I always knew I was different in that respect but never had a word for it until recently. When at school I felt very little towards the “hottest” girls and though my first real crush resulted in a nasty experience, I confess to being bowled over by her looks (hey even somebody who will go on to be a sapiosexual will experience raging hormones at age 15!).
But she was a rarity – she was just somebody who worked near me who I spoke to just to say “hi” and that was about it. For girls I saw every day, the “hottest” held little interest for me. Far more often I preferred the company of the funniest girls, the quieter, interesting ones and I really wish I’d had the confidence back then to ask any of those out on a date, or to at least let them inside my shell a little more! But no, I wasn’t interested in those girls that everybody else liked. I found them… vacuous.
My ex wife touched my mind first – though I was attracted to her exterior appearance, it was most certainly her brain that kept me in it for the long term. When I started online dating in August 2012, I was able to meet a succession of sharp-witted, driven, highly-thoughtful women and really felt in my element. If I had to list a top 3, it would be Ubergeek (no surprise there), Mischief and now, naturally, Mirror Image. I won’t lie to you: ubergeek is an absolute beauty and she got a LOT of attention on the dating site where we met – most of it unwanted. Yet it wasn’t her looks that I messaged her for and everybody else believed it. The number of times I heard “ooh, not your usual type is she?” Yet her profile ticked all of my boxes. Consequently, I was the only person she met. Yes, I fancied her for her looks but without everything else that went with it it would never have gone anywhere, let alone lead to me falling head over heels for her in such a short space of time.
Mischief got a little attention and though she has a pretty face and lovely red hair (yes, I love redheads – how did you notice?) she was a big girl – I would say easily the most overweight of my dates. Yet, I fancied her something rotten and though I was certainly physically attracted to her, it was mostly because of her brain, sharp wit and a look in her eye that betrayed the hidden depths I only started to unravel before she called time on our period of dating.
And now I am dating Mirror Image who – though pretty – will never have men falling at her feet purely for her looks. Yet we have an intense connection based on the things we have in common. Like Ubergeek, I fancy her for her looks but I wouldn’t fancy her anywhere near as much if we didn’t have that intellectual connection.
Being a sapiosexual does not mean that looks are unimportant or irrelevant, it means that intelligence is necessary for attraction – that any physical characteristics they have are of secondary appeal, or merely a bonus. It does mean that you can feel zero attraction for somebody who is physically stunning but has nothing else going for them. In my case, I am no more sexually attracted to a person like that than I am to a good landscape painting.
Are you a sapiosexual? I took this test and got 85%
I was intrigued by a new word I came across after that test. After reading the description, I could identify with some, but not all of it.
Apparently means somebody who can only feel attraction based on secondary means – intelligence, empathy, the emotional connection… simply it seems attraction based on “the spark” for the sake of itself. I identified with some of it, but not all of it. It seems to suggest that you can be attracted to somebody regardless of gender, their physical appearance of anything else. In my case, I think it is possible for me to feel attraction for a woman I find physically unappealing but whose brain I find infinitely compelling – possible, but unlikely.
What did I register in the Demisexual test? 45%