bring that one back.)
posted by rorgy at 3:43 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have a few friends-of-friends who I think have used sapiosexual in their profiles. Leaving aside the thing where I think most men have no idea what makes them stand out in a sea of 300 responses per women per day, and therefore message any woman who looks halfway cool, some of them have had to deal with men whose response to any amount of articulate intelligence is long monologues, exceptional pomposity, and the implicit assumption that the sexiest thing in the world is a blatherer daring you to blather right back. It's also impressive how many of them seem to think sex is the most interesting thing on the planet to start a conversation with.
Dating profiles are hard. Unless I'm missing something, I think the trick is to just scattershot a bunch of earnest, genuine things out there and see what happens. "Sapiosexual" plus a nice, funny, interesting profile will probably get somebody to go, "Smart person! I like smart people. Let me say hello."
But I think that that's where earnestness and knowing what you're looking for overrides most other dealbreakers. I once mentioned Tucker Max's novel in an opening conversation and wasn't immediately booed off the Internet, so sapiosexual is probably harmless by comparison.
(Men: ignore what I just said. Don't call yourself sapiosexual under any circumstances ever. There's just no way to bring that one back.)
posted by rorgy at 3:43 PM on July 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I find many (but not all) people who go on about being attracted to intelligence to be creepy, but to be fair I find many (but not all) people who go on about being attracted to anything to be creepy.
That said, I see some weird statements here about how folks who claim to be sapiosexual aren't really attracted to intelligence because they don't like intelligent women who are "fugly" or "not skinny, over 25/showing age i.e. fine lines, visibly disabled, unfeminine in presentation, etc." or the like. That doesn't make sense to me. If a guy says "I'm heterosexual" I wouldn't say he isn't really heterosexual because he was only attracted to thin, young, abled, feminine women. If a guy says "I'm homosexual" I wouldn't say he isn't really homosexual because he isn't attracted to bears/otters/cubs/twinks/etc.
So when I hear someone say "I'm sapiosexual" I cringe because 95% of those people are creepy (with some exceptions, Ivan Fyodorich, abulafa, etc.), but I don't think "No, you're not, because you're only attracted to conventionally attractive smart men/women."
posted by Bugbread at 4:40 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That said, I see some weird statements here about how folks who claim to be sapiosexual aren't really attracted to intelligence because they don't like intelligent women who are "fugly" or "not skinny, over 25/showing age i.e. fine lines, visibly disabled, unfeminine in presentation, etc." or the like. That doesn't make sense to me. If a guy says "I'm heterosexual" I wouldn't say he isn't really heterosexual because he was only attracted to thin, young, abled, feminine women. If a guy says "I'm homosexual" I wouldn't say he isn't really homosexual because he isn't attracted to bears/otters/cubs/twinks/etc.
So when I hear someone say "I'm sapiosexual" I cringe because 95% of those people are creepy (with some exceptions, Ivan Fyodorich, abulafa, etc.), but I don't think "No, you're not, because you're only attracted to conventionally attractive smart men/women."
posted by Bugbread at 4:40 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can definitely see the utility of "sapiosexual" for women using online dating sites. It's like the scene from Jurassic Park III where the kid talks about collecting T. rex pee: "It scares some of the smaller douchebags away, but it attracts one really big one with a fedora."
posted by tobascodagama at 5:25 PM on July 11, 2016
posted by tobascodagama at 5:25 PM on July 11, 2016
The thing that I have found in the sea of online dating is this- everyone is trying to project as the best version of themselves. Sadly, some people believe they are brilliant when they are just pedantic.
However, if they can spell more better than the average dick wielding, s'up, nice tits superheroes that roam these corridors- then I'm more inclined to engage. And you guys, sapiosexual is hard to spell right!
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 5:56 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
However, if they can spell more better than the average dick wielding, s'up, nice tits superheroes that roam these corridors- then I'm more inclined to engage. And you guys, sapiosexual is hard to spell right!
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 5:56 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
So when I hear someone say "I'm sapiosexual" I cringe because 95% of those people are creepy (with some exceptions, Ivan Fyodorich, abulafa, etc.), but I don't think "No, you're not, because you're only attracted to conventionally attractive smart men/women."
I just think it's a line, to be honest. Obviously, everyone wants someone they can relate to. So a person who fancies him or himself really smart would relate to someone they thought was smart as well (that is to say, liked all the same things they did). But look: if you meet some toned poledancing model, are you going to cast them aside if they don't meet your IQ standards? Or drop them when some spotty dork with a brain like a nuclear weapon stumbles drooling into your path? Maybe you would, but I'm willing to bet most people would not. I do not, in my heart of hearts, believe that intelligence is anyone's primary point of attraction. I have seen IRL zero evidence of the existence of such people. But I have seen lots of evidence of people who flatter hot people by telling them how smart they are.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:07 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I just think it's a line, to be honest. Obviously, everyone wants someone they can relate to. So a person who fancies him or himself really smart would relate to someone they thought was smart as well (that is to say, liked all the same things they did). But look: if you meet some toned poledancing model, are you going to cast them aside if they don't meet your IQ standards? Or drop them when some spotty dork with a brain like a nuclear weapon stumbles drooling into your path? Maybe you would, but I'm willing to bet most people would not. I do not, in my heart of hearts, believe that intelligence is anyone's primary point of attraction. I have seen IRL zero evidence of the existence of such people. But I have seen lots of evidence of people who flatter hot people by telling them how smart they are.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:07 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Flatter hot people by telling them they're smart and smart people by telling them they're hot?
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on July 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think there's also an issue with people using the term to talk about who they would want to have a relationship with. I'd expect there are a lot of self-professed sapiosexuals who would have a one-night stand with someone who wasn't as intelligent as they wanted in a partner, but wouldn't call them again. That's not sapiosexuality, it's...sapioromantiality or something. Sexual orientation is about who you would bone, not who you would rather go out with.
posted by Bugbread at 6:28 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 6:28 PM on July 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
A guy named Darren Stalder claimed to have made up the term on Livejournal in 1998.
just
putting that out there
posted by listen, lady at 7:34 PM on July 11, 2016
just
putting that out there
posted by listen, lady at 7:34 PM on July 11, 2016
Oh huh I was just participating in a discussion of "sapiosexual" elsewhere and one of the other persons involved came out with this DEVASTATING BURN that DESTROYS SAPIOSEXUALITY FOREVER: "Dorothea thought she was a sapiosexual when she married Casaubon".
posted by kenko at 7:40 PM on July 11, 2016
posted by kenko at 7:40 PM on July 11, 2016
I remember being excited when the term 'sapiosexual' landed on my radar (several years ago).. finally a way to more accurately describe what I'm attracted to! I use it on OkCupid, and other places because, being a queer lady attracted to a wide physical variety of persons, the common thread between them is their brains and personality. I frequently find myself interested in/attracted to people I wouldn't have thought I would, because something about their brain (the field they're in, what they're passionate about, how involved they are in the world) was irresistible to me. It's like catnip, and I don't fully understand it, but it's real and not some bullshit PUA thing.
Like abulafa and Ivan, I am a little shocked and dismayed by the conversation here and I can't believe this community is sneering down its nose like this. I didn't comment last night because I thought I was taking it too personally, but man, this insight has been brutal.
posted by ApathyGirl at 7:47 PM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Like abulafa and Ivan, I am a little shocked and dismayed by the conversation here and I can't believe this community is sneering down its nose like this. I didn't comment last night because I thought I was taking it too personally, but man, this insight has been brutal.
posted by ApathyGirl at 7:47 PM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Okay, so a question for the sapiosexuals in this thread: Non-sapiosexuals can look at, for example, a photo of a person of the gender they prefer and experience sexual attraction. But a photo can't tell you how smart a person is. Does that mean that sapiosexuals feel no sexual attraction upon just seeing people? Sexual attraction only starts when you actually talk to a person/read something they've written?
If so, then it seems clear that sapiosexuality as a real phenomenon. If it's "well, sure, I feel sexual attraction when I see a hot dude/dudette, but if I find out that they're smart then my engine really gets going," that's not a sexual orientation, that's a turn-on.
posted by Bugbread at 8:10 PM on July 11, 2016
If so, then it seems clear that sapiosexuality as a real phenomenon. If it's "well, sure, I feel sexual attraction when I see a hot dude/dudette, but if I find out that they're smart then my engine really gets going," that's not a sexual orientation, that's a turn-on.
posted by Bugbread at 8:10 PM on July 11, 2016
I can only speak for me, but I'll try to answer your question.
I'm certainly attracted to people physically, but that's not where the majority of my attraction comes from. Their physical presentation is not the defining characteristic to my attraction, and by itself, it's not enough. I do need to talk/listen to a person, or read their profile/something they've written before I'm really interested. Bright, curious, interested in the world or culture (or pop culture), smart or street-smart, all these things are the defining characteristics of the people I've been attracted to.
It may not be considered to qualify as a sexual orientation, but it's more than just a turn-on, more than just a type.
I can see that there's some class or racial filtering or signaling going on with how the term is being used and received out there in the larger world, and that's troubling to me. I'll need to take a hard look at my motives to see if there's a subtext I'm putting out there by using it going forward.
posted by ApathyGirl at 12:27 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm certainly attracted to people physically, but that's not where the majority of my attraction comes from. Their physical presentation is not the defining characteristic to my attraction, and by itself, it's not enough. I do need to talk/listen to a person, or read their profile/something they've written before I'm really interested. Bright, curious, interested in the world or culture (or pop culture), smart or street-smart, all these things are the defining characteristics of the people I've been attracted to.
It may not be considered to qualify as a sexual orientation, but it's more than just a turn-on, more than just a type.
I can see that there's some class or racial filtering or signaling going on with how the term is being used and received out there in the larger world, and that's troubling to me. I'll need to take a hard look at my motives to see if there's a subtext I'm putting out there by using it going forward.
posted by ApathyGirl at 12:27 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hi there, I don't feel sexual attraction on just seeing people. I was excited when I first learned the term sapiosexual because I thought "finally, a word that describes me!" but they way it is used doesn't describe me at all. I later learned the term demisexual and I think that is what fits me best for now. I can only feel sexual attraction towards people when I know about who they are, not how they look like. It's honestly a bit hurtful to read all the discussion here saying that my sexual orientation doesn't exist and people who claim not to be attracted based on physical characteristics are basically lying.
posted by CarolynG at 1:14 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CarolynG at 1:14 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bright, curious, interested in the world or culture (or pop culture), smart or street-smart, all these things are the defining characteristics of the people I've been attracted to.
It may not be considered to qualify as a sexual orientation, but it's more than just a turn-on, more than just a type.
What if . . . you just don't have a type? You are attracted to people with bodies of all kinds? Why wouldn't that be okay? Why wouldn't that be great?
You like smart people? Great, so do I. So do lots of people, for varying understandings of "smart," many of which are different from yours. But saying "smart people are my type" when "smart" itself is implicitly a construct, as is "street-smart" (which usually has class overtones to it, to be sure), when "culture" is highly racialized and classed (what kind of culture? all culture? all popular culture? what kind of engagement?)—it actually doesn't say much that seems useful to me. Why would you (if you sort of declare this about yourself on a profile or whatever) want me to have to decide whether I'm smart enough to message you?
Nor would it be flattering to me if someone interested in me said that they were attracted to me because they were sapiosexual or turned on by intelligence or whatever. I'd rather someone like me for . . . being who I am, whatever that includes.
I mean, look. If it works for you, fine! But do you actually need it?
posted by listen, lady at 5:09 AM on July 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
It may not be considered to qualify as a sexual orientation, but it's more than just a turn-on, more than just a type.
What if . . . you just don't have a type? You are attracted to people with bodies of all kinds? Why wouldn't that be okay? Why wouldn't that be great?
You like smart people? Great, so do I. So do lots of people, for varying understandings of "smart," many of which are different from yours. But saying "smart people are my type" when "smart" itself is implicitly a construct, as is "street-smart" (which usually has class overtones to it, to be sure), when "culture" is highly racialized and classed (what kind of culture? all culture? all popular culture? what kind of engagement?)—it actually doesn't say much that seems useful to me. Why would you (if you sort of declare this about yourself on a profile or whatever) want me to have to decide whether I'm smart enough to message you?
Nor would it be flattering to me if someone interested in me said that they were attracted to me because they were sapiosexual or turned on by intelligence or whatever. I'd rather someone like me for . . . being who I am, whatever that includes.
I mean, look. If it works for you, fine! But do you actually need it?
posted by listen, lady at 5:09 AM on July 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's honestly a bit hurtful to read all the discussion here saying that my sexual orientation doesn't exist and people who claim not to be attracted based on physical characteristics are basically lying.
No one said the latter, and certainly no one has said the former about demisexual, with which you identify now.
posted by listen, lady at 5:10 AM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
No one said the latter, and certainly no one has said the former about demisexual, with which you identify now.
posted by listen, lady at 5:10 AM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
i think something that maybe people coming to the thread late might have missed are deleted comments which i won't go into describing but very much don't match how women in the thread are saying how they relate to the term later in the thread.
posted by nadawi at 6:09 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 6:09 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
which in no way is me questioning y'all, but saying other, gross, comments influenced how the thread went.
posted by nadawi at 6:11 AM on July 12, 2016
posted by nadawi at 6:11 AM on July 12, 2016
I later learned the term demisexual and I think that is what fits me best for now. I can only feel sexual attraction towards people when I know about who they are, not how they look like.
'Demisexual' is prone to abuse too, depending on how the 'who they are' is arrived at, to the point that it I'm almost as skeptical of seeing it on profiles or tags as I am 'sapiosexual.' Stereotyping and objectification need not be confined to the visual realm. But I know that's not everyone.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:50 AM on July 12, 2016
'Demisexual' is prone to abuse too, depending on how the 'who they are' is arrived at, to the point that it I'm almost as skeptical of seeing it on profiles or tags as I am 'sapiosexual.' Stereotyping and objectification need not be confined to the visual realm. But I know that's not everyone.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:50 AM on July 12, 2016
I'm still hung up on equating attraction with orientation. I'm also interested in the way these ideas are presented as Latinized terms, as if to borrow authority from scientific or social-scientific frameworks regarding sexuality, in which I don't think they originate.
posted by Miko at 7:33 AM on July 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Miko at 7:33 AM on July 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Miko: I'm also interested in the way these ideas are presented as Latinized terms, as if to borrow authority from scientific or social-scientific frameworks regarding sexuality, in which I don't think they originate.
That is interesting. What would be a more appropriate Latin or Greek suffix to indicate attraction rather than orientation?
FWIW, I've always read it as a tongue-in-cheek self-descriptor. I'm wrong about that sometimes, I guess?
posted by clawsoon at 7:40 AM on July 12, 2016
That is interesting. What would be a more appropriate Latin or Greek suffix to indicate attraction rather than orientation?
FWIW, I've always read it as a tongue-in-cheek self-descriptor. I'm wrong about that sometimes, I guess?
posted by clawsoon at 7:40 AM on July 12, 2016
clawsoon, I read it that way too. And I think someone pinpointed that it's a attractor rather than an orientation. That being said, I won't bang anyone who doesn't read. Someone who doesn't have a life for their mind is not of sexual interest to me,no matter how cute /toned/poledancing they might be (Sorry Magic Mike!)
And frankly who you wanna make the beast with two backs with is rarely "reasonable" and sometimes downright puzzling.
FWIW -I dated a man named Chainsaw . He was actually pretty bright.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 10:10 AM on July 12, 2016
And frankly who you wanna make the beast with two backs with is rarely "reasonable" and sometimes downright puzzling.
FWIW -I dated a man named Chainsaw . He was actually pretty bright.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 10:10 AM on July 12, 2016
i was attempting to answer bugbear's question.
I said I can only speak for me.
I am now sorry I tried and wish I had noped out Sunday night instead of following the replies all day yesterday.
I am not going to turn this into a scenario where it's one user defending their position against all comers. I'm out.
posted by ApathyGirl at 10:10 AM on July 12, 2016
I said I can only speak for me.
I am now sorry I tried and wish I had noped out Sunday night instead of following the replies all day yesterday.
I am not going to turn this into a scenario where it's one user defending their position against all comers. I'm out.
posted by ApathyGirl at 10:10 AM on July 12, 2016
What would be a more appropriate Latin or Greek suffix to indicate attraction rather than orientation?
-philia.
But I guess my point is that resorting to the professional language of science to describe an attraction is already an attempt to raise an attraction or affinity to the level of a scientifically identifiable phenomenon. That horse was out of the barn early on with things like philately, oenophile, etc., which started with 'gentlemen's' hobbies in the second half of the 19C, but the suffix originally referred in science to things organisms like to eat or places they like to live. It's inherently pretentious because of that history, and even if used self-mockingly, I still find it inherently pretentious to mock oneself in that particular way.
posted by Miko at 10:10 AM on July 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
-philia.
But I guess my point is that resorting to the professional language of science to describe an attraction is already an attempt to raise an attraction or affinity to the level of a scientifically identifiable phenomenon. That horse was out of the barn early on with things like philately, oenophile, etc., which started with 'gentlemen's' hobbies in the second half of the 19C, but the suffix originally referred in science to things organisms like to eat or places they like to live. It's inherently pretentious because of that history, and even if used self-mockingly, I still find it inherently pretentious to mock oneself in that particular way.
posted by Miko at 10:10 AM on July 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you call it sapiophilia, you can participate in the time-honoured academic tradition of mixing Greek and Latin roots.
FWIW, I've always read it as a tongue-in-cheek self-descriptor. I'm wrong about that sometimes, I guess?
I'm sure that's how it started. But then you get a mass of un-fun people who come along and take it seriously and remove the cheekiness and turn it into something gross. (See also: "PC Master Race". And for those who are unfamiliar, "PC" here is used in the sense of "personal computer", as a gaming platform in opposition to consoles like the XBox and Playstation.)
posted by tobascodagama at 10:22 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
FWIW, I've always read it as a tongue-in-cheek self-descriptor. I'm wrong about that sometimes, I guess?
I'm sure that's how it started. But then you get a mass of un-fun people who come along and take it seriously and remove the cheekiness and turn it into something gross. (See also: "PC Master Race". And for those who are unfamiliar, "PC" here is used in the sense of "personal computer", as a gaming platform in opposition to consoles like the XBox and Playstation.)
posted by tobascodagama at 10:22 AM on July 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
... the cheekiness of Master Race is probably lost on people who don't regularly watch Yahtzee's videos.
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on July 12, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on July 12, 2016
Sadly anything games related no longer gets the benefit of the doubt.
posted by Artw at 5:39 PM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:39 PM on July 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Tired of the Treachery and Political Confusion of... | Autism, employment and tech Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:43 AM on July 10, 2016 [61 favorites]